Union Marine Insurance Co v Borwick [1895] 2 Q.B. 279

Union Marine Insurance Co v Borwick [1895] 2 Q.B. 279

Insurance (Marine)—Policy—Reinsurance—Collision Clause—“Piers or similar Structures.”

A vessel, insured by the plaintiffs, was driven by the wind and sea against a sloping bank, formed outside the breakwater of a harbour by laying down loose boulders in the sea to protect the breakwater, and was totally lost. The plaintiffs, having paid for a total loss ought to recover under a contract of reinsurance, by which the defendant insured “against risk or loss or damage through collision with any other ship or vessel or ice or sunken or floating wreck or any other floating substance, or harbours or wharves or piers or stages or similar structures”:—

Held, that the loss was caused by collision, and not by stranding, and therefore came within the words “loss or damage through collision with … piers or stages or similar structures,” and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover.

The plaintiffs, an insurance company carrying on business at Liverpool, sued the defendant, an underwriter at Lloyd's, on a contract of reinsurance, called a collision contract, dated July 20, 1894, and underwritten by the defendant.

By the collision clause, clause 3 of the contract of reinsurance, the defendant insured “against risk or loss or damage through collision with any other ship or vessel or ice or sunken or floating wreck or any other floating substance, or harbours or wharves or piers or stages or similar structures, and including a running-down clause, as per original policies.”

The facts proved at the trial were shortly as follows. The plaintiffs had insured two vessels, the Kirkmichael and the Osseo. On December 22, 1894, during a heavy gale, the Kirkmichael, while endeavouring to clear the end of the breakwater of Holyhead harbour, was driven by the force of the wind and sea against a sloping bank or mound called the toe of the breakwater, which had been artificially formed by laying down in the sea loose boulders taken from the mountains. The bank or mound was about 250 feet wide at the level of low water, and about 450 feet wide at the base, which was in about 50 feet of water. The inclination of the slope was 12 to 1 down to low water mark, 5 to 1 down to about 10 or 12 feet below low water mark, and from that point to the bottom about 2 to 1. The Kirkmichael drifted on to the bank nearly broadside on, and became a total loss.

On the morning of December 30, 1894, also during a heavy gale, the Osseo was driven on to the same bank, almost in the same manner as the Kirkmichael, at a spot about 50 feet distant from where the Kirkmichael was wrecked, and also became a total loss.

The plaintiffs, having paid under their policies in respect of each of the two vessels as for a total loss, now claimed to recover against the defendant under the clause in the contract of reinsurance above set out.

Bigham, Q.C. (T. G. Carver with him), for the plaintiffs. The losses in respect of which the plaintiffs have paid, and now seek to recover from the defendant under the contract of reinsurance, come within the words of the collision clause in that contract, “loss or damage through collision with … harbours or wharves or piers or stages or similar structures.” The decision of Barnes J. in The Munroe ¹, so far as it affects the present case, is in favour of the plaintiffs.

Joseph Walton, Q.C. , and J. A. Hamilton , for the defendant. The case of The Munroe ² is not in point here, for each case must depend on its own facts. The evidence in the case of both these vessels shews a stranding, not a collision. To constitute a collision the upper works of the vessel should strike against some foreign body, such as another vessel, or an iceberg; but in a case like this, where a vessel runs aground on a bank *281 of boulders, which practically forms part of the coast, striking the bank with her keel, she does not come into collision, within the meaning of the contract, but simply runs aground.

MATHEW J.

This case has now been thoroughly discussed, and the only question for my decision is, whether the facts which occurred in the cases of these two vessels amounted to loss or damage through collision, within the meaning of the words contained in clause 3 of the contract of reinsurance. It is contended that the losses in the present case do not come within a clause insuring against loss by collision, but the clause in question here is much more extensive in its operation. It refers to collision with a floating substance on the one hand, and to collision with a permanent structure on the other hand. It then proceeds to include collision with harbours, wharves, piers, stages, or similar structures. The words of the clause which are applicable to the present case are the words “piers or similar structures.” The evidence shows that both these vessels struck and were wrecked on the toe of the breakwater outside the harbour at Holyhead. The breakwater in question was made by the deposit of a number of large boulders, forming the toe of the breakwater, behind which the wall of the breakwater itself is built. I am of opinion that the words “pier,” “breakwater,” and “toe” all denote one and the same structure, and therefore that the expression “collision with piers … or stages or similar structures” covers the present case. I cannot distinguish collision with from striking against. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant that in order to constitute a collision the upper works of the ship must strike some one of the things referred to in the clause in the contract, and that there were not collisions in the present case, because it appears that it was the keels of these two vessels which struck against the toe of the breakwater. According to the view which I have expressed as to the meaning of the words, that argument must be unavailing; and I am therefore satisfied that this was a case of damage by collision with a pier or similar structure, within the meaning of the 3rd clause in the contract of reinsurance.

Judgment for the plaintiff.