subject: Inherent Vice, Natural Deterioration And Associated Exclusions - What Is Inevitable - Part III [print this page] Mr Gaunt proved that the loss must have been due to some sort of casualty and consequently he was entitled to his indemnity. Lord Sumner further described the operational principles as follows:
"There are, of course, limits to all risks. There are risks and risks insured against. Accordingly, the expression does not cover inherent vice or mere wear and tear ... it covers a risk not a certainty; it is something which happens to the subject matter from without, not the natural behaviour of that subject matter, being what it is, in the circumstances, under which it is carried. Nor is it a loss which the assured brings about by his own act, then he has not merely exposed the goods to the chance of injury, he has injured them himself.
Finally, the description 'all risk' does not alter the general law; only risks are covered which it is lawful to cover, and the onus of proof remains where it would have been on a policy against ordinary sea perils."
In the case of F. W. Berk & Co. Ltd. v. Style [1956] 1 QB 180 it is possible to see the interaction of the implicit exclusion in an all risks policy and a clause explicitly excluding "inherent vice". The assureds incurred expense in re-bagging a cargo of kieselguhr which had been shipped from North Africa to London. This was caused by the bursting of bags. The cargo was covered in transit by two policies of marine insurance, insuring against "all risks of loss and/damage from whatsoever cause arising".
The court found not only that there was no such express provision, but that the inherent vice exclusion was quite clear and that, in any event, the loss must be due to an accident or casualty.
Inherent Vice, Natural Deterioration And Associated Exclusions - What Is Inevitable - Part III
