Warranty means a statutory warranty, a warranty by which the assured undertakes to do or not to do a particular thing, or satisfy a particular condition and whereby he affirms or negates the existence of a particular state of facts. According to this definition warranties include undertakings (a) as to past or present facts (affirmative warranties), (b) as to future conduct of the assured (continuing/promissory warranties) or (c) that some condition has been fulfilled. An affirmation of fact, for instance, can constitute either a warranty or a representation, an instrument with its own legal regime.[1]

In the 18th century, Lord Mansfield endeavored to separate these concepts by stating that: warranties make a part of the written policy, whereas representations are made outside of the written contract; and representations may be equally or substantially answered, while warranties must be strictly complied with.[2]

Another criterion of distinction is that the test of materiality is applicable only to representations. As Lord Eldon LC put it in Newcastle Fire Insurance v Macmorran & Co[3]:
"It is a first principle of the law of insurance, on all occasions, that where a representation is material it must be complied with – if immaterial, that immateriality may be inquired into and shown; but that if there is a warranty… the materiality or immateriality signifies nothing".

Section 12 (3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 defines warranty. According to the Act "a warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated."[4]

There are two categories of warranties-express and implied. Express warranties are those written into the policy. Several kinds of express warranties typically are found in standard clauses, such as the Institute Clauses.[5] Some common express warranties are: (1) warranties establishing geographical (trading) limits, (2) warranties as to date of sailing, (3) warranties as to number of crew, (4) warranties against towage, (5) warranties as to additional insurance, and (6) warranties as to acting with reasonable despatch in all circumstances under the assured's control.[6]

Three types of implied warranties are recognized in marine insurance: (1) the warranty of the seaworthiness of the vessel, (2) the legality of the marine adventure, and (3) warranty against any deviation during the voyage.[7]

According to Dr. Clarke, the common definition of warranty in insurance law is said to be that of Lord Goff, i.e. "a warranty is any term of an insurance contract which, properly construed and is a condition precedent to the inception or continuation of cover".[8] From this, we may understand that a warranty has two types of condition precedent: first, a condition which causes the cover not to start; and secondly, a condition which causes it to cease during the duration of cover.

The peculiar feature of a warranty is the effect of its breach. Section 33(3) of the MIA 1906 requires the assured to comply exactly with a warranty, whether it is material to the risk or not. This effect gives insurance transactions a high efficiency but receives criticisms because of its harshness against the assured.[9]

Here we need to recall that English law has different kinds of warranty. As seen by the definition of Lord Goff, a warranty is "a condition precedent to the inception or continuation of cover". It is clear that this relates to the liability of the insurer but this may also relate to the effectiveness of the contract in some cases.

Section 41 of MIA 1906, under the heading "Warranty of legality", states that "there is an implied warranty that the adventure insured is a lawful one, and that, so far as the assured can control the matter, the adventure shall be carried out in a lawful manner".

History of Warranties in Marine Insurance

The English and the civil marine insurance law have common roots: continental practices were brought to England in the XIV century, with establishment of the Hanseatic League of Lombard trading houses in London.[10]

By virtue of various usages that usually grew up among the underwriters of Marine Insurance contracting in the area of marine insurance, there were several conditions imposed by implication upon every such contract.

The most important of these were:
A. that a vessel insured should be sea-worthy at the beginning of the voyage;
B. that the voyage described in the policy should be pursued directly without deviation;
C. that the insured had communicated to the underwriter all facts pertaining to the risk assumed which were material thereto, provided they were known to the insured or ought to have been known to him in due course of business;[11]
D. that all material representations made by the insured respecting the risk should be substantially correct, without reference to the question of fraudulent intent.[12]

These conditions (implied) arose out of the necessity of risks being defined in a contract which was so speculative in nature. It was also necessary because the underwriter had to rely solely on the insured for the information that defined the risk. In estimating the character of the risk assumed, therefore, the underwriter relied as much upon these implied conditions as upon those expressly written in the policy and termed warranties. Indeed, the first two implied conditions mentioned are customarily termed the implied warranties of sea-worthiness and against deviation.[13]

The term "warranted" was in customary use in the seventeenth century, but in the few insurance cases reported as being tried in the common law courts. One of the first cases of dispute regarding warranties was that of Woolmer v. Muilman.[14] The case involved a fraudulent warranty of neutrality. It was easily determined that the contract was unenforceable.

In MacDowell v. Fraser,[15] Lord Mansfield referred to the distinction between a warranty and a representation. "A representation must be fair and true. It should be true as to all that the insured knows; and, if he represents facts to the underwriter without knowing the truth, he takes the risk upon himself. But the difference between the fact as it turns out, and as represented, must be material." But while the distinction between warranties and representations was regarded at this time as being perfectly well settled, it had not yet been finally determined that an immaterial breach of warranty would avoid a policy, since all the cases that had arisen had involved breaches unmistakably material.

A warranty in a policy of insurance is a condition or a contingency, and unless that be performed, there is no contract. It is perfectly immaterial for what purpose a warranty is introduced; but being inserted, the contract does not exist unless it be literally complied with.[16]

A statement descriptive of the subject matter, or of some material incident, such as the time and place of shipment, is ordinarily to be regarded as a warranty, in the sense in which it is used in insurance and maritime law, that is to say, a condition precedent, upon the failure or nonperformance of which the party aggrieved may repudiate the whole contract.[17] As to the promissory warranty there is no ground for serious objection.

As a result, the Marine Insurance Act (hereinafter MIA) was adopted in 1906, with Sections 33 – 41 devoted to different aspects of the warranty regime. Analogous statutes were implemented throughout the common law world, such as: the Australian MIA 1909, the New Zealand MIA 1908 and the Canadian Federal MIA 1993.

In the United States, however, the courts came to an early appreciation of the essential difference between the conditions that had given rise to the rules of law governing marine insurance and those that attended the making of a contract of fire or life insurance.[18] The American courts have very generally relaxed the rules of marine insurance to the extent of relieving the insured from the obligation of disclosing any facts concerning fire and life risks, save such as, in the exercise of good faith, he knows will enhance the risk, and such as are made the subject of inquiry by the insurer.[19] But the harsh rule of the warranty was allowed to continue in all its rigor, although scarcely a vestige of the doubtful reason which had excused its establishment in marine insurance could apply to insurances on life and property on land.

Implied Warranties
A warranty may be express or implied. There are two kinds of implied warranty i.e. warranty of sea worthiness and warranty of legality respectively. The implied warranties of sea worthiness and legality are true implied warranties in that their existence is assumed at law and would form part of any contract of marine insurance unless inconsistent with an express warranty in the contract. Under the MIA 1906, the implied warranty of seaworthiness in a voyage policy is clearly stated in Sec. 39(1). In contrast to this, the Chinese Maritime Code (CMC) classifies that unseaworthiness at the time of commencement of a voyage shall be incorporated as an exclusion in the policy.

This is regarded as a reasonable approach[20] that is largely supported by insurance practice in China. If it were to be considered as a type of implied warranty, it would require strict compliance, and a breach of this implied warranty would result in harsh consequences.

Under English law, in order to constitute an insurance warranty, no particular form of words is required and, indeed, the words "warranty" or "warrantied" need not even be used. The identification of warranty clauses shall be dependent upon the intention of the parties as revealed by the contract as a whole.[21] This similar principle is actually utilised by the Chinese courts. For example, in a case tried by the Shanghai Maritime Court,[22] the plaintiff (the insured) and the defendant (the insurer) entered into a voyage insurance for the purpose of towage of the M/V Canadian Harvest. Among other things, the insurance contract stipulated "20 April 1995" as the sailing date. However, no word of "warranty" actually appeared in the insurance policy. The vessel in question first sailed on 29 May 1995, but the sailing was, however, suspended owing to breakdown of the main engine. After repair work, the vessel in question finally began the insured voyage on 1 December 1995. The vessel suffered a total loss owing to bad weather, and the insured claimed against the insurer for indemnification.
However, the insurer argued that he was not liable for the loss on various grounds, and one of them was that the insured was in breach of warranty for it did not commence the voyage as agreed in the policy. The court delivered a judgment in favour of the insurer, on the ground of the insured’s non-disclosure of material information. However, the court’s reasoning as to the warranty is worth quoting at some length. It was considered by the court that the duration of the insurance coverage should start from unmooring at the loading port to the moment of anchoring or mooring at the port of destination.

Termination of Contracts

There is some difference between various domestic laws as to the legal provisions with regard to the date of termination of the contract. Under the Provision, the insurer has the right to terminate the contract upon a breach of warranty, and such a right shall not be affected by whether or not the insured notifies the insurer of such breach, or whether or not any agreement as to new terms and conditions is reached after negotiation. According to the general rules of contract law an insurance warranty should be treated as a ‘condition’ in a contract.[23] A ‘condition’ according to the contract law, is an event agreed on by parties to the contract, upon the achievement of which the contract is deemed to be either effected or terminated.[24]

Once a warranty is breached, the insurer demanding termination of the contract shall notify the insured of such breach, and the insurance contract shall be terminated upon the receipt of such notice by the insured. That may also mean that the insurer’s liability for any loss will continue until "the receipt of notice by the insured"; in other words, the time of ‘the receipt of notice by the insured’ is the point at which the insurance contract is legally terminated.[25] In other words, it is the time of receipt of notice which is the point at which insurance projects are generally terminated. As a consequence, one may conclude that the insurer shall still be responsible for any losses occurring before the insurance contract is "legally" terminated.[26]

Section 41 of MIA 1906, under the heading "Warranty of legality", states that "there is an implied warranty that the adventure insured is a lawful one, and that, so far as the assured can control the matter, the adventure shall be carried out in a lawful manner". The question is, therefore, whether this implied warranty may be regarded as a matter relating to liability.

In a marine insurance policy insuring against capture, a statement in the policy as to the nationality of the vessel insured was obviously material to the risk, and was held to be a warranty.[27] In a fire insurance policy, a statement describing the insured building (or the building in which insured goods are located) in respect to any of the four types of physical hazards,[28] construction,[29] occupancy,[30] protection,[31] or exposure,[32] is a descriptive warranty. It is important to distinguish a descriptive warranty from words identifying the property covered, since an error in the latter may be disregarded, even in an action at law, if other words of identification are sufficient.[33]
The Insurance Act, 2015

A new milestone for insurance law and practice was marked after the Insurance Act of 2015 received Royal Assent in February 2015. As a result of enacting Secs.9, 10 and 11, significant changes have been made in response to longstanding criticisms over warranty. These three sections apply to both express and implied warranties.[34]
First, following Sec. 10(2), the harsh consequence of an automatic discharge has been abolished,[35] and this has been replaced by the suspension approach. The insurer is not liable for any losses occurring, or attributable to something happening, after a breach of warranty, unless and until the breach has been remedied[36]; this means that "the risk is simply suspended during any period of breach".[37]

This position, as is observed by some scholars, is defensible when taking into account both the rationale for incorporating warranties into insurance contracts, and their function in risk assessment and management.[38]

The insurer will not be liable where the agreed cover is altered owing to the insured’s breach; and when the risk returns to what was originally agreed, his liability resumes. The effect of the suspension approach still requires that the warranty must be strictly complied with, and that any breach of warranty will result in an automatic suspension of the insurer’s liability.[39]
It may thus be concluded that the Insurance Act 2015 offers the solution for only one scenario, i.e. where the breach of warranty can be remedied, since there is no mention of possible remedies where the breach is permanent[40]; for example, where the insured warrants that the lorry will be used for carrying metal materials, but it is later permanently changed to be used for carrying gas cylinders, thus permanently breaching the warranty,[41] for which the ultimate consequence is exactly the same as that under MIA 1906.

Therefore, there exists three possible different situations: (1) Sec.10 applies to all warranties; (2) some warranties will be covered by Sec.11-if they are aimed at reducing particular risks; and (3) Sec.10 and Sec.11 may apply together-in which case Sec.10 becomes subject to Sec.11. As a result, if a warranty is relevant to a particular kind of loss, or at a particular time or location, Sec.11 will possibly apply. Therefore, as noted by the LMC,[42] if the scope of the policy cover is narrow, such as for only a specific type of risk, such as fire risk, then Sec.11 would apply; however, if it is of a broad nature (such as an all-risks policy), there is a good chance of the insurer arguing that Sec.10 rather than Sec.11 should be taken into consideration.[43]

To better prove the existent causation under s.11, it is necessary to compare it with the causation test adopted in Sec.11 of the New Zealand Insurance Law Reform Act 1977. Following s.11 of the 1977 Act, there is a presumption that the event or the existence of certain circumstances is likely to increase the risk of such loss occurring[44] unless the insured can prove that the loss was not caused by and did not contribute to the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances.[45]

The Civil Law Approach (Alteration of Risk during Insurance Period)

"Alteration of risk" is a civil law doctrine which relates to risk management. It has a similar usage to that of warranty under Common Law. It serves to confine the risk to the scope that the insurer promises to undertake at the time of the contract.[46] The definition of what constitutes an alteration of risk may vary, but the definitions may be based upon four different approaches.[47]

"The first approach is that the risk must be increased compared to the written or implied conditions of the insurance contract. The second approach is that the risk must be altered or increased in such a way that the insurer would not have accepted the insurance at all, or would not have accepted the insurance on the same conditions if he had known about the increase. A third method is to say that the risk is substantially altered. The last approach is to connect the sanction to circumstances affecting or altering the risk after the contract is concluded without any further definition."[48]

It seems that this "alteration of risk" principle tries to strike a balance between the interests of the insurer and the insured. The alternative choice for the insurer upon the insured’s intentional act[49] satisfies the insurer’s needs in that the cancellation of the contract is not always a good choice, since in practice the insurer must also take into consideration client maintenance and the achievement of his commercial purpose.

Indian laws relating to Warranties in Marine Insurance

Section 25 of the Indian Insurance Act lays down:
(1) A warranty, in the following sections relating to warranties, means a promissory warranty, that is to say a warranty by which the assured undertakes that some particular thing shall or shall not be done, or that some condition shall be fulfilled, or whereby he affirms or negatives the existence of a particular state of facts.
(2) A warranty may be express or implied.
(3) A warranty, as above defined, is a condition which must be exactly complied with, whether it be material to the risk or not. If it be not so complied with, then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by him before that date.

This section corresponds to section 33 of the English Act.

A warranty is implied if it is a condition implied by law, such as for example, a warranty in a voyage policy that the ship is seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage policy that the ship will not deviate from the prescribed or usual course of the voyage.[50]

An express warranty does not exclude an implied warranty unless inconsistent therewith. Thus, if a policy on cattle provides that the fittings of a ship are to be approved by Lloyd’s surveyor and they are so approved by him, the warranty of seaworthiness is not excluded by the express provision as to approval of the fittings[51].

Implied warranties are two in number, viz., that the vessel shall be seaworthy when the risk commences, and that the adventure shall in all respects be a lawful one. Sections 41 and 43 of the Indian Act deals with them.

As to when breach of warranty is excused, section 36 of the Indian Act enacts:
(1) Non-compliance with a warranty is excused when, by reason of a change of circumstances, the warranty ceases to be applicable to the circumstances of the contract, or when compliance with the warranty is rendered unlawful by any subsequent law.

(2) Where a warranty is broken, the assured cannot avail himself of the defence that the breach has been remedied, and the warranty complied with before loss.

(3) A breach of warranty may be waived by the insurer.

This section corresponds to section 34 of the English Act.

The cases of an express warranty and an implied warranty. But an implied warranty may, of course, be negative by the terms of the policy, e.g., the implied warranty of seaworthiness in a voyage policy may be negative by the clause "seaworthiness admitted"

A ship is warranted to sail on or before a particular day, but owing to the outbreak of war she has to wait for convoy. Probably in that case the policy never attaches. On the other hand, a ship may be warranted to sail with convoy, but if peace is made the warranty becomes inapplicable.

Express warranties are thus dealt with section 37 of the Indian Act:
(1) An express warranty may be in any form of words from which the intention to warrant is to be inferred.
(2) An express warranty must be included in, or written upon, the policy, or must be contained in some document incorporated by reference into the policy.
(3) An express warranty does not exclude implied warranty, unless it be inconsistent therewith.

This section corresponds to section 35 of the English Act.

The word "warranty" or "warranted" need not necessarily be used to signify an express warranty.

In the express warranty worded as "warranted no iron or ore in excess of registered tonnage" iron includes steel[52]. Again, where the warranty is "warranted no contraband of war", it applies to goods only and not to persons such as belligerent officers[53].

Speaking generally, the same rules of construction apply to the interpretation of a warranty as apply to any other part of the policy.[54]

About warranty of neutrality Section 38 of the Indian Act provides:
(1) Where insurable property, whether ship or goods, is expressly warranted neutral, there is an implied condition that the property shall have a neutral character at the commencement of the risk, and that, so far as the assured can control the matter, its neutral character shall be preserved during the risk.
(2) Where a ship is expressly warranted "neutral", there is also an implied condition that, so far as the assured can control the matter, she shall be properly documented, that is to say, that she shall carry the necessary papers to establish her neutrality, and that she shall not falsify or suppress her papers, or use simulated papers. If any loss occurs through breach of this condition, the insurer may avoid the contract.

This section corresponds to section 36 of the English Act. The implied conditions may be negative or varied by the terms of the particular express warranty.

There is no implied warranty as to the nationality of a ship, or that her nationality shall not ne changed during the risk.

Section 40 of the Indian Act (which corresponds to section 38 of the English Act) provides:

Where the subject-matter insured is warranted "well" or "in good safety" on a particular day, it is sufficient if it be safe at any time during that day.
This section must obviously be read subject to section 20 as to disclosure of facts known to the assured before the ship is initialed.[55]

About the implied warranty of seaworthiness of ship section 41 of the Indian Act provides:

(1) In a voyage policy there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure insured.

(2) Where the policy attaches while the ship is in port, there is also an implied warranty that she shall, at the commencement of the risk, be reasonably fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the port.

(3) Where the policy relates to a voyage which is performed in different stages, during which the ship requires different kinds of or further preparation or equipment, there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of each stage the ship is seaworthy in respect of such preparation or equipment for the purposes of that stage.

(4) A ship is deemed to be seaworthy when she is reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas of the adventure insured.

(5) In a time, policy there is no implied warranty that the ship shall be seaworthy at any stage of the adventure, but where, with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness.

The implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy attaches to every voyage policy, whether on ship, freight, cargo, profits, commission or any other interest[56]. But it may be negative by the terms of the policy, e.g., by the clause "seaworthiness admitted"[57]. The warranty applies only to the commencement of the voyages, or of each distinct stage of the voyage.

A ship is seaworthy when she is in a fit state as to repairs, equipment, and crew, and in all other respects, to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage insured at the time of sailing upon it[58].

The state of seaworthiness is a relative, not an absolute, state. There is seaworthiness for the port, seaworthiness in some cases for the river, and seaworthiness in some cases for some definite, well-recognized and distinctly separate stage of the voyage.[59]

Again, a ship may be seaworthy in herself, but not seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure, such as carrying deck cargo[60]. If the insurer knows the nature of the risk it is sufficient if every reasonable precaution be taken[61].

There is implied warranty that the lighters in which the goods are landed shall be seaworthy[62]. There is no custom and no decision which warrants the court in saying that in a time policy any warranty of seaworthiness attaches[63].

The burden of proving unseaworthiness ordinarily rests on the insurer, but cases may arise whether the maxim res ipsa loquitor would apply[64].
There is no implied warranty that goods are "seaworthy".

Hence Section 42 of the Indian Act enacts:
(1) In a policy on goods or other moveable there is no implied warranty that the goods or movables are seaworthy.
(2) In a voyage policy on goods or other movables there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship is not only seaworthy as a ship, but also that she is reasonably fit to carry the goods or other movables to the destination contemplated by the policy.

Questions of unseaworthiness frequently arise in cases between shipper and ship owner; but such cases must be applied with caution to insurance law. A ship might be seaworthy as between shipowner and insurer on ship, though unseaworthy as between ship-owner and shipper of a particular cargo, e.g. frozen meat, which requires special freezing apparatus, though that does not affect the safety of the ship. Again, the warranty as to goods may apply at a different time from the warranty on ship as in the case where goods are shipped at an intermediate port[65].

An insurer, in the absence of special stipulation, is not liable for loss or damage arising from what is termed "inherent vice", such as the spontaneous heating of copra[66], or meat becoming putrid[67] owing to internal decomposition.

There is an implied warranty that the adventure insured is a lawful one, and that, so far as the assured can control the matter, the adventure shall be carried out in a lawful manner.[68]
Where a voyage is illegal an insurance upon such a voyage is invalid. Thus, during the peninsular was policies on vessels sailing in contravention of the convoy Acts were held void; so too when the voyage was against the East India Company Acts, or the south Sea Company Acts, or the general navigation Act, which statutes were made with reference to "the general policy of the realm"[69].

A contract for the performance of an adventure which involves contravention of the laws of a foreign and friendly state may be unenforceable under English Law[70]. The same principle should apply to Indian law.

Neutrals, whether British subjects or foreigners, are by the English law entitled to carry on their trade with a belligerent, subject to the belligerent’s right of capture, and the carriage of contraband goods and voyages in breach of blockade are not illegal, and insurance on such goods or voyage are valid[71].

Questions have arisen as to whether the illegality of part of voyage renders the insurance of other parts of it illegal. The result of the cases seems to be (a) that any illegality in the prior stages, or at the outset, of an integral voyage vitiates a policy, though effected only to protect some later stage of it in which there is no illegality; (b) that an illegality in part of an entire risk or voyage insured vitiates the insurance as to the whole of it; and (c) that the illegality of a wholly distinct and separate voyage has no effect on the voyage insured by the policy[72].
If a policy is illegal in the sense that it or the adventure insured violates a rule of public policy, its illegality cannot be waived by either party. Nor can either party contract out of the rule, and the court is bound to declare the policy void as soon as the illegality is disclosed[73].

An adventure may be lawful at the time when the insurance is affected, but it may, owing to altered conditions, subsequently become illegal if the voyage be continued[74].

Conclusion
The role of marine insurance has been largely recognized in both domestic as well as international trade and commerce. Of late, there has been a steady increase in the types of instruments utilizing different technologies. The breathtaking speed at which the navigation technology has been changing in the recent years, there is a need for thorough revision of marine insurance law.

Recent developments in the laws relating to warranties in marine insurance indicate that there has been a judicial/legislative amendment (if not complete revocation) of different Marine Insurance Acts. On these lines it is expected that the IRDA along with the concerned ministry should include the changes regarding the changing technologies.

End-Notes
[1] Section 20, Marine Insurance Act, 1906 (UK), (Hereinafter referred to as MIA) Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/6/41/data.pdf.
[2] Pawson v. Watson, (1778) 2 Cowp 785.
[3] Newcastle Fire Insurance v. Macmorran & Co, (1815) 3 Dow 255, 262.
[4] Section 12 (3), The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Available at: http://comtax.up.nic.in/Miscellaneous%20Act/the-sale-of-goods-act-1930.pdf.
[5] Example: Institute Time Clauses (Hulls).
[6] ARNOULD's LAW OF MARINE INSURANCE AND AVERAGE §§ 702-704, at 378 (Jonathan C.B. Gilman ed., 16th ed. 1997).
[7] Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Warranties in the Law of Marine Insurance: Some Suggestions for Reform of English and American Law, 23 Tul. Mar. L.J. 267 (1999).
[8] Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risk Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck) [1992] 1 A.C. 233 HL at 263.
[9] B. Soyer, Warranties in Marine Insurance (London: Routledge Cavendish, 2001).
[10] Baris Soyer, "Warranties in Marine Insurance", 2nd edition (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2006), 5.
[11] Proudfoot v. Montefiore, L. R., 2 Q.B., 511.
[12] William R. Vance, The History of the Development of the Warranty in Insurance Law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 7 (May, 1911), pp. 523-534.
[13] Ibid.
[14] (I763) I W. BI., 427.
[15] (1779) I Doug., 260.
[16] William R. Vance, The History of the Development of the Warranty in Insurance Law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 7 (May, 1911), pp. 523-534.
[17] Norrington v. Wriight, 115 U.S., 188.
[18] Hartford Protections Ins. Co. v. Harimer, 2 Ohio St., 452, 59 Am. Dec. 684.
[19] Pennl Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Trust Co., 72 Fed., 413.
[20] Wang, Zhong Guo Hai Shang Bao Xian He Tong Fa Xiang Lun (2003), p.304.
[21]HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v New Hampshire Insurance Co [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 CA (Civ Div) at [101], per Rix LJ.
[22] Wang, "On the Legal Consequence of Breach of Warranty in Marine Insurance" (2006) 12 Annual of China Maritime Law 65, 71–72 (in Chinese).
[23] Wang, "On the Legal Consequence of Breach of Warranty in Marine Insurance" (2006) 12 Annual of China Maritime Law 65, 71–72 (in Chinese).
[24] Ling Zhu, Xiuhua Pan and Zhen Jing, "Marine insurance warranty: comparing common and civil law approaches and their implications for the reform of Chinese law", Journal of Business Law, 2017.
[25] Id.
[26] Understanding and Application on the ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues about the Trial of Cases Concerning Marine Insurance Disputes’" (2006) 12 The People’s Judicature 14, 16.
[27] Lewis v. Thatcher, 15 Mass. 431 (1819).
[28] GEPHART, PRINCIPLES OF INSURANCE (1917) II, 89, 97-98.
[29] Fowler v. Aetna Fire Ins. Co., 6 Cow. 673 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1827).
[30] Wood v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 13 Conn. 533 (1840).
[31] Aurora Fire Ins. Co. v. Eddy, 49 Ill. 106 (1868).
[32] Burleigh v. Gebhard Fire Ins. Co., 90 N.Y. 220 (1882).
[33] Martin v. Orient Ins. Co., 5 N.J. Misc. 64 (1926).
[34] R. Merkin and Ö. Gürses, "The Insurance Act 2015: Rebalancing the Interests of Insurer and Assured" (2015) 6 Modern Law Review 1004, 1018–1019.
[35] Sec. 10 (1) (a), Insurance Act, 2015.
[36] Sec. 10 (2), Insurance Act, 2015.
[37] R. Merkin and Ö. Gürses, "Insurance Contracts after the Insurance Act 2015" (2016) 123 L.Q.R. 445.
[38] Soyer, "Beginning of a New Era for InsuranceWarranties" [2013] L.M.C.L.Q. 384, 387.
[39] Z. Jing, "Warranty and Doctrine of Alteration of Risk during the Insurance Period: A Critical Evaluation of the UK Law Commission’s Proposals for Reform of the Law of Warranties" (2014) 25 Insurance Law Journal 183, 191.
[40] The Explanatory Notes to the Bill, para.89, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0155/en/15155en.html.
[41] Jing, "Warranty and Doctrine of Alteration of Risk during the Insurance Period" (2014) 25 Insurance Law Journal 183, 191.
[42] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldinsur/81/81.pdf.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Sec. 11 (b) of the New Zealand Insurance Law Reform Act 1977.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Jing, "Warranty and Doctrine of Alteration of Risk during the Insurance Period" (2014) 25 Insurance Law Journal 183,195.
[47] T.L. Wilhelmsen, "Duty of Disclosure, Duty of Good Faith, Alteration of Risk and Warranties" [2000] CMI Yearbook 376.
[48] Wilhelmsen, "Duty of Disclosure, Duty of Good Faith, Alteration of Risk and Warranties" [2000] CMI Yearbook 376, 376–377.
[49] Sec. (3-9), The Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan.
[50] Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. 22, p. 21
[51] Sleigh v. Tyser, (1900) 2 Q. B. 333, 337 (per Bigham J.). cf. Quebec Marine Insurance Co. v. Commercial Bank of Canada, (1870) 3 P. C. 234, 242.
[52] Hart v. Standard Marine Insurance Co. (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 499 C. A.
[53] Yangtze Insurance Association v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. (1908) 2 K. B. 504 C. A.
[54] Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol 22, p. 22. For the more usual and important navigation warranties, see the same volume, p.22 et. Seq.
[55] Cf. Chalmers, 5th ed., p. 54.
[56] Daniels v. Harris, (1874) L. R. 10 C. P. 1, 5 (per Brett J.)
[57] Cantiere Meccanico v. Janson, (1912) 3 K. B. 452, 462, 463 (per Vaughan Williams L. J.)
[58] Dixon v. Sadler, (1839) 5 M. & W. 405, 414 (per Lord Wensleydale).
[59] Quebee Marine Insurance Co. v. Commercial Bank of Canada, (1870) 3 P. C. 234, 241.
[60] Supra note 10.
[61] Supra note 11.
[62][62] Lane v. Nixon, (1866) L. R. 1 C. P. 412.
[63] Jenkins v. Heycock, (1853) 5 M. I. A. 361, 371.
[64] Pickup v. Thames Insurance Co., (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 594, 600 C. A.
[65][65] Chalmers, 5th ed., p. 58.
[66] Koebel v. Saunders (1864) 33 L. J. C. P. 310.
[67] Taylor v. Dunbar, (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 206.
[68] Act 11 of 1963, S. 43. On the question of illegality of the risk.
[69] Redmond v. Smith (1844) 7 M & Gr. 457, 474.
[70] Regazzoni v. K. C. Sethia (1944) Ltd. (1956) 2 W. L. R. 204.
[71] Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. 22, p.33.
[72] Ibid, p.34.
[73] Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Reed, (1914) A. C. 587, 595 P. C.
[74] Sanday v. British & foreign Marine Insurance Co., (1915) 2 K. B. 781.