All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2015Da5194 Decided June 23, 2016【Insurance Proceeds】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] In cases where the parties chose the governing law for only a part of the contract having foreign elements, the governing law for the part for which the parties did not choose the applicable law (i.e., the law of the country most closely connected with the contract) [2] Legislative purpose of Article 3(3)-(4) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions; and in cases where the customer is well aware of the content of the terms and conditions, whether the trader needs to separately explain them to the customer (negative) [3] Allocation of the burden of proof that the loss or damage to the items insured arose from inherent maritime perils under English marine insurance law and practice (i.e., the insured) and the standard of proof (i.e., by a preponderance of the evidence) [4] The definition of “Washing Overboard” as provided under the Institute Cargo Clauses of the Institute of London Underwriters (now the International Underwriting Association of London), which is subject to English law; and whether the so-called “loss overboard” is included in the coverage of the “On-Deck Clause” (negative) |
|
