Agra Trading Ltd v McAuslin & Others (The “Frio Chile”) - QBD (Com Ct) (Colman J) - 5 July 1994

Marine insurance - Policy covered loss of EEC subsidy - Whether sufficient for assured merely to prove that EEC subsidy was lost or whether assured had to prove that the subsidy was lost as a result of a peril insured against

The plaintiffs claimed as owners of a cargo of frozen meat under the defendants’ marine policy. Their claim was not for the physical loss of or damage to the meat, but for loss of a substantial EEC meat subsidy due to the fact that the Egyptian buyers rejected the cargo when it arrived in Egypt. In consequence, the meat was resold in Russia which was a country in respect of whose meat imports from EEC the subsidy was much lower than that applicable to Egypt. The plaintiffs therefore sustained a loss represented by the difference between the subsidy applicable to Egypt and that applicable to Russia. They claimed to recover that loss from the underwriters under section 2 of their policy.