Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
English Marine Insurance and General Average Law
Howard Bennett *
CASES
148. Clothing Management Technology Ltd v Beazley Solutions Ltd1
Actual total loss—constructive total loss—sue and labour—whether valued policy
The claimant assured, a clothing manufacturer, contracted with Beltrame, a Moroccan company, for the production of garments. Industrial unrest in Beltrame’s Moroccan factory jeopardised completion of work. A payment by the assured directly to the factory workers secured the release of a consignment of garments. After shipment of a further consignment, the assured supplied a substantial additional quantity of fabric to the factory. Thereafter, industrial relations deteriorated rapidly and the prospects of recovering the fabric and completed garments (the “stock”) diminished. Although the risks to which the stock was exposed in principle fell to some extent outside the scope of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the policy under which the stock was insured provided that it was subject to the rules of marine insurance and incorporated the Institute Cargo Clauses (A) (1/1/82) and the Institute Strikes Clauses (Cargo) (1/1/82). It provided that the “basis of valuation” was the “invoice value”. The assured claimed for a total loss of the stock not recovered from Beltrame’s factory valued at the price it would have charged its customers for the garments that would have been completed from the stock.
Decision: The assured was entitled to recover for a constructive total loss in the measure claimed.
Held: (1) There was no actual total loss. The test for irretrievable deprivation was to be applied with the “utmost rigour”. The location of the stock and the prospects for recovery were unclear, but that was insufficient. (2) Conversely, there was a constructive total loss, based on unlikelihood of recovery within a reasonable time. Given that the stock was for supply to customers in the fashion industry, in which they would have a short commercial life, a reasonable time was relatively short. (3) Since there was no realistic possibility of the insurers being able to exercise any control over the stock, no notice of abandonment was required. (4) A claims cooperation clause in the policy required “immediate notice” to the insurers of any event likely to give rise to a claim. It was common ground that likelihood was to be assessed objectively and that it required at least a 50 per cent chance of a claim. On the facts, notice had been given at an appropriate time.
(5) The exclusion under cl.3.7 of the Strikes Clauses of loss arising “from the absence, shortage or withholding of labour of any description whatsoever resulting from any strike,
* Hind Professor of Commercial Law, University of Nottingham.
1. [2012] EWHC 727 (QB) (HHJ Mackie QC).
ENGLISH MARINE INSURANCE AND GENERAL AVERAGE LAW
87