Abstract
This article seeks to analyse the 2002 Athens Convention in so far
as direct action against the mandatory insurer is concerned. The author
maintains that it is an exemption to the main rule of privity of contract. The
article starts with an explanation of the legal sources of direct action, also
taking into consideration the regional regime within the European Union and
the European Economic Area (Regulation EC No. 392/2009). It also pays
special attention to the coverage of war and terror risks and to the special
regulation of these under the 2006 IMO Guidelines. Next, the article analyses
the competent courts and the national law applicable to such direct action.
Finally, it turns to looking at defences that can or cannot be invoked by the
insurer against the claimant and also at insurance coverage limitations per
passenger and per ship (1996 LLMC).
as direct action against the mandatory insurer is concerned. The author
maintains that it is an exemption to the main rule of privity of contract. The
article starts with an explanation of the legal sources of direct action, also
taking into consideration the regional regime within the European Union and
the European Economic Area (Regulation EC No. 392/2009). It also pays
special attention to the coverage of war and terror risks and to the special
regulation of these under the 2006 IMO Guidelines. Next, the article analyses
the competent courts and the national law applicable to such direct action.
Finally, it turns to looking at defences that can or cannot be invoked by the
insurer against the claimant and also at insurance coverage limitations per
passenger and per ship (1996 LLMC).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 516 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-32 |
| Journal | Marlus, Review of the Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law |
| Publication status | Published - 20 Sept 2019 |
Keywords
- Maritime Law
- Direct action
- P&I club
- Marine insurance
