NORDIC MARINE INSURANCE CONDITIONS HANNU HONKA

1
NORDIC MARINE INSURANCE CONDITIONS? HANNU HONKA

• HARMONIZATION A LEGAL PERSPEC-TIVE
• UNCTAD 1989, CMI 2001, OSLO SYMPOSIUM 1998
• HARMONIZATION LACK OF COMPETITION AND CUSTOMER
  CHOICE? BUT, SAFETY-AT-SEA

2
INTERNATIONAL BACKGROUND - IMO AND EC

• IMO SAFETY CONVENTIONS
• EC LAW
• COMPULSORY INSURANCE
• LINKAGE BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY LAW AND INSURANCE

3
HULL INSURANCE AND SAFETY BY CONTRACT

• SAFETY REGULATIONS SÄKERHETSFÖRESKRIFTER
• LINKAGE TO PUBLIC LAW HARMONIZATION
• ADVANTAGES TO QUALITY SHIPPING, BUT COMPETITION
  PERHAPS STOPS ENHANCING SAFETY RULES

4
NORDIC HARMONIZATION

• SAFETY-AT-SEA, HARMONIZATION, A NON-COMPETITIVE
  POSSIBILITY WITH NO NEED FOR CUSTOMER CHOICE?
• COMPARISON BETWEEN HULL INSURANCE CONDITIONS IN
  NORWAY AND FINLAND IN VIEW OF SAFETY-AT-SEA

5
SAFETY REGULATIONS -GENERAL REFERENCE

• DEFINITION THE SAME IN NORWAY AND FINLAND
• FAULT AND CAUSATION ASPECTS SUFFICIENTLY THE SAME
  IN NORWAY AND FINLAND

6
SAFETY REGULATIONS - IDENTIFICATION

• IDENTIFICATION IN NORWAY MASTER AND CREW FAULT
  DO NOT AFFECT COVER
• IDENTIFICATION IN FINLAND ONLY FAULT AND
  CAUSATION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE COMPANY IS
  RELEVANT (ALTER EGO?), WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS
• A CLEAR DIFFERENCE IN COVER
• ALWAYS PARALLELL OBJECTIVE FACTORS WEAR AND
  TEAR, INSUFFICIENT MAINTENANCE ETC

7
PARTICULAR SAFETY-AT-SEA REFERENCES THE ISM CODE

• NO EXPLICIT PROVISION IN NORWAY PART OF GENERAL
  RULES, INCLUDING SAFETY REGULATIONS
• IN FINLAND, A DIFFERENT APPROACH 1) SAFETY
  REGULATIONS OR, 2) INCREASE IN RISK ONLY ISM
  CODE CERTIFI-CATION REQUIRED OTHERWISE A
  FUNDAMENTAL BREACH REQUIRED FOR INSURANCE
  RELEVANCE

8
OTHER HARMONIZATION MATTERS

• FURTHER COMPARISON NEEDED, CONSTRUC-TION DEFECTS,
  DEFECTIVE MATERIAL, BUNKERS, CHOICE OF REPAIR
  YARD ETC. PROF WILHELMSEN AND PROFESSOR BULL
• PROPER NORDIC COOPERATION NEEDED
• FALL-BACK POSITION MAINTENANCE OF TRADITIONAL
  NATIONAL CONDITIONS

9
EC COMPETITION LAW

• EC COUNCIL REGULATION 1534/91 AND COMMISSION
  REGULATION 358/2003
• NO INTERFERENCE YET FROM COMPETITION AUTHORITIES
  WHEN STANDARD CONDITIONS ON A NATIONAL LEVEL
  PERHAPS DE MINIMIS?
• CHANGE OF EVALUATION IF A NORDIC SETTING, WITH
  THE ARGUMENT THAT CUSTOMER CHOICE IS DECREASED?
• COMPETITION LAW TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

10
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION