Marine insurance coverage and limitation principles favoured the insured where repudiation was late and exclusions were unproven.

A marine insurance policy was construed as a whole, and its extended cover for theft, pilferage and non-delivery was given effect in favour of the insured. The claim was held within limitation because repudiation occurred only on 1 April 1991 and the suit filed on 7 August 1992 was within time under Article 44 of the Limitation Act. The policy covered non-delivery and constructive total loss on the facts, including the stranded cargo and unrecovered forwarding costs. The insurer also failed to plead and prove the exclusion clauses or any insured privy to unseaworthiness, so the exclusions did not defeat the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the marine insurance policy, including its extended cover, protected the assured against non-delivery and constructive total loss; (iii) whether the exclusion clauses were proved to apply so as to defeat the claim.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim was first repudiated only on 1 April 1991. The suit filed on 7 August 1992 was therefore within time under Article 44 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. Earlier correspondence marked without prejudice did not amount to a conclusive repudiation extending limitation from an earlier date.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the marine insurance policy, including its extended cover, protected the assured against non-delivery and constructive total loss.

Analysis: The policy covered Institute Cargo Clause (C) risks and was specifically extended, on payment of additional premium, to include theft, pilferage and non-delivery. The ship was stranded and immobilised, the cargo could not be delivered, and the cost of recovering and forwarding the goods exceeded their value on arrival. Section 60 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 was applied subject to the express terms of the policy, and ambiguity in the cover had to be resolved in favour of the insured.

Conclusion: The policy covered the risk of non-delivery and constructive total loss, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the exclusion clauses were proved to apply so as to defeat the claim.

Analysis: The insurer did not specifically plead or prove the exclusion clauses as a basis for repudiation, and no evidence established that the assured or its servants were privy to any unseaworthiness. The burden to bring the case within the exclusions rested on the insurer and was not discharged.

Conclusion: The exclusion clauses were not established to bar the claim, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The insurer's repudiation could not stand, the limitation objection failed, and the insured was entitled only to the balance after crediting the sale proceeds already received.

Ratio Decidendi: A marine insurance policy must be construed as a whole, its express extended cover must be given effect, exclusion clauses must be specifically pleaded and proved by the insurer, and ambiguity in coverage is construed against the insurer and in favour of the insured.

---