Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett on February 19, 2004 at 22:18:39 from 195.93.32.7 user ACB.
In Reply to: Re: Captain Flint's negligence posted by Ed Kiser on February 19, 2004 at 17:46:39:
Crew negligence is an insured peril. More pertinently, in the case of a loss by fire, the burden of proof, which normally lies upon the assured to show that the loss was by an insured peril, shifts to the underwriters, to show that it was not.
Not many people know that!
In the terms of the Lloyd's SG wording, under which "the good ship "Wild Cat", whereof James Turner goes as Master for the present voyage" would have been insured, "Touching the perils that we the assurers are contented to bear, they are of the seas, fire, war, rovers, letters of mart and counter-mart, takings, surprisals, barratry of the Master and Mariners...." the war perils would be excluded by the War Risks Exclusion but fire, as you see, is an insured peril.
Furthermore, the negligence of the said James Turner in leaving a lighted cigar where a monkey could pick it up and drop it into the petrol tank was clearly an act of the said James Turner as Master and not as Owner so his negligence is still an insured peril.
However, I doubt if the petrol tank would have exploded; the atmosphere in the tank would have been overrich. Not that I am about to try the experiment!