The facts of the case must be considered, for the question whether the loss was a "consequence" of hostilities and warlike activities cannot be answered in the abstract. This is another marine insurance case raising the same legal issue as Standard Oil Co. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents for the reasons set forth in his dissent in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. The reasons given for our holding there require affirmance in this case.
Petitioner's contentions for reversal here are substantially the same as those advanced in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. The Court of Claims found as a fact that there was no causal connection between the "warlike operation" and the stranding, and accordingly gave judgment for the United States. 72 Branch was engaged in the warlike operation of transporting military supplies and personnel between war bases, but denies that the warlike phases of the operation caused the stranding. Branch, stranded on January 13, 1942, when an inexperienced helmsman made a mistake in steering. The vessel, United States Army Transport David W. Here, as there, the Government insured petitioner's ship against war risks including "all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations." The ordinary marine risks were covered by a Lloyd's policy. This is a companion case to Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. In a suit by petitioner on a government policy of war risk insurance, the Court of Claims gave judgment for the United States. 71 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS SyllabusĪ government war risk insurance policy insuring a ship against "all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations" did not cover loss resulting from the stranding of the insured ship (because of a mistake in steering) while it was engaged in transporting military supplies and personnel between war bases when there was, in fact, no causal connection between the "warlike operation" and the stranding.
0 kommentar(er)
