What is General Average?
Joint Average is a principle of maritime law whereby the ship and cargo owners jointly bear the extraordinary expenses and damages incurred in order to ensure that the ship reaches a safe harbour. This principle requires that damages to the ship and cargo be apportioned proportionately between the parties, if necessary for the safety of the ship. General Average arises when, in the face of a danger threatening a General maritime enterprise, sacrifices or expenditures are made for the protection of the interests endangered.
The York-Antwerp Rules (YAR) are used as the legal basis. These rules are incorporated into the contract of carriage and provide the right to declare General Average. Unless otherwise agreed, the allocation of damages and costs is governed by the 1994 York-Antwerp Rules. YAR Rule A determines when General Average arises: A ship incurs a General Average when an extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is made to protect the ship from danger.
War Coverage and War Exception Clause
War Coverage is a different type of insurance than standard ship or cargo insurance, which covers damages caused by extraordinary circumstances such as war, civil war and rebellion. This cover is usually offered as an additional policy since such risks are usually excluded in standard policies. The War Exclusion Clause contains a special clause stating that damages occurring in situations such as war, civil war and revolution are excluded from the insurance coverage. This clause clearly states that if the relevant war coverage policy is not available, such losses will not be covered by the insurance.
The expenses incurred for the safety of the ship and which can be considered within the scope of the General aviation clause in the insurance policy. In this context, regardless of whether the damage is caused by acts of war or not, the expenses incurred within the framework of General average can be covered by the insurance. Such measures taken in the face of war and other hazards provide critical assurance for ship and cargo owners.
The Application of Institute Strikes Clause (Cargo) 1.2 and 1.3 is a special insurance clause that covers losses arising from strikes, labour movements, terrorism and popular movements. Clause 1.2 covers losses arising out of strikes and labour movements, while Clause 1.3 covers losses arising out of wider events such as terrorism or civil commotion. These clauses increase the flexibility and scope of insurance policies by ensuring that cargo is covered against such events.
Evaluation in terms of Piracy:
Acts of piracy have been most clearly clarified in the context of maritime law by the "Peter Wessel" arbitration award (ND 1990/140). This case dealt with an important legal dispute as to whether costs incurred as a result of a bomb threat should be covered by a marine or war insurer. The Court held that a war risk insurer would not be liable if the intention behind the act could not be established. However, it was stated that if the act had a political or social character, this could be considered as a war risk. This decision shows that the motive behind the action may be a determining factor in the assessment of war risk.
In cases of general average, the ship and cargo owners contribute proportionately to the expenses incurred for the salvage of the ship or for the minimisation of damages. The costs of such measures taken in the event of war are expected to be borne by the war insurer. Piracy is recognised as an act of war; therefore, hull and loss of hire insurers are liable in the event of a General general average arising from piracy. War insurance becomes directly liable for the contribution to the general average caused by piracy. Although cargo insurance policies do not contain specific rules on the organisation of General general average contributions, widely used policies such as the Norwegian Cargo Clauses of 1995 (CICG) and the Institute Cargo Clauses of 1982 (ICC) cover this situation.
The 1995 CICG is based on the York-Antwerp Rules and considers acts of piracy as efforts to prevent or minimise loss and does not exclude such acts from insurance coverage. The 1982 ICC, on the other hand, generally accepts the application of the York-Antwerp Rules, but coverage for piracy is provided only under the terms of ICC (A). With a similar approach, the English insurance system categorises the perils of war and perils of the sea as separate perils and insurance policies are issued in line with these principles.
Piracy and Recognition as a Danger of War:
Piracy is recognised as a peril of war in the context of marine insurance and is included in the insurance coverage in this context. According to Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), piracy is defined as unlawful acts of violence, detention or plunder committed by the crew of private ships or aircraft for private purposes. From a maritime insurance perspective, piracy is considered to be an unlawful use of force at sea involving violence, theft or damage, and such acts are generally not politically motivated.
According to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) Piracy Reporting Centre, acts of piracy are defined as armed robberies, mostly occurring in ports or territorial waters. This broad definition covers any attack on a ship. However, the motive behind the attack plays a critical role in determining whether an act of piracy falls within the scope of war risk. In the "Peter Wessel" case, the court held that the war risk insurer would not be liable if the motive behind the attack could not be established. However, if the motive behind the act is of a political or social nature, this may qualify the act as a war risk.
Piracy has also been defined in English case law through various cases. In particular, the "R. v. Dawson" case dated 1696 defines piracy as "a nautical term for robbery" and emphasises that the element of "robbery" must be present for the act of piracy to occur. In this context, piracy is generally seen as an act committed for economic gain. The "private ends" criterion makes it easier to distinguish between piracy and terrorism and measures taken by state power. Pirates usually seize property or persons by force for personal gain, whereas terrorists act with a political motivation. This distinction is of great importance for the applicability of insurance policies and the legality of ransom payments.
Collective Idling in the Event of Missile Attack
It is difficult to provide a universal definition of terrorism; this difficulty is particularly acute when it comes to more specific issues such as 'maritime terrorism'. The main difference between piracy and terrorism lies in the motives behind these acts. Piracy is usually carried out with selfish motivations (animus furandi), whereas terrorism is an act carried out for a larger purpose and is often recognised as a form of armed insurgency. Terrorism can also be understood as a strategy combining political struggle, guerrilla warfare and acts of terrorism.
In the event of a missile attack on a ship and the damage caused by this attack is not covered by the war cover, the principle of general average may come into play. General general average provides for the proportionate sharing of the expenses incurred for the salvage of the ship and cargo, regardless of the cause of the damage. However, in such a case, whether the damage can be considered within the scope of general average depends on the relevant general average rules and policy provisions.
If a ship is damaged as a result of a missile attack and there is no valid war coverage policy for this ship, this damage may not be covered by the war exception clause. However, within the scope of general average, the principle that the expenses incurred to ensure the safety of the ship are borne jointly by the ship and cargo owners is valid.
If the missile attack is considered to be an event attributable to strikes or civil commotion, or if it is treated as terrorism, insurance cover may be provided under the relevant clauses of the Institute Strikes Clause. In this case, it should be carefully examined whether the damage falls within the scope of these clauses.
The question of whether the damage to the cargo caused by a terrorist attack can be considered within the scope of general average depends on the characteristics of the incident and the nature of the damage. What is essential is that the expenditures made or the damage suffered must have been made for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the ship and the cargo. If, as a result of a terrorist attack, extraordinary expenditures are necessary for the ship to reach a safe harbour or for the cargo to be rescued, such expenditures may be considered within the scope of general average.
Participation in joint and several liability is based on the "joint" nature of the damage and expenses incurred, i.e., the expenses incurred and damages suffered to ensure the safety of the ship and cargo must be apportioned proportionately between the ship and cargo owners. Most insurance policies cover losses incurred as a result of terrorist attacks. However, the relationship between the participation in the General average and the insurance indemnity may vary according to the terms of the policy and the characteristics of the event.
Exceptions to the obligation to contribute - the defence of negligence
Certain safety regulations must be complied with during sea voyages. According to English maritime law, a ship must be "seaworthy" before starting a voyage. In this context, cases where shipowners fail to make the ship seaworthy in waters under the threat of piracy are considered as negligent behaviour. Such omissions give rise to a claim that the shipowners failed to exercise due diligence in the face of piracy attacks. This is referred to as the "actionable negligence defence" and Article D of the York-Antwerp Rules is the legal basis for this defence.
Article D of the York-Antwerp Rules provides that the claim for contribution in cases of joint average shall not be affected by fault arising out of the course of the incident. However, such fault may invalidate the claim of the party claiming contribution. This rule means that the party committing the fault cannot claim contribution from other parties, but this only applies where the fault is actionable. That is, if one party is at fault, that party cannot claim contribution from other injured parties, provided that the fault is of such a nature that it can be the subject of a legal action.
In this framework, failure to take the necessary security measures to prevent a piracy attack raises the question of whether the shipowner has breached its contractual obligations or norms of international law. In the event of a breach of security regulations, the insurer is usually exempted from liability. However, the insurer may be liable if it is proved that the damage was not a consequence of the breach or that the insured was not responsible for the breach. In this case, the burden of proof lies with the shipowner, who must prove that the damage was not caused by his fault or negligence. Insurers may tend to avoid liability in the event of a piracy attack, arguing that security arrangements have been breached.
Consequently, if the damage caused by a missile attack on a ship is not covered by the war cover, the principle of general average comes into play. General average is a principle of maritime law whereby the ship and cargo owners jointly bear the extraordinary expenses incurred in getting the ship to a safe harbour or salvaging the cargo. Comprehensive cargo insurance policies, such as the Institute Cargo Clauses (A), provide cover for general average and such insurance policies are widely favoured in the maritime industry as they cover most causes of loss or damage. General average covers expenses arising from events that cause damage to the ship or cargo; these may include events such as mutinies, sabotage and acts of terrorism. The assessment of loss as a General average, including acts of war, depends on the relevant policy provisions and the rules of General average. The differences in motivation between piracy and terrorism play a critical role in determining which insurance policy applies. If, as a result of a terrorist attack, extraordinary expenditures are required for the ship to reach a safe harbour or for the salvage of the cargo, these expenditures may be considered as General avarage. What is essential is that the expenditures are made for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the ship and cargo.