Strict Compliance With Warranty Required

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v369fc6-strict-compliance-with-warranty-required.html and at https://youtu.be/GrGnBnXB1b8

Ralph Young owned and lived on a seventy-four-foot motor operated vessel named the SUMMER STAR (“the vessel”). Mr. Young insured the vessel with Yachtinsure Services, Inc. from 2013 through 2019. On August 28, 2019, the vessel ran aground and was destroyed when Hurricane Dorian hit St. Thomas in the United States Virgin Islands, where the vessel was moored. Yachtinsure rejected the abandonment and denied Mr. Young’s claim, based on what it considered his material misrepresentations in his April 2019 policy renewal application.

As a result the USDC was asked to resolve an issue of the voidability of a marine insurance policy under principles of federal maritime law. The Insured pursued a claim for breach of contract against the Insurer, based on the insurer’s refusal to pay for damage sustained by Plaintiff’s insured vessel during a hurricane in August of 2019.

In Transpac Marine, LLC v. Yachtinsure Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-10115-DPW, United States District Court, D. Massachusetts (February 13, 2023) followed the precedent establishing the inviolability of a promissory warranty.

BACKGROUND

Yachtinsure asserts counterclaims for declaratory judgment seeking judgment that Mr. Young’s insurance policy was void as a matter of law and that Yachtinsure had no obligation to pay damages or the benefits promised by the policy.

Mr. Young’s Renewal Application

On April 16, 2019, Mr. Young applied for the renewal of his marine insurance policy to Yachtinsure to renew his existing policy, Mr. Young was obligated to submit an updated application form and a Hurricane Plan for review by Yachtinsure’s underwriters.

The Hurricane Plan included a warranty by Mr. Young that the vessel will be secured with “10 lines, 3/4 inch Nylon braid.” The applicant was warned that the Hurricane Plan contains “statements upon which underwriters will rely in deciding to accept this insurance” and that the Hurricane Plan “will form the basis of” any insurance contract between the parties. The declaration also stated that misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts “may entitle underwriters to void the insurance.”

After an inquiry from the insurer Mr. Young confirmed that in the event of a named/numbered storm, mooring lines will be doubled. Mr. Young’s email representation that he would double the mooring lines on the vessel in the event of a named windstorm was incorporated into his policy agreement with Yachtinsure.

Events Preceding the Destruction of the Vessel

During an examination under oath conducted by Yachtinsure Mr. Young testified he decided to sail to Crown Bay in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands where the storm was expected to pass with windspeeds below thirty-miles-per-hour. Mr. Young resolved to wait out the storm. On August 26, he purchased two, new, one-inch diameter mooring lines from the local chandlery in preparation for the storm. Beyond securing the vessel with those two additional mooring lines and moving upholstery below deck, Mr. Young made no further safety preparations. On August 28, 2019, the storm, by then named Hurricane Dorian, changed its trajectory and struck the Virgin Islands. By the time he learned that the storm would hit the Virgin Islands Mr. Young determined sailing away from the Virgin Islands to be unsafe. Instead, he decided to remain moored to a single mooring in Crown Bay, secured by six lines, four of unspecified diameter and two of a one-inch diameter.

Just after noon, high winds from Hurricane Dorian parted Mr. Young’s mooring lines, causing the vessel to drift out to sea. However, the anchor’s chain became entangled with a sailboat operated by a third-party mariner, Dan Radulewicz. Thereafter, as alleged, Mr. Radulewicz disconnected Mr. Young’s anchor gear causing the SUMMER STAR to be swept up in the storm. The vessel eventually ran aground on the lee shore about four miles from Crown Bay. Mr. Young was airlifted from the wreck by the United States Coast Guard.

Plaintiff’s Claim and Defendant’s Denial

Mr. Young filed a claim declaration with Yachtinsure on September 3, 2019.

DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court held in Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, that “federal law controls the contract interpretation” of a marine insurance policy when the contractual dispute at issue “is not inherently local,” observe that the First Circuit has held that there is a judicially established federal rule governing the particular area of marine insurance contract interpretation relevant: whether an insured’s representations in the policy constitute unambiguous, promissory warranties which, if breached, excuse the insurer from coverage.

The court found the Hurricane Plan to be unambiguous. The plain language of Mr. Young’s answer to Question 15 cannot be reasonably read to convey anything other than that Mr. Young would use ten lines of 3/4 inch Nylon braid to secure the vessel. Mr. Young’s response to Question 15 of the Hurricane Plan states unambiguously that he will secure the vessel with the configuration of mooring lines he specified in his response.

Mr. Young responded to the Hurricane Plan with what is, in essence, a stipulation that he would secure the SUMMER STAR with the mooring configuration he identified when the policy took effect and during its continuance. Thus, this provision of the Hurricane Plan constitutes an unambiguous promissory warranty to secure the SUMMER STAR with ten nylon mooring lines that were 3/4 inch diameter in normal circumstances (i.e., in the absence of a named or numbered storm) and with 20 in a named and numbered storm.

Consequences of Breach of Promissory Warranties

Under both federal law and New York law, a breach of a promissory warranty will permit the insurer to void a marine insurance contract. Simply material compliance will not satisfy the insured’s obligations. The weight of authority holds this strict compliance requirement applicable even to “collateral” warranties unrelated to the insured’s claims for damages.

Plaintiff’s Breach

The court concluded that Yachtinsure established beyond reasonable factual dispute that Mr. Young failed to meet his obligation of strict compliance with his warranties under the Hurricane Plan.

Mr. Young’s admission that he did not use twenty 3/4 inch nylon braid lines to secure his boat during Hurricane Dorian – and thereby satisfy a prophylactic condition the policy called for – is sufficient to prevent him from recovering under the policy.

Summary judgment granted to Yachtinsure.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.

Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808

Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01

Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257

Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library

Like this:

Like Loading…