define voyage policy

Search Search Please fill out this field.
Business Essentials

Voyage Policy: What it Means, How it Works

What Is a Voyage Policy?

A voyage policy is marine insurance coverage for risks to a ship's cargo during a specific voyage. Unlike most insurance policies it is not time-based but expires when the ship arrives at its destination. It covers only the cargo, not the ship that carries it.

A voyage policy is also known as marine cargo insurance.

Key Takeaways

A voyage policy, or marine cargo insurance, covers losses incurred to a ship's contents during a journey.
A voyage policy is used mainly by exporters who need to ship only occasionally or only in small amounts of cargo.
Exporters who ship routinely generally use open cover marine insurance.

Understanding a Voyage Policy

Voyage policies are commonly used by exporters who need marine shipping only occasionally or for relatively small amounts of cargo. Large exporters who ship by sea routinely tend to prefer open cover marine insurance, which covers all cargo shipped by the policyholder for a specified time period.

A voyage policy covers unforeseen risks but not preventable risks. For a voyage policy to be valid, the vessel transporting the cargo must be in good condition and capable of making the journey, and the vessel's crew must be competent.

A voyage policy is in effect only while the ship is at sea; additional insurance is needed to cover losses during loading and unloading of cargo.

Voyage policies generally cover accidental damage and collisions as well as natural disasters. Losses due to delays may be covered as well. Voyage policies may specifically exclude losses caused by willful misconduct, ordinary leakage, ordinary wear and tear, improper or inadequate packaging, and labor strikes. Acts of war and terrorist activity also are usually excluded.

The policyholder may need to purchase additional insurance to cover the cargo during the entire transport process as voyage policies typically exclude losses that occur during the loading and unloading of the cargo.

The policy is in place for the duration of the voyage, however long it takes. If there are unanticipated delays en route, the coverage remains in place. This allows for factors such as inclement weather at sea or a shortage of docking at the destination port.

Because each policy is specific to a particular cargo and voyage, all details of both are recorded in the policy contract.

Terms of Service
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Your Privacy Choices

What is a voyage policy? Definition and examples

The term ‘cargo’ refers to goods or produce that are transported by sea, land, or air.

Voyage policies, which protect just the goods in transit and not the vessel, are important for businesses involved in international trade. International trade includes the exportation and importation of goods.

Investopedia has the following definition of the term :

“A voyage policy is marine insurance coverage for risks to a ship’s cargo during a specific voyage.”

Voyage policies have several inclusions. Among them are damage due to faulty packaging or crew misconduct. This type of policy does not usually cover preventable risks. The policyholder will need to buy a separate policy to cover preventable risks.

Voyage insurance not time-based

Most insurance policies are time-based, but not this type. The policy expires as soon as the vessel arrives at its destination.

Exporting companies that need marine shipping only occasionally use this type of insurance the most. It is also useful for companies exporting a relatively small amount of cargo by sea .

Major exporters that deliver their goods by sea regularly prefer open cover marine insurance. Open cover protects all the cargo that the policyholder ships for a specified period.

Regarding a voyage policy, DieselShip.com says the following :

“The policy would be issued before the inception of the voyage. At the time of taking a specific voyage insurance policy, it is essential to give the complete details of the risk along with complete information about the bill of lading, vessel name, etc.”

The voyage policy covers the cargo during the whole voyage by sea, even if there are unexpected or unforeseen delays en route.

Marine insurance – a brief history

Marine insurance dates back to Ancient Greece and Rome. It wasn’t until the fourteenth century that proper marine insurance contracts were developed. These took place in Genoa and other Italian towns. From there, they spread to northern Europe.

Lloyd’s Coffee House, which opened in Tower Street in London in 1686, was the world’s first marine insurance market. People who worked in the shipping industry wanting to insure cargoes and ships would meet at Lloyd’s Coffee House. Individuals willing to act as underwriters also met there.

According to Risk & Insurance:

“ Lloyd’s Coffee House specialized in information about shipping. At this time, there were more than 80 coffee houses within the City of London’s walls, each claimed its own specialization.”

“By the 1730’s, Lloyd’s was emerging as the spot for marine underwriting by individuals.”

voyage policy

A type of marine insurance coverage that applies exclusively to a specified trip
A voyage policy was obtained to secure the ship's transatlantic journey.
The cargo was covered under the voyage policy for its transport from New York to London.
Due to the risks involved, the freight company ensures all its ocean-bound trips with a voyage policy.
Bankruptcy Lawyers
Business Lawyers
Criminal Lawyers
Employment Lawyers
Estate Planning Lawyers
Family Lawyers
Personal Injury Lawyers
Estate Planning
Personal Injury
Business Formation
Business Operations
Intellectual Property
International Trade
Real Estate
Financial Aid
Course Outlines
Law Journals
US Constitution
Regulations
Supreme Court
Circuit Courts
District Courts
Dockets & Filings
State Constitutions
State Codes
State Case Law
Legal Blogs
Business Forms
Product Recalls
Justia Connect Membership
Justia Premium Placements
Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
Testimonials

Law Explorer

Fastest law search engine.

If you have any question you can ask below or enter what you are looking for!

Law Explorer /
MARITIME LAW /

TIME AND VOYAGE POLICIES

CHAPTER 4 TIME AND VOYAGE POLICIES INTRODUCTION Section 25(1) of the Act states: Where the contract is to insure the subject matter at and from, or from one place to another or others, the policy is called a ‘voyage policy’, and where the contract is to insure the subject matter for a definite period of time, the policy is called a ‘time policy’. A contract for both voyage and time may be included in the same policy. Thus, the Act provides for a contract of marine insurance to be in the form of: (a) a time policy; (b) a voyage policy; or (c) a mixed policy (both time and voyage). However, whilst it is the Act which lays down the statutory framework governing such policies of insurance, it is the Institute Clauses which determine the terms and conditions by which the parties to the insurance are governed. TIME POLICY A definite period of time The Act, in s 25(1), defines a ‘time policy’ as a policy ‘…where the contract is to insure the subject matter for a definite period of time…’. Ordinarily, the cover provided by the insurance will commence at a time and date specified by the policy and terminate at another time and date designated by the policy. Should, however, only the date of commencement and the date of termination of cover be stipulated by the policy, the actual time on those respective dates not being specified, the policy is said to run from 0000 hours on the day of commencement to 2400 hours on the day of termination. This was confirmed in the case of Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Co v Steward , below. Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Co v Steward (1923) 15 LlL Rep 55 A voyage policy of insurance was reinsured by the plaintiffs with the defendants whereby the steamship Earlshaw was covered against marine losses ‘from 20 September 1922, inclusive, to noon 20 February 1923’. When Earlshaw was actually lost at 7.30 pm on 20 September 1922, after being found abandoned in the North Sea, the insurers questioned whether the risk had attached at the time of the loss. The court ruled that the insurers were liable for the loss. It was the duty of the court to try and interpret the words in the contract of insurance in accordance with intention of the parties to that contract and, when only the dates and not the times were given to indicate the commencement and termination of the policy, the whole of those dates were to be included in the cover. Rowlatt J: [p 409] …As to the effect of fixing a period from a named day, it was clear that there was no technical rule of construction to be applied; the words must be construed in accordance with the intention of the parties as it could be gathered from the circumstances of the case…according to the ordinary construction of the English language, when two days were mentioned as the dates on which a period began and ended, both those days were included in that period. People only mentioned days with which they were actually concerned; for example, if it was said that the court sat from Monday to Friday in each week, or that the year ran from 1 January to 31 December, the days at each end of the period were included…this insurance expressed to run from 20 September included 20 September, and the risk had, therefore, attached before the vessel sank. Although the majority of time policies are underwritten for 12 month periods, there is no longer any statutory limit to the time period over which the policy may provide cover. 1 Time policy containing an extension clause One of the issues which arose in the Eurysthenes , case, below, was whether a policy of insurance which provided cover from a certain date, but did not contain a ‘definite’ termination date, was, in fact, a time policy within the meaning of s 25(1). Counsel for the shipowners submitted that the policy could not be a time policy because, once the policy had attached, it only terminated after notice was given by either the assured or the P & I Club; there was no actual date of termination. In the context of the case, this was an important point which was, however, rejected by the Court of Appeal. Compania Maritima San Basilio SA v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd, ‘Eurysthenes’ [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171, CA The plaintiffs entered their vessel Eurysthenes with the defendant P & I Club to be covered for class 1 risks. The Club rules stated: [r 9] ‘…the ship shall be deemed to be entered in the Association from the time stated in the certificate and such entry shall continue from Policy year to year unless notice to the contrary be given…’; and [r 17] ‘A Member may terminate the entry of an entered ship by giving to the managers not less than two months’ notice in writing…and the Association may at any time discontinue the insurance of a Member…by giving him seven days’ notice in writing…’. Eurysthenes stranded on a voyage from the USA to the Philippines. The P & I Club contended that Eurysthenes was unseaworthy and, as the owners were privy to that unseaworthiness under s 39(5), the insurers were not liable. 2 The owners put forward the argument that s 39(5) did not apply, because the policy in question was not a true time policy as defined by s 25(1). Both the shipowners and the P & I Club sought guidance from the court as to their positions under the policy. The Court of Appeal ruled that the policy was, in fact, a time policy; there were only two types of marine policy—time or voyage, or a combination of both. Roskill LJ: [p 180] …Mr Mustill [for the shipowners] accepted that the club cover was a contract of marine insurance within s 1 of the 1906 Act, and that there was here a marine adventure within s 3(1) and (2)(c) of that Act which was properly the subject of a contract of marine insurance. But he sought to argue that s 25(1) did not create a statutory dichotomy between time policies and voyage policies, notwithstanding that that sub-section allows a policy of marine insurance to include a contract both for voyage and for time. There was room, he argued, for a contract of marine insurance which was neither a voyage nor a time policy nor a combination of the two…Therefore, it was said that this was not a 12 months’ policy, nor was it a policy for a ‘definite’ period, because there were so many events which might either extend or abridge its duration. [p 181] …It seems to me plain…that whether one looks at this matter simply as one of the construction of s 25 of the 1906 Act, coupled with s 23 of that Act, or more elaborately as one of the construction of those sections against the background of the revenue legislation enacted in the Stamp Act 1891, as amended by the Finance Act 1901, there is a clear statutory dichotomy between time and voyage policies, a combined time and voyage policy being also permitted. In short, a policy of marine insurance must be one or the other or both, but it cannot be something else. …I am, therefore, clearly of the view that a policy for a period of time and not for a voyage does not cease to be a time policy as defined merely because that period of time may thereafter be extended or abridged pursuant to one of the policy’s contractual provisions. The duration of the policy is defined by its own terms and is thus for a ‘definite period of time’. In my view, the word ‘definite’ was added to emphasise the difference between a period of time measured by time and a period of time measured by the duration of a voyage. Time policy with a geographical limit A geographical limitation placed upon a time policy does not change that time policy into a mixed policy. The policy remains fundamentally a time policy, even though it only covers voyages within the prescribed geographical limits. In Wilson v Boag [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 564, the plaintiff owner of a motor launch insured her for four months on the basis that the policy provided cover for losses incurred within a 50 mile radius of Port Stephens. When a loss occurred within that 50 mile radius, but on a voyage intended to go as far as Sydney, 90 miles away, the insurers refused payment, contending that the policy was both a time policy and a voyage policy (mixed), and the cover only extended to voyages undertaken within the prescribed geographical limits. The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that the policy was a time policy only and, as the loss occurred within the prescribed geographical limit of 50 miles, the insurers were liable. Supreme Court of New South Wales: [p 565] …The plaintiff contends that, on the true construction of the policy, the launch was covered if a loss by a peril insured against occurred within the limits of the area set by the policy…and that at the time of the loss it was proceeding within that area to a destination outside it is irrelevant. The defendant contends that the policy is a ‘mixed policy’, that is to say, that it is both a time and voyage policy; that the only ‘voyages’ covered by the policy are those made within the prescribed perimeter; and that a ‘voyage’ embarked upon and designed to take the launch outside that perimeter was not within the policy even though the loss may have occurred while the launch was still within the defined geographical area. If the policy is a time and voyage policy, then it would not attach to a voyage embarked upon for the purposes of taking the launch to Sydney, even if the loss was sustained at a time when the launch in the course of its journey was within the geographical limit described in the policy. …On the whole, we are of opinion that the policy here in question should not be construed as a voyage policy attaching only to voyages intended to begin and end within the perimeter and to remain wholly within it. It is to be regarded rather as a time policy in which is contained a limitation of the liability of the insurer to loss sustained while the launch is within a defined geographical area. We think that the policy covers loss occurring within the perimeter even though the launch was then in the course of proceeding to a point outside it. That seems to us to be the natural meaning to be given to the relevant words. There appear to be no reported cases precisely in point, and to apply the rules of law relating to commercial voyage policies to this case seems to us to be somewhat unreal, and not to be warranted by anything to be found in the terms of the contract. The Navigation Clause The Navigation Clause, cl 1 of the ITCH(95), is identical to the equivalent Navigation Clause contained within the IVCH(95), except for cl 1.5, the ‘Scrapping Voyage Clause’, which is only relevant to a time policy of insurance. The purpose of the Navigation Clause is to confirm expressly that cover is provided for those less usual seaborne operations which may be considered to fall outside normal practice. At all times The first part of cl 1.1 states: The Vessel is covered subject to the provisions of this insurance at all times and has leave to sail or navigate with or without pilots, to go on trial trips and to assist and tow vessels or craft in distress… Thus, the Clause confirms that cover is provided by the policy at all times whilst the insured vessel: (a) sails or navigates with or without pilots; (b) goes on trial trips; and (c) assists and tows vessels or craft in distress. Towage and salvage warranty Having established those marine operations under which the policy remains in force, the second part of cl 1.1 confirms, by way of a warranty, those towage and salvage operations which are or are not covered by the policy: …but it is warranted that the Vessel shall not be towed, except as is customary or to the first safe port or place when in need of assistance, or undertake towage or salvage services under a contract previously arranged by the Assured and/or Owners and/or Managers and/or Charterers. This Clause 1.1 shall not exclude customary towage in connection with loading and discharging. That is, it is warranted that the vessel shall not: (a) be towed, except as is customary or to the first safe port or place when in need of assistance; 3 or (b) undertake towage or salvage operations under a contract previously arranged by the assured and/or owners and/or managers and/or charterers. But the warranty does not apply when the vessel is engaged in ‘customary towage in connection with loading and discharging’. Clause 1.2 of the Navigation Clause then goes on to qualify the conditions laid down in cl 1.1. Clause 1.2 states: This insurance shall not be prejudiced by reason of the Assured entering into any contract with pilots or for customary towage which limits or exempts the liability of the pilots and/or tugs and/or towboats and/or their owners when the Assured or their agents accept or are compelled to accept such contracts in accordance with established local law or practice. The Clause thus recognises the fact that some pilotage and towage contracts must be entered into in accordance with local law and practice; in particular where such contracts limit or exempt the liability of pilots, tugs and tug owners. In such circumstances, cl 1.2 ensures that the insurance cover remains in force. 4 The use of helicopters Clause 1.3 acknowledges that, with many modern marine operations, helicopters are utilised to transport personnel, supplies and equipment to and from a vessel. Thus, cl 1.3 states: The practice of engaging helicopters for the transportation of personnel, supplies and equipment to and/or from the Vessel shall not prejudice this insurance. Trading operations entailing loading and discharging operations at sea In the event of loading and discharging operations taking place at sea between two vessels, the ships would have to be ‘ranged’ alongside each other. Not surprisingly, such practice greatly increases the risk of contact and collision damage being sustained by either or both of the vessels. Thus, because of the hazardous nature of the operation and the attendant increase in risk, cl 1.4, often referred to as the ‘Ranging Clause’, confirms that such ‘trading’ 5 operations are not covered by the policy unless the vessels being loaded from or discharged into are ‘harbour or inshore craft’. Further, in recognition of the fact that transhipment is now a feature of modern sea-going operations, underwriters are prepared to undertake such risks provided that previous notice is given and the amended terms of cover and any additional premium is agreed. To this effect, cl 1.4 affirms: In the event of the Vessel being employed in trading operations which entail cargo loading or discharging at sea from or into another vessel (not being a harbour or inshore craft), no claim shall be recoverable under this insurance for loss of or damage to the Vessel or liability to any other vessel arising from such loading or discharging operations, including whilst approaching, lying alongside and leaving, unless previous notice that the Vessel is to be employed in such operations has been given to the Underwriters and any amended terms of cover and any additional premium required by them have been agreed. It is emphasised that the Clause excludes cover not only to the insured ship itself, but also liability for any damage caused to the other vessel. Thus, in such circumstances, it must be presumed that, in the event of any collision damage occurring between the two ships engaged in transhipment at sea, whether approaching, moored or leaving, the 3/4ths Collision Liability Clause, 6 would be ineffective. The Continuation Clause Clause 2 of the ITCH(95), the Continuation Clause, states that: Should the Vessel at the expiration of this insurance be at sea and in distress or missing, she shall, provided notice be given to the Underwriters prior to the expiration of this insurance, be held covered until arrival at the next port in good safety, or if in port and in distress until the vessel is made safe, at a pro rata monthly premium. Thus, provided that notice is given to the underwriter prior to the expiration of the insurance , the vessel is held covered even though she is: (a) at sea and in distress or missing—in which case, the vessel is held covered until arrival at the next port in good safety; or (b) in port and in distress – in which case, the vessel is held covered until she is made safe. However, the fact that the vessel may be held covered under the Continuation Clause, thereby extending the period of insurance, does not mean that the policy is anything other than a time policy within the meaning of s 25(1) of the Act. Reference to this was made by Lord Denning in the case of Compania Maritima San Basilio SA v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd, ‘Eurysthenes’ [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171, CA, the facts of which were cited earlier. 7 Lord Denning MR: [p 177] …Mr Mustill [for the shipowners] stressed the word ‘definite’ in s 25. This means, I think, that the period must be specified. But it is, I think, sufficiently specified if it specifies a stated period, even though that period is determinable on notice, and even though the assurance will be renewed or continued automatically at the end of the period, unless determined; or will continue under a continuation clause. This is supported by the fact that, in an ordinary time policy, the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) include a continuation provision in cl 4 [now cl 2], but that does not prevent the policy being a time policy. The Termination Clause Automatic termination A time policy of insurance will, under normal circumstances, expire on the date specified in that policy. However, ‘unless the underwriters agree to the contrary in writing’, a time policy of insurance will terminate automatically should any of the conditions laid down in cl 5, the Termination Clause, not be met. The importance of the Clause lies in the fact that it is prefaced with a paramount clause, in bold print, declaring: This Clause 5 shall prevail notwithstanding any provision whether written typed or printed in this insurance inconsistent therewith. The significance of the words ‘automatic termination’ in cl 5.1 is that, unlike the breach of a promissory warranty which a breach of cl 4, the Classification Clause, amounts to, there is no question of the breach being waived by the insurers; the contract of insurance is automatically terminated. The Termination Clause is in two parts: the first part deals with ‘classification’, and the second with ‘change of ownership or flag’ and related matters. It is emphasised that cl 5, the Termination Clause, must be read in conjunction with cl 4, the Classification Clause, discussed below. 8 As will be seen, there is a degree of overlap between these two Clauses on matters pertaining to classification societies and maintenance of class. Classification Clause 5.1 of the ITCH(95) confirms that: Unless the Underwriters agree to the contrary in writing, this insurance shall terminate automatically at the time of… change of the Classification Society of the Vessel, or change, suspension, discontinuance, withdrawal or expiry of her Class therein, or any of the Classification Society’s periodic surveys becoming overdue unless an extension of time for such survey be agreed by the Classification Society, provided that if the Vessel is at sea, such automatic termination shall be deferred until arrival at her next port. However, where such change, suspension, discontinuance or withdrawal of her Class or where a periodic survey becoming overdue has resulted from loss or damage covered by Clause 6 of this insurance or which would be covered by an insurance of the Vessel subject to current Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls—Time, such automatic termination shall only operate should the Vessel sail from her next port without prior approval of the Classification Society or in the case of a periodic survey becoming overdue without the Classification Society having agreed an extension of time for such survey… Thus, unless the underwriters agree to the contrary in writing, the insurance will terminate automatically at the time of: (a) change of the Classification Society of the vessel; or (b) change, suspension, discontinuance, withdrawal or expiry of her class therein; or (c) any of the Classification Society’s periodic surveys becoming overdue, unless an extension of time for such survey be agreed by the Classification Society. Change of classification society Clause 5.1, the Termination Clause provides for an automatic termination of the policy in the event of a ‘change of the Classification Society of the Vessel’. In this connection, there is a degree of overlap between cl 4.1.1 of the Classification Clause and cl 5.1, the Termination Clause. But, as the Termination Clause is expressly confirmed as prevailing over other provisions in the insurance, there must be ‘automatic termination’ of the insurance in the event of a change of classification society or a failure to maintain class, unless, of course, the underwriters agree to the contrary in writing. The only other proviso made by cl 5.1 with regard to automatic termination is that: ‘…if the vessel is at sea, such automatic termination shall be deferred until arrival at her next port.’ 9 Change, suspension, discontinuance, withdrawal or expiry of class Again, a degree of overlap can be seen here, in that cl 5.1, the Termination Clause, has also concerned itself specifically with ‘change, suspension, discontinuance, withdrawal or expiry’ of Class. Clause 4.1 is, however, couched in more general terms, that ‘her class within that Society be maintained’. Though it is expressly stated that its breach will result in discharging the insurer from liability, nevertheless, as described earlier, the paramount clause in the Termination Clause will take precedence and the contract will be automatically terminated. However, cl 5.1 offers a reprieve in its proviso, that termination of the policy will not operate: …where such change, suspension, discontinuance, withdrawal or expiry of her class has resulted from loss or damage covered by Clause 6 of this insurance or which would be covered by an insurance of the Vessel subject to current Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls—Time… But, termination will automatically take place ‘should the Vessel sail from her next port without prior approval of the Classification Society…’. So, what is meant by a ‘withdrawal’ of class or a failure to maintain class? This issue was considered in the Caribbean Sea case, below. Prudent Tankers Ltd SA v Dominion Insurance Co Ltd, ‘Caribbean Sea’ [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 338 The tanker Caribbean Sea was insured under a policy incorporating the American Institute Hulls Clauses and classified by Bureau Veritas. When she sank in fair weather conditions whilst on a voyage from the Panama Canal to Tacoma, because of the circumstances surrounding the loss, the issue of classification arose. The insurers contended that they were not liable under the policy, because a previous minor grounding had invalidated her class. A ship’s class, the court decided, could only be withdrawn by the classification society if the ship had not been kept in proper condition or had not been subjected to surveys as required under the classification society’s rules. On confirmation of the rules laid down by way of a letter from the classification society regarding class, the court differentiated between ‘loss of validity of the classification certificate’ and ‘withdrawal of class’. Robert Goff J: [p 349] …M Ollivier, head of the relevant department of Bureau Veritas, wrote as follows on 7 June 1979: The Society’s Rules differentiate between the loss of validity of the classification certificate, which is an automatic consequence of the omission of the owner to fulfil his obligations towards the Society, and the withdrawal of class, which requires a positive act from the Society. After a grounding and in order to revalidate the classification certificate, the owner or his representative must, in conformity with regulation 2– 14.11 (1977 Rules), call in a surveyor. When Caribbean Sea was on transit in the Panama Canal and stopped at Cristobal and Balboa in May 1977, the Society did not have a surveyor in the area. In the absence of a BV surveyor, the ship’s captain should have, in conformity with regulation 2–14.14, notified BV Head Office in Paris of the grounding. At that time, the Society had a surveyor available for survey at Tacoma. …In the case of Caribbean Sea , apart from the automatic invalidation of the classification certificate rendering the class position irregular (if the vessel grounded in the Maracaibo Canal on 20 May 1977), the Society has no knowledge of any other circumstances which would have affected the class position of the vessel at the date of her loss. It is clear from this letter that, on the interpretation placed by Bureau Veritas on their own rules, and on the application of these rules to the events which occurred, the ship’s class was not, in fact, affected. It follows, in my judgment, that for this reason alone, the underwriters are unable to say that the ship’s class was changed, cancelled or withdrawn, and accordingly, their argument based on the hull clauses fails. But even if I am wrong in this conclusion and I have to decide the point as a matter of the construction which I myself would place upon r 2–14, I would reach the same conclusion. The words of 2–14.11 are, in my judgment, plain. They state that ‘the classification certificate loses its validity’. I can see no reason why I should give these words any other than their natural and ordinary meaning. As M Ollivier states, the rules themselves distinguish between the classification certificate, and the ship’s actual class. …The rule therefore refers expressly to r 2–14, and provides that, if the ship has not been subjected to the surveys as required by that rule, her class may be withdrawn. Now if the underwriters’ submission was correct, that rule would be nonsensical, because on their argument, the vessel’s class would already have automatically ‘lost its validity’ by virtue of the grounding or damage; if that were so, it would be otiose, indeed inconsistent, to provide that, in the event of a failure to subject the ship to a survey following such grounding or damage the vessel may lose her class. For this reason alone, I can see no reason why I should depart from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of r 2–14.11; and it follows once again that there was, by virtue of the grounding, no change, cancellation or withdrawal of the ship’s class, and the underwriters’ argument fails. Periodic survey becoming overdue An ‘automatic termination’ of the contract of insurance would arise should any requirement by the Classification Society to undertake periodic surveys not be adhered to. The only exception to the rule is, as in the case of a ‘change, suspension, discontinuance, withdrawal or expiry of class’, where ‘a periodic survey becoming overdue has resulted from loss or damage covered by Clause 6 or which would be covered by an insurance of the Vessel subject to current Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls—Time’. But, ‘should the Vessel sail from her next port…without the Classification Society having agreed an extension of time for such survey, the policy will terminate automatically’. Change of ownership or flag Clause 5.2 of the Termination Clause states that: Unless the Underwriters agree to the contrary in writing, this insurance shall terminate automatically at the time of: …any change, voluntary or otherwise, in the ownership or flag, transfer to new management, or charter on a bareboat basis, or requisition for title or use of the Vessel, provided that, if the Vessel has cargo on board and has already sailed from her loading port or is at sea in ballast, such automatic termination shall if required be deferred, whilst the Vessel continues her planned voyage, until arrival at final port of discharge if with cargo or at port of destination if in ballast. However, in the event of requisition for title or use without the prior execution of a written agreement by the Assured, such automatic termination shall occur 15 days after such requisition whether the Vessel is at sea or in port. The primary purpose of cl 5.2 of the Termination Clause is to protect the insurer from changes in the vessel’s status with respect to: (a) any change in the ownership; (b) any change in the flag; (c) transfer to new management; (d) charter on a bareboat basis; or (e) requisition for title or use, all of which would materially alter the risks insured. But, if required, the ‘automatic termination’ may be deferred until arrival at the final port of discharge, if the vessel has cargo on board and has already sailed from her loading port. Similarly, it may also be deferred to the port of destination, if the vessel is in ballast and has already sailed. With respect to a ‘requisition’ which takes place without the prior execution of a written agreement to that requisition by the assured, termination shall occur 15 days after the requisition, regardless of whether the vessel is at sea or in port. The corollary of this is that, should the vessel be requisitioned ‘with’ the prior execution of a written agreement by the assured, there would be no period of grace, and the policy would terminate as from the time of that agreement. Return of premium The Termination Clause, cl 5, of the ITCH(95) concludes with a reference to return of premium in the event of ‘automatic termination’, when it states: A pro rata daily return of premium shall be made provided that a total loss of the Vessel, whether by insured perils or otherwise, has not occurred during the period covered by this insurance or any extension thereof. That is, unless there has been a total loss of the insured vessel, whether or not that loss has been caused by a peril insured against, there will be a pro rata return of premium. The Classification Clause Clause 4.1 of the Classification Clause states: 10 4.1 It is the duty of the Assured, Owners and Managers at the inception of and throughout the period of this insurance to ensure that: 4.1.1 the Vessel is classed with a Classification Society agreed by the Underwriters and that her class within that Society is maintained; 4.1.2 any recommendations requirements or restrictions imposed by the Vessel’s Classification Society which relate to the Vessel’s seaworthiness or to her maintenance in a seaworthy condition are complied with by the dates required by that Society. Clause 4.2 of the Classification Clause then goes on to spell out the effect of a breach of any of the conditions contained within cl 4.1, when it affirms: 4.2 In the event of any breach of the duties set out in Clause 4.1 above, unless the Underwriters agree to the contrary in writing, they will be discharged from liability under this insurance as from the date of the breach provided that if the Vessel is at sea at such date the Underwriters’ discharge from liability is deferred until arrival at her next port. For all intents and purposes, the duties imposed by cl 4.1 are warranties, the breach of which should now, in the light of the Good Luck case on promissory warranties, automatically discharge the insurer from liability. 11 The conditions set out in cl 4.1.1 of the Classification Clause are complementary to, and in some respects mirror, the classification conditions laid down under the Termination Clause, cl 5, discussed earlier. 12 However, by reason of the paramount clause incorporated into the Termination Clause, it must be remembered that the latter will have precedence over the Classification Clause and any breach with respect to classification, without agreement from the underwriters in writing, must bring about an ‘automatic termination’ of the contract of insurance. Though there is a degree of overlap between cl 4.1.1 (on classification) and cl 5 (the Termination Clause), cl 4.1.2, on the subject of seaworthiness, is, however, not covered by the Termination Clause. Regarded as the most significant provision of the Classification Clause, cl 4.2 is by no means to be read as introducing a warranty of seaworthiness into a time policy: its scope is confined specifically to ‘recommendations, requirements or restrictions’ imposed by the vessel’s Classification Society on matters relating to the vessel’s seaworthiness and her maintenance in a seaworthy condition. It is the failure to comply with such recommendations, etc, that constitutes a breach of the clause. Whether the vessel is, or is in fact not, rendered unseaworthy by reason of the failure to comply is beside the point. It is to be noted that cl 4.2—stipulating the effect of discharge from liability – is applicable only to a breach of cl 4.1. The legal consequences of a breach of cl 4.3, for a failure to report ‘any incident condition or damage in respect of which the Vessel’s Classification Society might make recommendations as to repairs or other action’, and of cl 4.4, for ‘failure on the part of the Assured to provide the necessary authorisation so as to enable the Underwriters to approach the Classification Society directly for information and/or documents’, are not stated. VOYAGE POLICY A voyage policy of insurance, whether it be on ship, goods or freight, is defined by s 25(1) of the Act in the following terms: Where the contract is to insure the subject matter at and from, or from one place to another or others, the policy is called a ‘voyage policy’ … Whilst it is accepted that most ships are now insured under time policies of insurance, for practical reasons, there is nothing to prevent a voyage policy on ship being effected, particularly in the event of one-off voyages. However, there are many old constraints and problems, associated with voyage policies, which do not apply to time policies. Goods, on the other hand, are almost invariably insured under voyage policies and, because of their importance, will be dealt with separately. Voyage policy on ship Over the years, a major issue associated with voyage policies has been that of determining when the policy ‘attaches’ and ‘terminates’. Section 25(1) describes a voyage policy as a policy where the contract is to insure the subject matter ‘at and from’ or ‘from’ one place to another. Furthermore, unless the policy provides otherwise, the words ‘from’ or ‘at and from’ must have the meaning given to them by rr 2 and 3 of the Rules for Construction contained within the Act. The policy attaches ‘from’ a particular place Rule 2 of the Rules for Construction states: Where the subject matter is insured ‘from’ a particular place, the risk does not attach until the ship starts on the voyage insured. Where a voyage policy is characterised as being ‘from’ a particular port or place, for the policy to attach, the vessel must have left her moorings or broken ground with the intention of starting upon the actual voyage insured. Simply moving from moorings to an anchorage in readiness to sail is not to be construed as the commencement of the insured voyage, as was shown in Sea Insurance Co v Blogg , below. Sea Insurance Co v Blogg [1898] 2 QB 398, CA This was a claim on a reinsurance policy on goods where a vessel was lost on a voyage from Newport News, Virginia, to London. The policy had been underwritten to attach on or after 1 March 1896. Late on 29 February 1896, the steamship Masacoit completed her loading at the wharf at Newport News and the master then moved her from the wharf to an anchorage in the James River in readiness for departure in the morning. Evidence was provided to show that the master had moved the ship in order to stop his crew going ashore and getting drunk. The following morning, 1 March, the Masacoit sailed for London and was lost. When the insurers claimed on their policy of reinsurance, the reinsurers refused payment, on the basis that the voyage had commenced on 29 February and, therefore, the policy had not, in compliance with the policy attached ‘on or after 1 March’. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge and ruled that the reinsurers were liable under the policy. The moving of the ship on the night of 29 February was not intended to be the commencement of the insured voyage; the voyage did not actually commence until the following morning, 1 March. AL Smith LJ: [p 400] …I think that the evidence is conclusive that it was not the intention that the ship should sail when she was moved from the quay that night, but the intention merely was that she should move out into the stream for the night, and should not start on her voyage till the next morning. She was only moved a short distance, namely, about 500 yards, from the wharf in order that the crew might not be able to go ashore and get drunk, and there was no intention of then commencing the voyage. Alteration of port of departure—s 43 Not surprisingly, if a vessel departs on her insured voyage from a port other than that named in the policy, the risk does not attach. This is confirmed by s 43 of the Act, which states: Where the place of departure is specified by the policy, and the ship, instead of sailing from that place, sails from any other place, the risk does not attach. Section 43 is based upon the principle laid down in the old case of Way v Modigliani , below. Way v Modigliani (1787) 2 Term Rep 30 The vessel Polly was insured: ‘…at and from 20 October 1786, from any ports in Newfoundland to Falmouth.’ On 1 October 1786, Polly left Newfoundland to fish on the Grand Banks, from whence she departed for England on 17 October with her catch of fish. Polly was lost on the voyage to Falmouth. When the policy was claimed upon, the court ruled that the insurance had never attached. Buller J: [p 32] …the policy never attached at all. Where a policy is made in such terms as the present to insure a vessel from one port to another, it certainly is not necessary that she should be in port at the time when it attaches, but then she must have sailed on the voyage insured, and not on any other. The above case should be compared with Driscoll v Passmore , below, where the question before the court was whether a ‘leg’ of an overall round voyage could be considered as a separate insurable voyage rather than as a part of the whole. The insurers of the freight to be earned on the leg on which the loss occurred denied liability for that loss, because, they contended, the ship had sailed from the wrong port on the previous leg. Driscoll v Passmore (1798) 1 B&P 200 The vessel Timandra was insured under three policies covering a round voyage from Lisbon to Madeira, thence to Saffi in Africa and back to Lisbon. The policy in question was a policy on freight covering the return voyage from Saffi to Lisbon. When Timandra arrived at Madeira, the crew refused to sail to Saffi, because of the presence of Moorish cruisers in the area. Thus, the captain brought Timandra back to Lisbon before sailing direct to Saffi. Timandra was captured on her return voyage from Saffi to Lisbon. The insurers of the voyage from Saffi to Lisbon refused to pay for the loss because, they contended, the voyage which had been insured was part of a voyage from Madeira to Saffi and back to Lisbon, not from Lisbon to Saffi and back. The latter being a new voyage, therefore, the insurance never attached. The court ruled that the insurers were liable for the loss; the voyage insured was separate from the voyage as a whole, and that part of the voyage had, in substance, been performed. Eyre CJ: [p 203] …It has been argued in support of the rule, that the voyage insured was the third branch of a specific voyage, specifically described in the policy; but I take the voyage insured to be a voyage from Saffi to Lisbon only. …The voyage from Saffi to Lisbon might have been performed with as much ease after the circuitous voyage had taken place (unless a Spanish war had broken out) as in the direct course originally proposed. On what principle then can the underwriters be discharged? The voyage has, in substance, been performed: the ship was diverted from her intended course by circumstances for which no one was to blame, and having arrived at Saffi, took in the cargo which was the original object of the insurance Sailing for a different destination—s 44 Where a vessel sails ‘from’ the agreed place of departure to a place or port other than that specified in the policy, the risk does not attach. To this effect, s 44 of the Act states: Where the destination is specified in the policy, and the ship, instead of sailing for that destination, sails for any other destination, the risk does not attach. Section 44 is based upon the ruling in the old case of Wooldridge v Boydell , below. Wooldridge v Boydell (1778) 1 Doug KB 16 The vessel Molly was insured for a voyage from Maryland to Cadiz. In reality, it was suspected that Molly was engaged in supplying the American army during the War of Independence and was actually bound for Boston. In the event, Molly left Maryland under papers for Falmouth and was captured in the Chesapeake Bay. The fact that her loss occurred before a different course could be set for Falmouth, rather than Cadiz, made no difference, because, where the port of destination was changed, the risk never attached. Lord Mansfield: [p 17] …The policy, on the face of it, is from Maryland to Cadiz, and therefore purports to be a direct voyage to Cadiz. All contracts of insurance must be founded on truth, and the policies framed accordingly… Here, was the voyage ever intended for Cadiz? There is not sufficient evidence of the design to go to Boston, for the court to go upon. But some of the papers say to Falmouth and a market, some to Falmouth only. None mention Cadiz, nor was there any person in the ship, who ever heard of any intention to go to that port…In short, that was never the voyage intended, and, consequently, is not what the underwriters meant to insure. Simon, Israel and Co v Sedgwick [1893] 1 QB 303, CA Goods specifically insured for a voyage from Bradford to Madrid via ‘…any port in Spain this side of Gibraltar’, were lost when they were carried in a ship bound for Cartagena, the other side of Gibraltar. The court held that the policy had not attached. Lindley LJ: [p 306] …The plaintiffs say that, upon the true construction of this policy, this is a policy from Bradford to Madrid. If it is, then I think it is not denied by their opponents that the underwriters would be liable. But it is contended that this is not a policy from Bradford to Madrid; and, on consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the view of the underwriters is right. We must ask ourselves what is the voyage that includes the risks to which I have alluded—the risks printed in type? …The starting point is that the goods were insured from Liverpool to some place this side of Gibraltar. They never were on that voyage; and, that being the case, you cannot extend the policy to cover the risks not included in the voyage for which these goods were insured. That appears to me to be the short answer, and the conclusive answer, to the plaintiffs’ argument. In other words, this policy is not a policy from Bradford to Madrid; and the plaintiffs are unable, by reason of the blunder which has been committed, to bring themselves within the risks which are included in a voyage for which these goods were insured. I think the view taken by the learned judge is right, and that this policy never attached, and, that being so, the memorandum about deviation, or change of voyage, does not affect the question. The policy attaches ‘at and from’ a particular place A ship may be insured under a voyage policy of insurance which specifies that the risk attaches ‘at and from’ a particular port or place. The significance of the words ‘at and from’ are spelt out by r 3 of the Rules for Construction, which states: (a) where a ship is insured ‘at and from’ a particular place, and she is at that place in good safety when the contract is concluded, the risk attaches immediately; (b) if she be not at that place when the contract is concluded, the risk attaches as soon as she arrives there in good safety, and, unless the policy otherwise provides, it is immaterial that she is covered by another policy for a specified time after arrival. However, there is a third scenario, not contemplated by the Act, namely, where the ship has already sailed from the named port at the time the contract is concluded. Thus, with respect to attachment of risk, there are three situations which may arise at the time the contract is concluded: (a) the ship is already at the named port; (b) the ship is not yet at the named port; or (c) the ship has already sailed from the named port. The significance of the word ‘at’ and the words ‘good safety’ will also be considered. The ship is already at the named port If the ship is already at the port named in the policy, the policy cannot attach if the ship is at the specified port for purposes other than the voyage insured. However, once the ship is deemed to be ‘preparing’ for the voyage insured and is in ‘good safety’ at the port named in the contract, the policy will attach. This was clearly illustrated in the case of Lambert v Liddard , below. Lambert v Liddard (1814) 5 Taunt 480 The ship Lion was insured under a voyage policy at and from Pernambuco or other ports in Brazil to London. When Lion , which had previously been engaged as a privateer, arrived near Pernambuco, an officer was dispatched ashore to inquire into the availability of cargo. On hearing there was no cargo available, Lion sailed for St Salvador, a Brazilian port 600 miles to the north, in order to secure an alternative cargo, but, whilst on passage, she was lost. When the plaintiff claimed on his policy of insurance, the insurers refused payment, contending that the ship had not put into any port in Brazil and, therefore, the policy had never attached. The court ruled that the insurers were liable as the policy had attached when Lion arrived off Pernambuco in preparation for the voyage insured. Chambre J: [p 487] …The ship had finished her cruise [as a privateer], and was preparing for her voyage to England. What preparation was she to make? She was not coming in ballast to England; she was to get a cargo. She goes to Pernambuco; she inquires there for a cargo, and does not obtain one; but can it be said, that while she was so employed, she was not preparing? She went thither for the very purpose of preparing. Not getting a cargo there, she goes to another part of the coast for the same purpose. The policy attached at Pernambuco, and there was no subsequent deviation, she had a right to go to any of the other ports, to perfect her cargo, I therefore think the rule must be discharged. In similar vein, the House of Lords referred to the above case when reaching their decision in Tasker v Cunninghame , below. Tasker v Cunninghame (1819) 1 Bligh 87, HL The vessel Henrietta was insured for a voyage ‘at and from’ Cadiz to the Clyde; the destination later being altered to Liverpool with the consent of the insurers. The purpose of the voyage was to sail to Liverpool and load salt for a fishery in Newfoundland. However, salt became available at Cadiz and, without informing the insurers, it was decided that Henrietta should load the salt at Cadiz and then sail direct to Newfoundland. Some eight days after the change of destination, Henrietta stranded in Cadiz harbour after a storm, and she was later totally lost when French troops set fire to her. The insurers refused to settle the claim because the intended voyage had been abandoned. The House of Lords ruled that the insurers were not liable under the policy; once the insured voyage was abandoned, the policy was no longer in force. House of Lords: [p 103] …The Lords found (7 July 1819) that the voyage ought to be considered as having been abandoned before the loss of the vessel – and the interlocutors were reversed. Upon the question, when a risk commences under the word ‘ at’ , the case of Lambert v Liddard (1814) 5 Taunt 480, makes the nearest approach to the case reported. In Lambert v Liddard , it was held that the risk had commenced upon the ground that the ship had prepared for the voyage , by inquiring for a cargo. Where the contract is, that the beginning of the adventure shall be ‘immediately from and after the arrival of ‘the ship at’, etc; or ‘from the departure’, the difficulty is removed. In the common case where it is ‘at and from’, etc, without any special words to restrict the meaning of the word ‘ at’ , the beginning to load the cargo, or preparing for the voyage, seem to be the principal circumstances to determine the commencement of the risk. It should be noted that the words ‘ at and from’ may have a wide or narrow meaning, depending on the context in which they are used. If, for example, a ship is insured ‘at and from’ Japan, the policy would attach whenever the ship arrived in good safety anywhere in Japan, provided that she was preparing for the insured voyage. But, if the ship is insured ‘at and from’ Tokyo, the policy could only attach when the ship actually arrived in Tokyo itself, in good safety and preparing for the voyage insured. This very point was the issue in the case of Maritime Insurance Co v Alianza Insurance Co of Santander , below. Maritime Insurance Co v Alianza Insurance Co of Santander (1907) 13 Com Cas 46 This was a case involving reinsurance. The plaintiffs, the original insurers of the vessel Dumfriesshire , underwrote a voyage policy ‘at and from a port in New Zealand to Nehoue, New Caledonia and while there and thence to Grangemouth’. The plaintiffs then effected a policy of reinsurance with the defendants, which only provided cover for part of the original risk, namely, ‘at and from 1 July 1904, until 31 August 1904…whilst at port or ports, place or places in New Caledonia’. Dumfriesshire struck the reef surrounding New Caledonia, about 10 miles from the mainland, and suffered damage. The reef was considered as being geographically part of New Caledonia. After settling the claim on the original insurance, the plaintiffs sought to recover their loss under the policy of reinsurance. The reinsurers refused payment. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not recover under the policy of reinsurance. The words ‘port or ports, place or places’ limited the attachment of the cover to a port or place in New Caledonia. A reef, which surrounded the island, could not be construed to mean a ‘port’ or ‘place’ as described in the policy, which, therefore, had not attached at the time of the loss. Walton J: [p 49] …If the reinsurance had been against losses occurring whilst the vessel was ‘at’ New Caledonia, it may be that the defendants would be liable. I think that would be so if the reef was in New Caledonia. But the policy is not against losses occurring whilst ‘at’ New Caledonia. The words used are different—‘at port or ports, place or places in New Caledonia’. Is the effect the same? I have come to the conclusion it is not. [p 50] …I do not wish to attempt an exhaustive interpretation, but it seems to me that the word ‘place’ means some place at which the vessel has arrived to load, or maybe to discharge, or to take coal, or to repair, or even to shelter—a place at which the vessel is for some purpose, not a place at which she happens to be in passing. As the loss did not occur, within the meaning of the policy, at a ‘port or ports, place or places in New Caledonia’, there must be judgment for the defendants. Ship not at named port In accordance with r 3(b) of the Rules for Construction, a ship need not be at the named port at the time the contract of insurance is concluded; the policy attaching later, at the time when the ship arrives at the named port in good safety. In addition to r 3(b), the first part of s 42(1) of the Act also confirms that: Where the subject matter is insured by a voyage policy ‘at and from’ or ‘from’ a particular place, it is not necessary that the ship should be at that place when the contract is concluded. It is emphasised that, where the contract of insurance is concluded before the vessel is at the named port, the policy attaches at ‘the first arrival’ of the vessel in good safety within the ‘geographical limits’ of that named port. This was illustrated in the case of Houghton v Empire Marine Insurance Co Ltd , below. Houghton v Empire Marine Insurance Co Ltd (1866) LR 1 Exch 206 The vessel Urgent arrived at Havana, but, having entered the harbour, grounded and sustained damage when she fouled the anchor of another ship. The insurers claimed they were not liable under the policy because Urgent had not been in good safety when the damage occurred and, that being so, the policy on the previous voyage had not terminated, as the requirement for termination was that the ship should have arrived at the port of destination and be moored there in good safety for 24 hours. The court ruled that the insurers were liable, as the policy had attached as soon as Urgent arrived ‘geographically within the harbour’ of Havana. The meaning of ‘good safety’ at the commencement of the risk was not the same as that for the termination of the risk, 13 and, furthermore, it was irrelevant that the previous policy was still in force. Channel B: [p 209] …It appears that Urgent having arrived off Havana, the captain engaged the services of a steam tug and a pilot for the purpose of taking her to a clear anchorage. She was towed into the harbour, past the point where she ultimately discharged her cargo, to a point at the head of the harbour, called the Regla Shoal. There she grounded, and received damage from the anchor of another ship. In my opinion, she was at that time at Havana, and, consequently, the risk under the policy had attached. The damage occurred at Havana, geographically speaking, and there is nothing which, to my mind, shows that the parties, at the time this policy was underwritten, contemplated any other meaning of the word ‘ at’ . All the limitation which the law appears ever to have imposed as to the time of commencement of the risk in such a case is, that the ship should arrive at the port at which she is insured in a state of sufficient repair or seaworthiness to be enabled to be there in safety: see Parmeter v Cousins , and Bell v Bell , 14 in the latter of which cases the ruling of Lord Ellenborough CJ, at Nisi Prius , was upheld by the court in Blanc. Here, however, there seems to be no doubt that the ship was really within the harbour in good safety, and the loss occurred from a peril in the harbour, and in no way from any injuries she had received before her arrival. The ship being insured while at Havana is evidently, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, insured all the time she is there, and therefore the risk commences on her first arrival, as put by Lord Hardwicke in Motteaux v London Assurance Company . 15 Unless, therefore, we can say that her first arrival at the port is when she cast anchor there, instead of when she enters the port, our judgment must be for the plaintiffs. In many cases, the nature of the port may be such that the two events may be identical. There may be nothing to show the arrival till the vessel casts anchor. But here we have evidence as to the port of Havana which is sufficient, in my judgment, to show that the arrival was before casting anchor. It has been argued that the first arrival, which must be no doubt in good safety, must be identical with the mooring in good safety usually named in outward policies. But I think we cannot construe the terms of one contract by reference to those of another not referred to in it. And it is clear that there is no usage that the duration of the outward and homeward policies should not overlap, because the outward policy usually extends to 24 hours after the vessel is moored in good safety. During those 24 hours, there is no question that there is double insurance, and, therefore, I see no ground for saying that the parties contracted subject to any usage that such a policy would not attach until the previous one had determined…if…they had chosen to make the risk date from the vessel being moored in safety, they would have done so; but, as it stands, it is from the first arrival, which, as a matter of fact, I think to be on her entering the port. My judgment is, therefore, for the plaintiffs, that the rule be discharged. Pigott B: [p 211] …The sole question is whether the policy had attached. I am of opinion that it had. I agree with the plaintiffs counsel, that the language used by the parties ought to have a plain construction, and that as the ship had arrived geographically within the harbour of Havana, and was in good safety there before the injury was received, the risk then commenced. It is emphasised that the principles relating to the attachment of risk are the same whether the policy is on ship or freight. In Foley v United Marine Insurance Co of Sydney , below, the insurers put forward the argument that, because the policy was on freight, the risk could not attach until the vessel had fully discharged her previous cargo and was in readiness to receive the cargo for the voyage under which the freight was insured. Foley v United Marine Insurance Co of Sydney (1870) LR 5 CP 155 The plaintiff owner of the ship Edmund Graham chartered her to the agents of a merchant for a voyage from Mauritius to Akyab in Burma; there to await orders to load a cargo of rice for Europe. The plaintiff insured the freight to be earned under the charterparty with the defendants. Whilst Edmund Graham was discharging her outward cargo in Mauritius, she was wrecked by a violent hurricane. The plaintiff claimed on his policy on freight, but the insurers refused payment on the basis that the cargo from the previous voyage had not been fully discharged and, therefore, the voyage on which the freight had been insured had not yet commenced. Thus, the insurers contended, the policy on freight had not attached. The court ruled that the policy on freight had attached when the ship arrived at Mauritius. The fact that the ship still had cargo on board from a previous voyage when she was wrecked did not mean that the risk on the policy on freight covering the next voyage had not attached. Therefore, the insurers were liable for the loss of freight. Lush J:

Simple English definitions for legal terms

voyage policy

Read a random definition: luctuosa hereditas

A quick definition of voyage policy:

A more thorough explanation:.

A voyage policy is a type of marine insurance policy that covers a vessel or its cargo during a specific voyage.

A shipping company purchases a voyage policy to insure their cargo during a trip from New York to London.
An individual purchases a voyage policy to insure their personal belongings while on a cruise.

These examples illustrate how a voyage policy provides coverage for a specific journey or voyage, protecting against potential losses or damages that may occur during transit.

voyage insurance | voyeur

Data download

Help us make LSD better!

Documentation

Voyage Policies
Notifications
Connections

What is Voyage Policies

Voyage Policy – What Do You Need To Know?

#VoyagePolicies
#ShippingCompanies
#MaritimeActivities

Join the Social Finance

By continuing, you agree to CandleFocus Terms of Service and acknowledge you’ve read our Privacy Policy

Didn't receive confirmation instructions? Resend confirmation instructions

What is Marine Insurance? Types & Policies

What is Marine Insurance?

According to Marine Insurance Act, 1906 :

“ An agreement whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in the manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against incidental to marine adventure. It may cover loss or damage to vessels, cargo or freight. ”

Marine insurance is a type of insurance that provides compensation for losses or damages of ships, cargo, terminals, depots , and any transport by which the property is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and the final destination.

Ships, cargo vessels, terminals, and any other mode of transportation in which products are transferred or acquired between multiple points of origin and their eventual destination are covered by marine insurance .

This trip coverage protects shipping businesses and couriers against expensive potential losses while transporting goods by water by providing protection against transportation-related damages. The phrase was coined when parties began shipping products by sea. Marine insurance covers all means of cargo transportation, despite its name.

Features of a Marine Insurance Policy

The loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any other mode of transport by which property is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and the final destination is covered by a marine insurance contract.

Cargo insurance is a sub-branch of maritime insurance that also includes property that is exposed to the elements on the coast and offshore. Container terminals, ports, oil platforms, pipelines, hulls, maritime casualty, and marine liability are a few examples. Shipping insurance is utilized when goods are shipped through mail or courier. The Marine Insurance Act of 1963 covers any type of insurance in a marine contract.

Marine insurance has rigorous policy requirements. Insurance policies are well-defined contracts. Slight differences or infractions might result in claims being rejected. Therefore insurer guidelines should always be followed. When it comes to reimbursing claims, policy providers stick to strict guidelines, and straying from the path could result in a loss of coverage for a costly claim. With this in mind, it’s critical to understand your policy’s features and requirements to ensure you’re covered.

The agreement and policy will be void unless there is an insurable interest. Anyone whose goods are being transported by sea and who could be harmed has an insurable stake in it. The insurer accepts the contract once the contractual agreement has been strictly followed and a proposal for the assured has been made. If the policy has not been issued individually, it can be derived from a contract.

How does Marine Insurance work?

Marine cargo insurance is a form of property insurance that protects goods while they are being shipped. Certain risks linked with transportation by sea, air, or inland rivers might result in property losses while in transit.

Marine cargo insurance protects commodities and modes of transportation from damage caused by weather, piracy, improper loading or unloading of cargoes, and other factors. This insurance is mostly for international shipments, and it will cover the items from the time they leave the seller’s warehouse until they arrive at the buyer’s warehouse.

Damages and losses to the products while onboard may be covered by the carrier of the goods, whether it be an airline or a shipping business. However, compensation is usually agreed upon on a “per package” or “per consignment” basis. It’s possible that the coverage given won’t be enough to cover the cost of the products transported. As a result, exporters prefer to send their goods after having them insured by an insurance firm.

Also read: Top Container Terminal Operators in the World

Types of Marine Insurances

Different kinds of marine insurance are as follows:

Hull Insurance

This policy covers the vessel of transportation against damages and accidents. The policy covers the hull and torso of the transportation vehicle, like a ship, as well as the different articles present in the vessel.

Machinery Insurance

Machinery Breakdown Insurance provides cover against sudden and unforeseen physical loss or damage to the insured machinery. Machinery to be covered under this policy will include factory production machinery, workshop machinery, generators, industrial lathes, drills, compressors, etc.

Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

The primary purpose of P&I insurance is to provide policyholders with protection against personal injury, illness, and death claims from the crew, passengers, and so forth. P&I insurance also covers things like Liability claims as a result of a collision, Removal of the wreck.

Liability Insurance

Liability insurance is a type of insurance in which compensation is bought to provide any liability occurring on account of a ship crashing or colliding.

Freight, Demurrage & Defence (FD&D) Insurance

Freight Demurrage and Defense (FD&D) is legal costs insurance. The insured member obtains legal support and covers for legal costs up to USD 5 million in relation to disputes, arising from owning and operating a vessel, that fall outside other insurance covers.

Freight Insurance

To transfer the goods from one port to another, the amount paid to the owner of the ship is called freight. The payment of such freight can be made in two ways: either in advance or after the ship reaches its destination safely.

Freight insurance offers and provides protection to merchant vessels’ corporations. It stands for the chance of losing money in the form of freight, in case the cargo is lost due to the ship meeting in an accident.

Marine Cargo Insurance

Marine cargo insurance is also known as cargo insurance. It covers physical damage or loss of your goods while in transit by land, sea, and air. It also offers considerable opportunities and cost advantages if managed correctly. If the cargo is ruined, the owner gets the indemnity from the insurance company.

Types of Marine insurance policies

There are various types of marine insurance policies also which are offered by the insurance companies in order to help the clients to select the best insurance policy.

Different types of marine insurance policies are as follows:

Voyage Policy

A voyage policy is that kind of marine insurance policy which is valid for a particular voyage. It covers the risk from the port of departure up to the port of destination. This type of policy is considered useful for cargo. The insurance company gives indemnity for damage of any property of the insured during the period of the voyage. The liability of the insurer continues during the landing and re-shipping of the goods. The policy ends when the ship reaches the port of arrival. This type of policy is purchased generally for cargo.

Time Policy

This policy is issued for a fixed period of time. The policy is generally taken for one year although it may be less than one year. This policy is commonly used for hull insurance than for cargo insurance. The ship is insured for a fixed period irrespective of voyages.

Mixed Policy

The joint form of voyage policy and time policy is called mixed policy. This policy is generally used for ship insurance.

Open or unvalued policy

In this policy, the value of the cargo and consignment is not put down in the policy beforehand. The value thus left to be decided later on is called the unvalued or open policy. The insurable value of the policy includes the price of the insured’s property, investment price, incidental expenditure, and all the expenditure as well. The unvalued policy is not used in practice so much. This policy is used only in freight insurance.

Valued Policy

This policy is the opposite of the unvalued policy. In this policy, the value of the cargo and consignment is ascertained and mentioned in the policy document beforehand, thus, making clear the value of the reimbursements in case of any loss to the cargo and consignment.

Port Risk Policy

This policy is taken out in order to ensure the safety of the ship while it is stationed in the port. It covers the risks when a ship is anchored in the port. This policy is taken in order to protect the vessel that is portside for a long period of time. Coverage terminates as soon as the vessel leaves the port.

Wage Policy

Wage policy is one where there are no fixed terms of reimbursements mentioned. This is a policy held by a person who does not have an insurable interest in the insured subject. He simply bets or gambles with the underwriter. The policy is not enforced by law.

Floating Policy

The floating policy is also called the declaration policy . This policy is useful for the merchant who delivers cargo regularly. When a person ships goods regularly in a particular geographical area, he will have to purchase a marine policy every time. It involves a lot of time and formalities.

He purchases a policy for a lump sum amount without mentioning the value of goods and name of the ship, etc. it is the agreement between the insurer and insured that the insured declares a number of goods on the basis of shipment documents.

Named Policy

This policy is issued by mentioning the name of the ship and the price of the cargo. The named policy has been receiving popularity in marine insurance.

Block Policy

It is the policy that takes the risk in the block that is from sea route and land route. It does not only protect from the risk of the marine route but also covers the risks that occurred on the land too. It is a very useful policy for landlocked countries.

Marine insurance policy is a necessity for both importers and exporters who deal in the domestic and international transfer of goods. Such a policy provides comprehensive cover for risks, from the time the shipment leaves the seller’s warehouse and reaches its destination, which is usually the buyer’s warehouse.

M/V Blue Marlin: Heavy Lift Vessel

Passenger ships and cargo ships sure help us carry huge loads over wide areas. But what happens when they themselves need to be transported from one area to another? This is when float-on/float-off (Flo-Flo) ships or Heavy Lift Vessels like MV Blue Marlin come in handy. A terrorist attack in the year 2000 destroyed one…

17 Endangered Ocean Species and Marine Animals

Speaking of endangered ocean species, the earth is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. The situation is almost as bad as that 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs became extinct. Despite the fact that extinction is…

Liberty of the Seas Deck Plan

Liberty of the Seas is a Royal Caribbean International Freedom-class cruise ship which made its inaugural voyage in May 2007. Liberty of the Seas is the second ship in the Freedom-class fleet, with Independence of the Seas joining in April 2008. Here are Liberty of the Seas Deck Plan Pics courtesy: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/ Liberty of the…

20 Mechanical Measuring Tools And Gauges Used On Ships

To say that a ship is a complex machine would be a huge understatement. Modern ships are scientific marvels which encompass all streams of science and engineering. Every ship requires flawless integration of millions of parts and instruments. Regardless of the scientific advancements, a ship still relies heavily on navigation tools, mechanical measuring tools, and…

Mariner of the Seas Deck Plan

Mariner of the Seas is one of five Voyager-class cruise ships of Royal Caribbean International. Mariner of the Seas is a second generation Voyager-class vessel. It can accommodate 4,252 passengers. Pics courtesy: https://www.royalcaribbean.com/ Mariner of the Seas Deck Plan Deck 2 Deck 3 Deck 4 Deck 5 Deck 6 Deck 7 Deck 8 Deck 9…

Top Shipbuilding Companies in the World

Before we reveal the list of the top shipbuilding companies in the world, let’s learn how we evaluated the companies. The shipbuilding industry has become an important factor in the global economy and its use in transportation has gained significance in the last decade. The largest shipping market in recent times is the Asia- Pacific…

Definition of 'Voyage Policies'

Do you have a trading or investing definition for our dictionary? Click the Create Definition link to add your own definition. You will earn 150 bonus reputation points for each definition that is accepted.

Is this definition wrong? Let us know by posting to the forum and we will correct it.

Go To The Business Platform

The Most Important Types Of Marine Insurance Policies

If you are entering into an international sale of goods, it is likely that you or your counterparty wants to insure the goods that are going to be shipped.

If you are familiar with Incoterms, you will know that under certain clauses, i.e. CIF Cost, Insurance and Freight and CIP Carriage and Insurance Paid To, insurance is specifically regulated in terms of who has to provide insurance and what minimum coverage must be provided.

Apart from the Incoterms that specifically mandate insurance, it is always advisable that the party that bears the risk of loss or damage while the goods are being shipped buys protection.

Since most of the global trade occurs by ship on cargo, we will discuss the most important types of marine cargo insurance .

As a general principle, there are six types of insurance coverage : voyage policy, time policy, valued policy, unvalued policy, floating policy, open cover.

These kinds of policies are incorporated into the Institute Cargo Clauses , that are common standards for marine cargo insurance (for a detailed analysis of each Institute Cargo Clause (A), (B) and (C) you can refer to our article about insurance clauses).

Voyage policy and time policy

A voyage policy is an insurance that covers a particular voyage only . If the shipment is set to leave Instanbul with destination Rotterdam, a voyage policy would cover that specific journey.

A time policy is a policy that insures the subject matter for a fixed time . A ship may be insured for two years starting at a certain date.

It is also possible to adopt a mixed policy , whereby the insurance covers a particular voyage and runs for a specified period, for example, if a ship is insured for a voyage from Dubai to Genoa, and then for 30 days after the arrival in Genoa.

A common practice is to cover for both pre- and post-shipment risks , as provided by all the Institute Cargo Clauses: cover from the moment the cargo leaves the warehouse or storage depot at the place named in the policy for the commencement of the transit until they are delivered to the consignee or final warehouse or place of storage at the port of destination, or the warehouse or storage place at the port of destination or prior to port of destination.

Where delivery has not taken place, cover continues for a period of 60 days from the time the goods are discharged from the vessel at the final port of discharge.

Valued policy and unvalued policy

A valued policy is an insurance coverage whereby the value of the goods insured is agreed by the parties . The agreed value does not necessarily have to reflect the actual value of the merchandise. What that means is that the buyer may push for a higher insured value in order to take into account the profits that he expects to derive from the goods.

Therefore, if the buyer purchases merchandise for USD 100,000 on which he expects a 10% profit, he might agree to insure the goods for USD 110,000.

While effective in protecting the buyer not only from the loss of the goods but also from the damage of not receiving the goods to the business, a valued policy must be communicated and agreed by the insurer , especially whenever the difference between the actual value and the agreed value is meaningful.

In an unvalued policy , the value of the goods is calculated according to statutory law ; in the case of English law, these rules are dictated by the Marine Insurance Act and essentially provide that the insured value of the goods is their commercial value, plus transportation expenses .

As a result, an unvalued insurance policy will not allow for the inclusion of the profit margin in the value of the goods insured.

Therefore, a valued policy is the preferred kind of insurance in an international sale.

Floating policy and open cover

A floating policy is an insurance policy whereby the details about the shipment and the goods are not known completely at the time when the insurance policy is taken out.

That could be the case where the parties agree that the goods be delivered in different batches , and it is not known in advance the name of the vessels that will perform the shipment, the dates, etc.

Of particular importance is the value at which the goods are insured when the policy is issued. Suppose that the parties agree that USD 100,000 of merchansise be shipped in five different batches worth USD 20,000 each at five different times.

Every time a batch is delivered, the insurer will exhaust the value of the goods from the total amount insured, so that, after the first batch is delivered, the remaining amount at disposal will be USD 80,000.

The problem is that, if for any reason, for example the parties amend the contract to include an additional shipment or raise the value of the goods, the total insurable amount of the floating policy is still what was agreed when the policy was taken out , minus the sums that have been exhausted.

For example, the fifth shipment is worth USD 30,000 instead of USD 20,000, but the amount left in the policy is only USD 20,000, the insurance will cover the full amount of the goods, and a new policy would have to be underwritten.

To avoid this inconvenience, it is extremely popular in the insurance market nowadays to use a so-called open cover.

The open cover is not a policy, but simply an arrangement where the insurer undertakes to issue policies, floating or specific, when required by the assured.

In our previous example, had the parties agreed with the insurer an open cover, they could have requested a specific policy for any amount required, without having to negotiate a different policy underwriting each time, with the risk of letting the goods being shipped uncovered.

Globartis Research

Are you looking for companies engaged in export imports ? Find them on our business platform!

Four Mistakes Sellers Should Avoid In Letters Of Credit

The most important thing for sellers in a letter of credit transaction is to attain to strict...

Get Paid In Advance With Anticipatory Credits

Anticipatory credits are a mix between cash in advance and a standard letter of credit. In fact...

Settle Long-Term Collaborations With Revolving Credits

If the seller and the buyer are involved in a long-term collaboration, they can resort to revolving...

Globartis is the largest business platform for finding distributors, agents and suppliers.

If you are an entrepreneur or a manager visit our business platform and get in touch with other business professional worldwide.

Go to Business Platform

The Law Dictionary

Your Free Online Legal Dictionary • Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.

VOYAGE POLICY Definition & Legal Meaning

Definition & citations:.

Marine policy of insurance covering one trip and only the cargo on the trip.

This article contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. The Law Dictionary is not a law firm, and this page does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Browse Legal Articles

Business Formation

Business Law

Child Custody & Support

Criminal Law

Employment & Labor Law

Estate Planning

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Landlord-Tenant

Motor Vehicle Accidents

Personal Injury

Real Estate & Property Law

Traffic Violations

Browse by Area of Law

About The Law Dictionary

Terms and Conditions

Words and phrases

Personal account.

Access or purchase personal subscriptions
Get our newsletter
Save searches
Set display preferences

Institutional access

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

voyage policy noun

Hide all quotations

What does the noun voyage policy mean?

There is one meaning in OED's entry for the noun voyage policy . See ‘Meaning & use’ for definition, usage, and quotation evidence.

Entry status

OED is undergoing a continuous programme of revision to modernize and improve definitions. This entry has not yet been fully revised.

How common is the noun voyage policy ?

Where does the noun voyage policy come from.

Earliest known use

The earliest known use of the noun voyage policy is in the 1840s.

OED's only evidence for voyage policy is from 1848, in the writing of Joseph Arnould, judge in India and writer.

voyage policy is formed within English, by compounding.

Etymons: voyage n. , policy n. 2

Nearby entries

vox nihili, n. 1637–
vox pop, n. 1735–
vox-pop, v. 1915–
vox-popping, n. 1928–
vox populi, n. c1547–
voyage, n. 1297–
voyagé, adj. 1931–
voyage, v. 1477–
voyageable, adj. 1819–
voyage food, n. c1610–15
voyage policy, n. 1848–
voyage provision, n. 1562–65
voyager, n. 1477–
voyageur, n. 1793–
voyaging, n. 1611–
voyant, n. 1938–
voyant, adj. 1906–
voye, n. 1541–78
voyeur, n. 1900–
voyeur, v. 1959–
voyeurism, n. 1924–

Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary

To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content.

Meaning & use

Entry history for voyage policy, n..

Originally published as part of the entry for voyage, n.

voyage, n. was first published in 1920; not yet revised.

Revision of the OED is a long-term project. Entries in oed.com which have not been revised may include:

corrections and revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
new senses, phrases, and quotations which have been added in subsequent print and online updates.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1920)

Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

View voyage, n. in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for voyage policy, n.

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for voyage policy, n., browse entry.

Voyage policies.

Voyage policies are a type of insurance policy in the marine industry. They provide coverage for risks associated with a particular sea voyage rather than for a specific time period. These policies usually cover losses or damages to the ship, cargo, terminals, and any transport wherein the property is transferred or acquired between points of origin and the final destination.

The phonetics for the keyword “Voyage Policies” is:Voyage: /ˈvɔɪ.ɪdʒ/Policies: /ˈpɑː.lɪ.siz/

Key Takeaways

Sure, here is the information you requested in HTML format:“`HTML

Voyage Policies Cover Specific Journeys: Voyage policies are insurance policies written to cover specific journeys. They are usually used in maritime insurance to cover a ship for a single voyage, but can also be applied to other types of journeys.
Features of a Voyage Policy: They offer coverage irrespective of the duration of the voyage. The policy provides coverage from the commencement of the voyage until its conclusion.
Use in Trade and Cargo Delivery: Voyage policies are an essential part of global trade and are very important in the international shipment of goods. They provide financial protection in case of damage or loss of cargo.

“`This will result in the following content being displayed:1. Voyage Policies Cover Specific Journeys: Voyage policies are insurance policies written to cover specific journeys. They are usually used in maritime insurance to cover a ship for a single voyage, but can also be applied to other types of journeys.2. Features of a Voyage Policy: They offer coverage irrespective of the duration of the voyage. The policy provides coverage from the commencement of the voyage until its conclusion.3. Use in Trade and Cargo Delivery: Voyage policies are an essential part of global trade and are very important in the international shipment of goods. They provide financial protection in case of damage or loss of cargo.

Voyage policies are important in the realm of business and finance since they provide risk coverage for goods during transportation, especially in relation to shipping and marine industries. This type of insurance policy protects the interest of owners, buyers, and sellers in goods by covering losses or damages that may occur during a specific voyage. It is crucially important as cargo can be exposed to a range of risks while in transit, including natural disasters, accidents, theft, and damage. Therefore, having a voyage policy in place provides peace of mind and financial protection to companies involved in the transport of goods in the event of unexpected incidents. The importance also extends to promoting trade, as buyers or sellers may be more willing to engage in business if they know their goods are insured during transit.

Explanation

Voyage policies play a crucial role in international business transactions, where transporting goods, commodities, and other valuable items across seas, land, or air is often required. They are essentially a type of insurance policy designed to cover the risks associated with the transportation of goods from one place to another. A voyage policy gives assurance to the policy holder that should any unanticipated circumstances occur during the course of transit, resulting in damage, loss or destruction of the goods, their financial investment is safeguarded.The purpose of voyage policies is to promote trade and commerce by minimizing the risks inherent in transport. Businesses often encounter various risks such as piracy, adverse weather conditions, accidents, theft, or other unavoidable incidents that could jeopardize their goods during transit. By obtaining a voyage policy, companies can transfer these risks to an insurance provider, therefore providing financial security and enabling steady commercial operations. These policies not only protect assets during transportation, but they also strengthen a company’s financial resilience and sense of security.

Voyage policies are a type of marine insurance that covers a risk while the ship is making a particular voyage, irrespective of the time duration. 1. Cargo Shipping: A firm that deals with international trading may take out a voyage policy to protect their goods being shipped from Hong Kong to San Francisco. The voyage policy will cover any physical loss or damage to the cargo from any external cause during the voyage.2. Moving Homes: Individuals who are moving overseas may purchase a voyage policy to protect their possessions. For instance, moving from New York to London, a personal voyage policy can be taken out to insure personal effects, furniture, and other household items during the transit.3. Antique Shipping: An auction house that has sold a valuable painting to an international buyer may take out a voyage policy. For example, they would get a voyage policy to cover the transport of the painting from New York to a buyer in Paris. The policy would provide coverage for any loss or damage occurred during the voyage.

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ)

Voyage Policies are a type of insurance policy primarily used within marine insurance. The policy provides coverage for a specific voyage, regardless of the time it takes to complete.

Typically, these policies are taken out by various parties involved in shipping goods by sea or other bodies of water. The list includes shipping companies, freight forwarders, or business owners and Merchants.

Usually, a Voyage Policy covers the loss or damage of a ship’s cargo which occurs during a specified voyage. It can be customizable to cover a range of adverse events, including storms, pirates, and other perils of the sea.

The policy is valid for a single voyage, which begins when the goods leave the warehouse or place of storage at the point of origin and ends when they arrive at the final destination.

No, each policy covers a single journey. For coverage of multiple trips, professionals usually take out Time Policies.

While traditionally associated with sea voyages, Voyage Policies can apply to voyages made over land (such as by truck or rail) or by air.

The premium depends on the type of cargo, the perceived risks of the voyage, the value of the goods, and the specifics of the journey (destination, route etc.).

Any deviation from the agreed-upon voyage can potentially void the policy, unless the insurer consents to the change.

Yes, while a Voyage Policy covers for risks during a particular voyage, a Time Policy provides coverage for a certain period, regardless of the number or nature of voyages undertaken during that time.

Related Finance Terms

Marine Insurance: This insurance covers loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals and any transport by which the property is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and the final destination.
Underwriting: This process used by insurers to determine the risk associated with an applicant, establish pricing, or deny coverage altogether.
Insured Perils: They are the situations that a policy covers, such as fire, explosion, collision, and theft in the context of voyage policies.
Deviation: It refers to the situation where the vessel strays from the course outlined in the policy, which may lead to the cancellation of the policy.
Policy Warranties: These are the terms and conditions of the voyage policies which the policy holder is obligated to comply with.

Sources for More Information

Investopedia
IRMI (International Risk Management Institute)
BusinessDictionary
Entrepreneur

Due makes it easier to retire on your terms. We give you a realistic view on exactly where you’re at financially so when you retire you know how much money you’ll get each month. Get started today.

Due Fact-Checking Standards and Processes

To ensure we’re putting out the highest content standards, we sought out the help of certified financial experts and accredited individuals to verify our advice. We also rely on them for the most up to date information and data to make sure our in-depth research has the facts right, for today… Not yesterday. Our financial expert review board allows our readers to not only trust the information they are reading but to act on it as well. Most of our authors are CFP (Certified Financial Planners) or CRPC (Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor) certified and all have college degrees. Learn more about annuities, retirement advice and take the correct steps towards financial freedom and knowing exactly where you stand today. Learn everything about our top-notch financial expert reviews below… Learn More

Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of voyage – Learner’s Dictionary

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

Translations of voyage

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

be up to your eyeballs in something

to be very busy with something

Binding, nailing, and gluing: talking about fastening things together

Learn more with +Plus

Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
English–Dutch Dutch–English
English–French French–English
English–German German–English
English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
English–Italian Italian–English
English–Japanese Japanese–English
English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
English–Polish Polish–English
English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
English–Spanish Spanish–English
English–Swedish Swedish–English
Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
Learner’s Dictionary Noun
Translations
All translations

Add voyage to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Definition of 'voyage'

Video: pronunciation of voyage

voyage in American English

Voyage in british english, examples of 'voyage' in a sentence voyage, trends of voyage.

View usage over: Since Exist Last 10 years Last 50 years Last 100 years Last 300 years

In other languages voyage

American English : voyage / ˈvɔɪɪdʒ /
Brazilian Portuguese : viagem
Chinese : 航程
European Spanish : travesía
French : voyage
German : Reise
Italian : viaggio in nave, nello spazio
Japanese : 旅
Korean : 긴 여행
European Portuguese : viagem
Spanish : travesía
Thai : การเดินทาง

Browse alphabetically voyage

voyage charter
All ENGLISH words that begin with 'V'

Related terms of voyage

maiden voyage
ocean voyage
View more related words

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

Share full article

Supported by

Biden Administration Releases Revised Title IX Rules

The new regulations extended legal protections to L.G.B.T.Q. students and rolled back several policies set under the Trump administration.

President Biden standing at a podium next to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

By Zach Montague and Erica L. Green

Reporting from Washington

The Biden administration issued new rules on Friday cementing protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students under federal law and reversing a number of Trump-era policies that dictated how schools should respond to cases of alleged sexual misconduct in K-12 schools and college campuses.

The new rules, which take effect on Aug. 1, effectively broadened the scope of Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. They extend the law’s reach to prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and widen the range of sexual harassment complaints that schools will be responsible for investigating.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said in a call with reporters.

The rules deliver on a key campaign promise for Mr. Biden, who declared he would put a “quick end” to the Trump-era Title IX rules and faced mounting pressure from Democrats and civil rights leaders to do so.

The release of the updated rules, after two delays, came as Mr. Biden is in the thick of his re-election bid and is trying to galvanize key electoral constituencies.

Through the new regulations, the administration moved to include students in its interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark 2020 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. The Trump administration held that transgender students were not protected under federal laws, including after the Bostock ruling .

In a statement, Betsy DeVos, who served as Mr. Trump’s education secretary, criticized what she called a “radical rewrite” of the law, asserting that it was an “endeavor born entirely of progressive politics, not sound policy.”

Ms. DeVos said the inclusion of transgender students in the law gutted decades of protections and opportunities for women. She added that the Biden administration also “seeks to U-turn to the bad old days where sexual misconduct was sent to campus kangaroo courts, not resolved in a way that actually sought justice.”

While the regulations released on Friday contained considerably stronger protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students, the administration steered clear of the lightning-rod issue of whether transgender students should be able to play on school sports teams corresponding to their gender identity.

The administration stressed that while, writ large, exclusion based on gender identity violated Title IX, the new regulations did not extend to single-sex living facilities or sports teams. The Education Department is pursuing a second rule dealing with sex-related eligibility for male and female sports teams. The rule-making process has drawn more than 150,000 comments.

Under the revisions announced on Friday, instances where transgender students are subjected to a “hostile environment” through bullying or harassment, or face unequal treatment and exclusion in programs or facilities based on their gender identity, could trigger an investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Instances where students are repeatedly referred to by a name or pronoun other than one they have chosen could also be considered harassment on a case-by-case basis.

“This is a bold and important statement that transgender and nonbinary students belong, in their schools and in their communities,” said Olivia Hunt, the policy director for the National Center for Transgender Equality.

The regulations appeared certain to draw to legal challenges from conservative groups.

May Mailman, the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, said in a statement that the group planned to sue the administration. She said it was clear that the statute barring discrimination on the basis of “sex” means “binary and biological.”

“The unlawful omnibus regulation reimagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for ‘gender identity,’ which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX,” she said.

The existing rules, which took effect under Mr. Trump in 2020, were the first time that sexual assault provisions were codified under Title IX. They bolstered due process rights of accused students, relieved schools of some legal liabilities and laid out rigid parameters for how schools should conduct impartial investigations.

They were a sharp departure from the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law, which came in the form of unenforceable guidance documents directing schools to ramp up investigations into sexual assault complaints under the threat of losing federal funding. Scores of students who had been accused of sexual assault went on to win court cases against their colleges for violating their due process rights under the guidelines.

The Biden administration’s rules struck a balance between the Obama and Trump administration’s goals. Taken together, the regulation largely provides more flexibility for how schools conduct investigations, which advocates and schools have long lobbied for.

Catherine E. Lhamon, the head of the department’s Office for Civil Rights who also held the job under President Barack Obama, called the new rules the “most comprehensive coverage under Title IX since the regulations were first promulgated in 1975.”

They replaced a narrower definition of sex-based harassment adopted under the Trump administration with one that would include a wider range of conduct. And they reversed a requirement that schools investigate only incidents alleged to have occurred on their campuses or in their programs.

Still, some key provisions in the Trump-era rules were preserved, including one allowing informal resolutions and another prohibiting penalties against students until after an investigation.

Among the most anticipated changes was the undoing of a provision that required in-person, or so-called live hearings, in which students accused of sexual misconduct, or their lawyers, could confront and question accusers in a courtroom-like setting.

The new rules allow in-person hearings, but do not mandate them. They also require a process through which a decision maker could assess a party or witness’s credibility, including posing questions from the opposing party.

“The new regulations put an end to unfair and traumatic grievance procedures that favor harassers,” Kel O’Hara, a senior attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. “No longer will student survivors be subjected to processes that prioritize the interests of their perpetrators over their own well being and safety.”

The new rules also allow room for schools to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard, a lower burden of proof than the DeVos-era rules encouraged, through which administrators need only to determine whether it was more likely than not that sexual misconduct had occurred.

The renewed push for that standard drew criticism from legal groups who said the rule stripped away hard-won protections against flawed findings.

“When you are dealing with accusations of really one of the most heinous crimes that a person can commit — sexual assault — it’s not enough to say, ‘50 percent and a feather,’ before you brand someone guilty of this repulsive crime,” said Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The changes concluded a three-year process in which the department received 240,000 public comments. The rules also strengthen protections for pregnant students, requiring accommodations such as a bigger desk or ensuring access to elevators and prohibiting exclusion from activities based on additional needs.

Title IX was designed to end discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities at all institutions receiving federal financial assistance, beginning with sports programs and other spaces previously dominated by male students.

The effects of the original law have been pronounced. Far beyond the impact on school programs like sports teams, many educators credit Title IX with setting the stage for academic parity today. Female college students routinely outnumber male students on campus and have become more likely than men of the same age to graduate with a four-year degree.

But since its inception, Title IX has also become a powerful vehicle through which past administrations have sought to steer schools to respond to the dynamic and diverse nature of schools and universities.

While civil rights groups were disappointed that some ambiguity remains for the L.G.B.T.Q. students and their families, the new rules were widely praised for taking a stand at a time when education debates are reminiscent to the backlash after the Supreme Court ordered schools to integrate.

More than 20 states have passed laws that broadly prohibit anyone assigned male at birth from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams or participating in scholastic athletic programs, while 10 states have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms based on their gender identity.

“Some adults are showing up and saying, ‘I’m going to make school harder for children,” said Liz King, senior program director of the education equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It’s an incredibly important rule, at an incredibly important moment.”

Schools will have to cram over the summer to implement the rules, which will require a retraining staff and overhauling procedures they implemented only four years ago.

Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,700 colleges and universities, said in a statement that while the group welcomed the changes in the new rule, the timeline “disregards the difficulties inherent in making these changes on our nation’s campuses in such a short period of time.”

“After years of constant churn in Title IX guidance and regulations,” Mr. Mitchell said, “we hope for the sake of students and institutions that there will be more stability and consistency in the requirements going forward.”

Zach Montague is based in Washington. He covers breaking news and developments around the district. More about Zach Montague

Erica L. Green is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Erica L. Green

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Search form, you are here, final rule: definition of “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms.

A firearm with a pen laying on an official application to own or manufacture a firearm.

On April 10 , 2024, the Attorney General signed ATF’s final rule, Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms, amending ATF’s regulations in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 478. The final rule implements the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA,” effective June 25, 2022), which broadened the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms (other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker). The Final Rule clarifies that definition. It will be published in the Federal Register and will be effective 30-days from publication.

This final rule incorporates BSCA’s definitions of “predominantly earn a profit” and “terrorism,” and amends the regulatory definitions of “engaged in the business as a dealer other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit” to ensure each conforms with the BSCA’s statutory changes and can be relied upon by the public.

The final rule clarifies when a person is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms at wholesale or retail by:

clarifying the definition of “dealer,” and defining the terms “purchase,” “sale,” and “something of value” as they apply to dealers;
adding definitions for the term “personal collection (or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection),” and for “responsible person”;
setting forth conduct that is presumed to constitute “engaging in the business” of dealing in firearms, and presumed to demonstrate the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” from the sale or disposition of firearms, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, in civil and administrative proceedings;
clarifying that the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” does not require the person to have received pecuniary gain, and that intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes;
clarifying the circumstances when a person would not be presumed to engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, including as an auctioneer, or when purchasing firearms for, and selling firearms from, a personal collection;
addressing the procedures former licensees, and responsible persons acting on behalf of such licensees, must follow when they liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their license; and
clarifying that licensees must follow the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 CFR 478.94 and Subpart H , rather than using an ATF Form 4473 when firearms are transferred to other licensees, including transfers by a licensed sole proprietor to that person’s personal collection.

Read Final Rule

Related Resources

Overview of Final Rule 2022R-17F Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms (coming soon)
Final Rule 2022R-17F – Questions & Answers
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Definition of “Engaged in the Business”
Notice of Proposed Rule Making – Comments
Press Release: Justice Department Publishes New Rule To Update Definition of "Engaged in the Business" as a Firearms Dealer
Director Dettelbach’s Remarks on the “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule

Background Information

Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, Public Law 117-159 (June 25, 2022)
Gun Control Act of 1968
National Firearms Act
Rules and Regulation
Regulations.atf.gov

Contact Information

For questions regarding the application of the final rule , email the Firearms Industry Programs Branch .
For media inquiries, email ATF Public Affairs or call 202-648-8500 .
For congressional inquiries, email ATF Legislative Affairs or call 202-648-8510 .
For questions regarding the rulemaking process, email the Office of Regulatory Affairs .

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

IMAGES

What is a voyage policy? Definition and examples
What is a voyage policy? Definition and examples
Travel Policy en
A Layman's Guide to Laytime, Charter party Agreement and Voyage Charter
Comment bien définir sa politique voyage ?
Innovative solutions in travel policy

VIDEO

Types of Marine Insurance Policies, Voyage Policy, Time Policy etc
Digital info plus
Digital info plus
Virtual Voyage II on Social Innovation : First Journey
Digital info plus
COUNTDOWN TO THE SHOWDOWN

COMMENTS

Voyage Policy: What it Means, How it Works
Voyage Policy: A financial protection plan that provides coverage for goods in transit by sea. In order for a voyage policy to be valid, the vessel transporting the cargo must be in good condition ...
What is a voyage policy? Definition and examples
Definition and examples. A voyage policy is an insurance policy, specifically a marine insurance policy, that provides coverage due to unforeseen risks to cargo that is being transported by ship. The policy covers damage caused by, for example, earthquake, lightning, fire, and collision. It won't cover losses or damage that occured as the ...
Voyage Policy
A voyage policy is different from a time policy in that it considers other aspects of marine travel. How Voyage Policies Work. Any insurance policy is designed to indemnify the insured against risks of damage to property, the environment, or human life in the event of a natural calamity, accident, theft, etc. A voyage involves the following ...
What is a Voyage Policy? Explanation, Application, and Considerations
A voyage policy, also known as marine cargo insurance, provides coverage for the cargo of a ship during a specific journey. Unlike typical insurance policies, it is not time-based and expires upon the ship's arrival at its destination. This article delves into the intricacies of voyage policies, their benefits, limitations, and key ...
Voyage policy Definition & Meaning
noun. voy· age policy. : a marine insurance policy covering only a stated voyage.
voyage policy Definition, Meaning & Usage
Definition of "voyage policy" A type of marine insurance coverage that applies exclusively to a specified trip ; How to use "voyage policy" in a sentence. A voyage policy was obtained to secure the ship's transatlantic journey. The cargo was covered under the voyage policy for its transport from New York to London.
Time and Voyage Policies
VOYAGE POLICY. A voyage policy of insurance, whether it be on ship, goods or freight, is defined by s 25(1) of the Act in the following terms: Where the contract is to insure the subject matter at and from, or from one place to another or others, the policy is called a 'voyage policy' …
voyage policy definition · LSData
A quick definition of voyage policy: A voyage policy is a type of insurance policy that covers a ship or its cargo during a specific journey. It is a contract between the insurer and the insured, which details the terms of the coverage. Other types of insurance policies include accident policies, which cover bodily injuries resulting from ...
Candlefocus Financial Terms & Glossary
A voyage policy works in much the same way as other forms of insurance, with three primary components - the insuring agreement, the terms and conditions, and the exclusions. ... The 'exclusions' of a voyage policy are important, as they define the circumstances which are not covered by the policy. Such exclusions include the breakdown of the ...
Voyage Policy
Voyage Policy voyage policy n : a marine insurance policy covering only a stated voyage . Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
What is Marine Insurance? Types & Policies in 2024
Voyage Policy. A voyage policy is that kind of marine insurance policy which is valid for a particular voyage. It covers the risk from the port of departure up to the port of destination. This type of policy is considered useful for cargo. The insurance company gives indemnity for damage of any property of the insured during the period of the ...
Voyage Policies Definition
Voyage policies can be purchased from a variety of insurance companies. The cost of the policy will depend on a number of factors, including the type of ship, the value of the cargo, the length of the voyage, and the level of coverage that is desired. Voyage policies are an important tool for protecting the interests of ship owners and cargo ...
The Most Important Types Of Marine Insurance Policies
A voyage policy is an insurance that covers a particular voyage only. If the shipment is set to leave Instanbul with destination Rotterdam, a voyage policy would cover that specific journey. A time policy is a policy that insures the subject matter for a fixed time. A ship may be insured for two years starting at a certain date.
VOYAGE POLICY Definition & Meaning
VOYAGE POLICY Definition & Legal Meaning. Definition & Citations: Marine policy of insurance covering one trip and only the cargo on the trip. Disclaimer. This article contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. The Law Dictionary is not a law firm, and this page does not ...
voyage policy, n. meanings, etymology and more
See 'Meaning & use' for definition, usage, and quotation evidence. Entry status. ... OED's only evidence for voyage policy is from 1848, in the writing of Joseph Arnould, judge in India and writer. voyage policy is formed within English, by compounding. Etymons: voyage n., policy n. 2.
Voyage Policy financial definition of Voyage Policy
Voyage Policy In shipping, an insurance policy that provides coverage for the entirety of the voyage (rather than a stated period of time). A voyage policy usually covers damage or loss to the cargo , but not to the ship.
Types of Marine insurance policies in India
Voyage policy - A voyage policy works on the same lines as the marine cargo insurance. Under this policy, the insurance company agrees to cover the losses or damages caused to the cargo during a specific voyage. It expires when the vessel reaches its destination, irrespective of the time it takes to reach there.
Voyage Policies
Definition Voyage policies are a type of insurance policy in the marine industry. They provide coverage for risks associated with a particular sea voyage rather than for a specific time period. These policies usually cover losses or damages to the ship, cargo, terminals, and any transport wherein the property is transferred or acquired between points […]
Definition Of Voyage Policy In Insurance
Definition of "Voyage policy" Written by. Colleen MacCallum. EXIT Right Realty. Ocean marine insurance covering one trip. Ocean marine insurance is written either for a specific time period or per trip. A voyage policy is usually written for cargo, whereas a time policy covers a ship. Need help as a:
Voyage Definition & Meaning
How to use voyage in a sentence. an act or instance of traveling : journey; a course or period of traveling by other than land routes; an account of a journey especially by sea… See the full definition
Voyage Policy Definition
definition. Open Split View. Cite. Voyage Policy. A voyage policy is that kind of marine insurance policy which is valid for a particular voyage. Sample 1. Based on 1 documents. Remove Advertising. Voyage Policy means a marine policy under which the subject -matter is insured-.
VOYAGE
VOYAGE definition: a long journey, especially by ship, or in space: . Learn more.
VOYAGE definition in American English
voyage in American English. (ˈvɔiɪdʒ) (verb -aged, -aging) noun. 1. a course of travel or passage, esp. a long journey by water to a distant place. 2. a passage through air or space, as a flight in an airplane or space vehicle. 3. a journey or expedition from one place to another by land.
Biden Administration Releases Revised Title IX Rules
The new regulations extended legal protections to L.G.B.T.Q. students and rolled back several policies set under the Trump administration.
U.S. Department of Education Releases Final Title IX Regulations
Department Advances Educational Equity and Opportunity. For more than 50 years, Title IX has paved the way for tremendous strides in access to education for millions of students across the country.
PDF Memorandum of Understanding U.s. Department of Commerce National
3403) relevant to this MOA include conducting interdisciplinary voyages or other scientific activities in conjunction with other Federal agencies or academic or educational institutions to explore and survey little-known areas of the marine environment; give priority attention to deep ocean regions; conduct scientific voyages to locate, define, and
Final Rule: Definition of "Engaged in the Business" as a Dealer in
On April 10, 2024, the Attorney General signed ATF's final rule, Definition of "Engaged in the Business" as a Dealer in Firearms, amending ATF's regulations in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), part 478. The final rule implements the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act ("BSCA," effective June 25, 2022), which broadened the definition of when a
Federal Register :: Intermediate Improvement to the Disability
Support for the Policy Change Based on the Nature of Work, Ability To Accurately Recall Information About Work, and Adjudicative Efficiency. Comment: Many commenters supported our proposal to revise the definition of PRW by reducing the relevant work period from 15 to 5 years. Several commenters agreed changing the relevant work period to 5 ...

Voyage Policy: What it Means, How it Works

What Is a Voyage Policy?

Key Takeaways

Understanding a Voyage Policy

What is a voyage policy? Definition and examples

Voyage insurance not time-based

Marine insurance – a brief history

Share this:

voyage policy

Law Explorer

TIME AND VOYAGE POLICIES

voyage policy

A quick definition of voyage policy:

Help us make LSD better!

What is Voyage Policies

Join the Social Finance

What is Marine Insurance? Types & Policies

What is Marine Insurance?

Features of a Marine Insurance Policy

How does Marine Insurance work?

Types of Marine Insurances

Hull Insurance

Machinery Insurance

Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Insurance

Liability Insurance

Freight, Demurrage & Defence (FD&D) Insurance

Freight Insurance

Marine Cargo Insurance

Types of Marine insurance policies

Voyage Policy

Time Policy

Mixed Policy

Open or unvalued policy

Valued Policy

Port Risk Policy

Wage Policy

Floating Policy

Named Policy

Block Policy

Similar Posts

M/V Blue Marlin: Heavy Lift Vessel

17 Endangered Ocean Species and Marine Animals

Liberty of the Seas Deck Plan

20 Mechanical Measuring Tools And Gauges Used On Ships

Mariner of the Seas Deck Plan

Top Shipbuilding Companies in the World

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Definition of 'Voyage Policies'

The Most Important Types Of Marine Insurance Policies

Voyage policy and time policy

Valued policy and unvalued policy

Floating policy and open cover

Further reading

Four Mistakes Sellers Should Avoid In Letters Of Credit

Get Paid In Advance With Anticipatory Credits

Settle Long-Term Collaborations With Revolving Credits

The Law Dictionary

VOYAGE POLICY Definition & Legal Meaning

Browse Legal Articles

Browse by Area of Law

Words and phrases

Institutional access

Institutional account management

voyage policy noun

What does the noun voyage policy mean?

Entry status

How common is the noun voyage policy ?

Nearby entries

Meaning & use

OED First Edition (1920)

OED Second Edition (1989)

Citation details

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

Explanation

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ)

Related Finance Terms

Sources for More Information

Due Fact-Checking Standards and Processes

Meaning of voyage – Learner’s Dictionary