Скачков Н.Г. О взаимном страховании ответственности в морских транспортных операциях и об упрочении правового статуса страхователя

Аннотация: Mutual insurance of liability of ship-owners is subject to legal traditions established during the period of dynamic development of the British insurance market. The idea to cover financial losses by means of targeted allocation of income sources seems to be the key one even nowadays since the foundations of insurance organization do not intend for no particular reason to give up the dependence on the extent of participation in reimbursements aimed at leveling of some or other adverse effect. However, diversification of types of liability does not often gain understanding while absolutely new objects of insurance appear with repeated regularity. For this outcome, updating of technological cycle of mechanisms of transportation, handling, warehousing and document flow is enough. Just this fact directly indicates washing out of distinguishing between compensating and accumulating elements of insurance event since the problems of material damages in insurance and their impact on amounts of insurance payments seem to be open rather than solved forever. At present something is initiated that hazily reminds step-by-step transformation of personal insurance institutions in general. For this purpose it is enough to declare that rates of sustained loss are determined independently, based on delicts of ship-owners and on commonness of trends to ensure safe navigation. The expected remark on the decision function of rule of law will not be out of place in the situation of obvious uncertainty but the general legal expansion does not seem to be desirable since it only aggravates already complicated state of affairs. It is good when the state considers progressive international legal proposals to be the call for action and explains in detail what mutual liabilities shall be shared by participants of insurance agreement. But how shall we proceed when the endeavors of legal base of some or other country are obviously insufficient while the possibility to use the methods of comprehensive unification is negligibly small? In such a case one sticks to the hope that sooner or later the legislation on insurance of liability of ship-owners eliminates the optional nature obviously inherent to it and the forthcoming waiting is short.

Abstract: Mutual insurance of liability of ship-owners is subject to legal traditions established during the period of dynamic development of the British insurance market. The idea to cover financial losses by means of targeted allocation of income sources seems to be the key one even nowadays since the foundations of insurance organization do not intend for no particular reason to give up the dependence on the extent of participation in reimbursements aimed at leveling of some or other adverse effect. However, diversification of types of liability does not often gain understanding while absolutely new objects of insurance appear with repeated regularity. For this outcome, updating of technological cycle of mechanisms of transportation, handling, warehousing and document flow is enough. Just this fact directly indicates washing out of distinguishing between compensating and accumulating elements of insurance event since the problems of material damages in insurance and their impact on amounts of insurance payments seem to be open rather than solved forever. At present something is initiated that hazily reminds step-by-step transformation of personal insurance institutions in general. For this purpose it is enough to declare that rates of sustained loss are determined independently, based on delicts of ship-owners and on commonness of trends to ensure safe navigation. The expected remark on the decision function of rule of law will not be out of place in the situation of obvious uncertainty but the general legal expansion does not seem to be desirable since it only aggravates already complicated state of affairs. It is good when the state considers progressive international legal proposals to be the call for action and explains in detail what mutual liabilities shall be shared by participants of insurance agreement. But how shall we proceed when the endeavors of legal base of some or other country are obviously insufficient while the possibility to use the methods of comprehensive unification is negligibly small? In such a case one sticks to the hope that sooner or later the legislation on insurance of liability of ship-owners eliminates the optional nature obviously inherent to it and the forthcoming waiting is short.