62 Anlage G 



Reply froni Messrs. Hogg & Heath, dated London, the 14 th March 1904. 



In reply to your favour the 12 th inst, we have carefully considered the 

 questions you put before us, and beg to offer your our opinion in reply 

 to same: 



1. The policy you say contain the clause: 



"Including all liberties as per bill of lading" The bill of lading 

 under clause 9 gives the master perrnission under certain circumstances 

 to land goods short of destination. This, we should say, is one of the 

 liberties conteunplated by the clause in the policy, and as such would 

 be covered by underwriters, — that is the policy would not be voided 

 thereby. 



a) We are of opinion that underwriters would not be liable for any 

 damage or loss caused to the goods during detention at an inter- 

 rnediate port — nor do we think they would be on risk on the goods 

 during the forwarding to original destination. The reason of this being 

 that by an exercise of an opinion by the master the voyage has ended 

 at a port other than the original one and with it underwriters' 

 liability. 



b) We are of opinion that underwriters would not be liable for extra 

 charges incurred in connection with storage or forwarding the goods to 

 original destination. 



2. The underwriters not being in our opinion liable for the forwarding 

 they could not deraand an additional premium. 



3. Had the policy not contained the F. C. S. clause the position would not 

 in our opinion be in any way altered. 



It should be borne in mind that the underwriters insure against "cap- 

 ture and seizure" and not against fear of capture and seizure. The same 

 axiom holds good in this portion of a marine policy as in others portions 

 viz. — that the damage or loss or expense claimed for must be shown to be 

 due to a direct consequence of the peril insured against and not a conse- 

 quence of a consequence. 



To take a simple case — underwriters insure against perils of the sea but 

 they are not liable for damage caused in delay due to bad whether. 



If we might suggest a way by which, in the circumstances named by 

 you, all parties would be in a satisfactory position it is this. 



"Upon the facts becoming known let the original policy be caucelled 

 and let the assured take out a policy covering the goods whilst in an inter- 

 mediate port— against tire etc. and until arrival at* final destination, or 

 perhaps better still let them offer the original underwriters an additional 

 premium to hold the goods covered." 



We do not think we can usefully add any more, 



