The F1: A closer look at the Bacardi principle and section 11 of the Insurance Act

The Facts

MOK Petro Energy FZC v Argo (No. 604) Limited, The F1 [2024] EWHC 1935 (Comm) concerned a cargo of 11,800 MT of 92 RON unleaded gasoline (“the Cargo”) that had been loaded onto the tanker F1 (“the Vessel”) in Sohar, Oman. The Cargo was insured under an all-risks marine open cover on the ICC(A) wording (“the Policy”).

The Cargo consisted of a blend of gasoline and methanol. The gasoline and methanol used for the Cargo were drawn from four shore tanks (two gasoline, two methanol). They were loaded onto the Vessel via connecting pipelines and then blended in a tank on board the Vessel.

All gasoline-methanol blends have a phase separation temperature (PST), i.e., a temperature at or under which the blend will separate into a gasoline-rich upper layer and a methanol-rich lower layer. Phase separation is undesirable as phase-separated blends have a lower octane value and may damage the engine in which they are used. Put another way: the lower the PST, the better for the blend.

Also relevant is the fact that water increases the propensity of a gasoline-methanol blend to under phase separation. Unwanted water contamination therefore increases the PST of a blend.

The Cargo specifications, per the sale and purchase contract between MOK (the buyer) and PetroChina (the seller), required the Cargo to have a PST of 1°C or below.  However, when the Vessel arrived at the discharge port, the Cargo was found to have a PST of 29°C. The Cargo was rejected by MOK’s end purchaser and ultimately sold by MOK to a salvage buyer. MOK claimed an indemnity under the Policy for the difference between (i) the value of the Cargo had it complied with specifications and (ii) the value at which it was actually sold.

Insurers declined the claim. In the ensuing trial, the Commercial Court upheld insurers’ declinature. While much of the judgment turned on the specific facts of the case, the Court’s findings on the following two issues carry wider implications for policyholders:

1. Whether the mere fact that the Cargo had been defectively blended could constitute damage.
2. How should a Court assess whether compliance with a warranty would reduce the risk of loss, as required under section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015.

Whether the mere fact of defective blending could constitute damage

Clause 1 of the ICC(A) wording provides that the insurance “covers all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter except as provided in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below”.

A policyholder seeking to obtain cover under the ICC(A) wording must generally establish (i) a fortuitous event which (ii) caused loss or damage to the insured cargo. Insured cargo is damaged only where it undergoes an adverse change in physical state.

In this case, one of MOK’s arguments was that (i) PetroChina’s decision to blend the gasoline and methanol in the proportions actually used was fortuitous, and (ii) this blending caused damage by resulting in a product that had a propensity to phase separate at 17°C, which was higher than the contractually stipulated PST of 1°C (although the blend did not actually undergo phase separation).

The question that arose was – could the blend be regarded as damaged merely because it was defective from the moment of its creation? Dias J held that it could not as there had never been a change to the physical state of the blend. The facts were on all fours with the well-known Bacardi Breezers case: Bacardi-Martini Beverages Ltd v Thomas Hardy Packaging Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 549 (“Bacardi”).

• In Bacardi, a drinks manufacturer mixed cardon dioxide which it did not appreciate had been contaminated with benzene with water and concentrate to form light alcoholic drinks. Unsurprisingly, the contaminated drinks were unmarketable. The issue was whether there had been “physical damage” to the drinks for the purpose of a limitation of liability clause. The English Court of Appeal held that there had been no damage – the drinks had not been subject to damage, but were merely defective from the moment of their creation.
• Similarly, in the present case, the blend was formed through the mixing of gasoline and methanol, and had a propensity to phase separate from the moment of its creation. It had never existed without this propensity. Since there was no change in the physical state of the blend to speak of, it could not, held the Court, be said to have suffered damage.

How should a Court assess whether compliance with a warranty would reduce the risk of loss?

Section 11 of IA 2015 applies to (among others) warranties which, if complied with, would tend to reduce the risk of loss of a particular kind. The general effect of section 11 is that, where an insured has breached a warranty to which section 11 applies:

• if the insured can show that “the non-compliance with the warranty could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred”, per section 11(3); then
• the insurer would not be able to rely on the insured’s breach to exclude/limit/discharge its liability.

Put another way, section 11  obviates an insured’s breach of warranty where the warranty is not relevant to the insured’s actual loss.

In the present case, the Policy contained an express warranty requiring a surveyor to inspect and certify the connecting pipelines between the Vessel and the shore tanks. On the facts, MOK’s surveyor had done the former but not the latter. Accordingly, the Court found that MOK had not complied with the express warranty.

The issue then became whether section 11 negated MOK’s breach of warranty. This would be the case if MOK could show that “the non-compliance with the warranty could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred”.

MOK’s primary case had been that the blend had been fortuitously contaminated with water either when the gasoline and methanol were loaded onto the Vessel via connecting pipelines, or when they were blended on board the Vessel. This water contamination in turn increased the PST of the blend (see above). The Court therefore assumed, for the purposes of its section 11 analysis, that the “loss which actually occurred” was the contamination of the blend with water as alleged by MOK.

On the facts, MOK’s surveyor had inspected the pipelines and found no water contamination, but had not issued a certificate in respect of the inspection. Arguably, the requirement  to issue a certificate (when an inspection had already been carried out and no trace of water contamination had been found) was a mere formality and the failure to issue a certificate could not have increased the risk of loss (water contamination). The question then arose – in considering whether “the non-compliance with the warranty could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred”:

• Should the Court consider only the effect of the particular breach of warranty committed by MOK (i.e., only the effect of its surveyor’s failure to issue a certificate)? If so, MOK’s breach arguably would not have increased the risk of water contamination, and MOK would be able to rely on section 11 to negate its breach of warranty.
• Alternatively, should the Court consider the effect of non-compliance with the warranty as a whole (i.e., the effect of both not inspecting and not certifying the pipelines)? If so, non-compliance with the warranty as a whole would probably have increased the risk of contamination, and MOK would not be able to rely on section 11.

Dias J preferred the second view, holding that section 11 was directed at the effect of compliance with the entire warranty and not with the consequences of the specific breach by the insured, and that paragraph 96 of the Explanatory Notes to IA 2015 supported this reading. Accordingly, MOK’s breach of warranty would have been fatal to its claim.

Implications for policyholders – English law

Neither of the findings discussed are policyholder-friendly.

That said, Dias J’s finding that the mere fact of defective blending cannot constitute damage intuitively accords with the reason why mere defects are not covered under all-risks insurance – namely, that all-risks insurance is not meant to guarantee the proper manufacture or construction of the property insured. A parallel can be drawn with construction all-risks policies, which typically do not cover the costs of rectifying defects in design or workmanship. Apart from this, the F1 is also significant for being the first case to explicitly endorse the applicability of Bacardi in an insurance context (Bacardi having been concerned with a dispute under a supply of goods contract).

As for section 11 of IA 2015, this case (as noted in an earlier article) is significant for being the decision to consider that section. That said, Dias J’s observations (i.e. that it is the effect of non-compliance with the entire warranty, rather than the insured’s particular breach, that should be taken into account) were obiter and it remains to be seen whether another Court would agree with her. In our view, notwithstanding Dias J’s observations, the use of the definitive article in section 11(3) (“the non-compliance”) might suggest on the contrary that it is the insured’s particular breach that should be looked at.

Implications for policyholders – Singapore Law

The authors – both of whom are APAC-based – will briefly consider the implications of this decision for Singapore law, a commonwealth jurisdiction whose law of insurance substantially reflects the English position prior to IA 2015.

There do not appear to be strong reasons why a Singapore Court would not consider Dias J’s findings on the issue of defective blending persuasive.

However, Dias J’s observations on section 11 of IA 2015 have less relevance. Under Singapore law, a breach of warranty has a draconian effect – the insurer is discharged from liability from the date of an insured’s breach of warranty: see section 33(3) of the Singapore Marine Insurance Act 1906. There is no equivalent of section 11 of IA 2015 that a policyholder can look to negate the breach of warranty. The Singapore law position accords with what had been the English law position prior to 2015, and its harshness was the reason behind the English reforms to insurance warranties as set out in the IA 2015.

Authors:

Eugene Lee – Senior Associate

Toby Nabarro – Director, Singapore