Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. An IT incident hits a marine venture. What is looked for first in the policies, and why not the cyber clause?
What the policy requires in order to respond, almost always physical damage or material loss: that threshold settles two thirds of cases, and the cyber clause decides only the remaining third
The order of reading is the lesson's teaching, and the other three answers reverse it each in its own way. The cyber clause answer follows the property policy reflex, where the clause does decide, and carries it into a line where the loss often never reaches it. The war answer names a real crossing but one that concerns only state attributed acts, a fraction of files. The date answer confuses absence of exclusion with presence of cover: an old hull policy covers detention without damage no more than a recent one.
Glossary entry · assurance-marine2. A ship's navigation systems are corrupted. Hull intact, engines working, cargo aboard, and the ship cannot sail. What does the hull policy say?
It is built around damage and answers for harm to the insured thing: detention without damage does not cross its threshold, although it produces loss of hire, demurrage and broken rotation
This is the textbook threshold case, and it is costly because the loss is serious without triggering. The equivalence answer is the economic reasoning, which is right, applied to a text that does not reason that way. The insurable interest answer mistakes the notion: the interest exists, and covers built on a ship's loss of earnings even exist; what is missing is THIS policy's triggering fact. The cyber clause answer is exactly the reflex the lesson corrects, since an absence of exclusion does not create a cover the threshold refuses.
Glossary entry · perte-exploitation3. A port terminal is paralyzed. A lot of fruit perishes during the wait; a lot of seasonal goods arrives intact but after its market. What separates the two?
Physical alteration of the thing: cargo policies cover material damage and loss, and delay is very generally excluded, so perished goods and intact goods do not pose the same question
Delayed goods are not damaged goods, and the perished fruit stopped being merely delayed. The common cause answer applies event reasoning to policies that reason on the state of the thing. The neither answer keeps the right rule and forgets that it stops where physical alteration appears, which is the case for perishables. The declaration answer names a real underwriting element, which bears on terms and not on whether there is damage to indemnify.
Glossary entry · facultes-marchandises-cargo4. A state attributed cyber act targets a ship. Where does it sit in the placement, and what must a professional know about that boundary?
At the crossing of two inherited clauses, the war exclusion in the ordinary hull policy and the separate war risks policy that picks up part of what the first casts out: that boundary was written for mines and seizures, it is the subject of standardized clauses, and it differs from one placement to another
The point to keep is not the boundary's content but that it varies, which forbids reasoning from memory about a placement one does not know. The hull policy answer forgets that this policy carries precisely a war exclusion, which is what is under discussion. The shipowner's cyber policy answer takes a theme for a line: attribution here decides how two marine clauses interact, whatever cyber policy may exist elsewhere. The outside insurance answer confuses an old wording with an absence of cover, when the market has standardized clauses for this crossing.
Glossary entry · risque-guerre-maritime5. An IT incident aboard forces a deviation. Why can a shipper be called to contribute on a ship it does not operate?
Because the cost of a sacrifice consented for the common safety of the venture is shared between ship, cargo and freight: the question is then whether these costs enter that sharing
General average is a sharing rule and not a liability rule, and that is what makes the call possible with no fault alleged. The custody answer reasons in liability, which is another mechanism and presupposes a breach. The subrogation answer creates a recourse out of a fact that produces none: the nature of the cause creates no claim by the cargo insurer against its own insured. The denial answer adds a condition the mechanism does not carry: what counts is the sacrifice consented for the common safety, not the origin of the peril.
Glossary entry · avarie-commune