Rules in the marine policy that applies globally in the international world generally refer to the MIA (Marine Insurance Act) 1906, starting from the definition of marine insurance, subject or object matter of insurance, who can insure, insured perils, and so on.
So when a question arises: is ITC (Institute Time Clause) Hulls 1.1.95 CL 280 an all-risk policy? The answer can normatively refer to the provisions stipulated in the MIA (Marine Insurance Act) 1906 which in Section 55 states,"The subject to the provisions of this Act, and unless the policy otherwise provides, the insurer is liable for any loss proceeds caused by a peril insured against, but, subject as aforesaid, he is not liable for any loss or damage which is not caused by perils insured against”.
From the provisions of the MIA above which states the sentence "the insurer is liable for any loss caused by..." shows that ITC Hulls 1.1.95 CL 280 must also adopt the rule where the implementation is seen in Article 6 ITC Hulls 1.1.95 CL 280 which states,"This insurance covers loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured caused by...". If a wording policy states what hazards (peril) are covered in the policy (and what is excluded) then the policy has a characteristic as a policy based on named perils. ITC Hulls 1.1.95 CL 280 is one of the wording policies that adhere to this base. Thus the question in the title of this article has been answered: ITC Hulls 1.1.95 CL 280 is not an all-risk policy but a policy named perils.
H.B. Nickerson & Sons Ltd. v. Insurance Co. North America (1984)
Implementation of ITC Hulls 1.1.95 CL 280 as a named perils policy will be seen when claims occur. Theoretically, on named perils based policies, the burden of proof is in the hands of the insured, in addition to being able to demonstrate that a loss is fortuitous, accidental, and external means, then he must also be able to prove that the incident was proximately caused by perils insured in the policy.
In the case of H.B. Nickerson & Sons Ltd. v. Insurance Co. North America (1984), a fishing boat or boat sinks when bound to a dock. However, the cause of the sinking was never found, while the boat itself was insured against perils of the sea. The court judge stated that the plaintiff failed to show the main and dominant cause of the loss. Besides that H.B. Nickerson & Sons Ltd. as the plaintiff failed to prove that his ship was seaworthy before sinking. Thus, as long as the insured cannot submit proof of claim, no obligation arises from the insurer to prove otherwise, let alone to pay the claim.