Lloyd's Insurance Company S.A. (Appellant) v Oceanus Capital SARL (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0141

Parties

Appellant(s)

Lloyd's Insurance Company S.A.

Respondent(s)

Oceanus Capital S.A.R.L.

Issue

(i) The proper interpretation of a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance Policy, written on the standard London Institute Mortgagees’ Interest Clauses Hulls (1/3/97) (Cl. 337) wording and underwritten by the Appellant; and (ii) the Respondent's entitlement to an indemnity thereunder.

Facts

On 27 December 2023, the M/V VYSSOS (the “Vessel”) was damaged by a mine strike in Ukrainian waters and was declared a constructive total loss. The Respondent (“Oceanus”) brought a claim as Mortgagees of the Vessel under a policy of Mortgagees’ interest insurance (‘the MII Policy’) underwritten by the Appellant (“Insurers”), who declined cover. The Insurers underwrote cover of the Mortgagee’s interest; this policy incorporated the standard Institute Mortgagees Interest Clauses Hulls Cl.337-97 (1.3.97). At the material time the Vessel was owned by Lyra Mare Limited (“the Owners”). The Owners’ interest in the Vessel was insured at the time of the mine strike under, amongst others, a marine war risks policy underwritten on terms equivalent to the current Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls. Under this policy trading limits were in place so that the Vessel would not enter, sail for or deviate towards certain waters, including the territorial waters of Ukraine, unless otherwise agreed by the Insurers in return for payment of an additional war risk premium. On 21 December 2023 the Owners informed the Mortgagee that the Vessel would be trading in Ukraine; the Mortgagee requested that the Owners put additional war risks cover in place to cover this voyage (“the December additional cover”). The Mortgagee received a cover note which appeared to evidence additional war risks cover for this voyage; this cover note was a forgery, and no additional war risks cover had been put in place at the time of the mine strike. In January 2024, the Mortgagee made a claim under the December additional cover (“DAC”). That claim was rejected on the grounds that the cover was a forgery. Subsequently, in June 2024, the Mortgagee made a claim under the war risks policy. That claim was rejected on the grounds that, at the time of the casualty, the Vessel was in breach of trading limits. The High Court held that Oceanus was entitled to indemnity under the MII policy. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Underwriters’ appeal by its order dated 7 July 2026.

Date of issue

18 September 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top