An April 2025 decision of the High Court of Singapore found that a warranty in a marine insurance policy requiring compliance with “statutory or regulatory requirements” would be understood by a reasonable person, with the relevant background knowledge, to mean what its plain language says. A reasonable person would have understood it to mean statutes, or regulations which are subsidiary legislation promulgated by statute.
The defendant insurers proposed for a wide interpretation of the phrase relying on what they alleged were regulatory requirements regarding the control of an activity or process. They relied on a circular issued by a statutory board, conditions stated in an email from an officer of a statutory body, directives on a statutory body’s website, and a certificate to be issued before the vessel proceeded to sea was rejected. The court found that these are neither statutes nor regulations and there was no breach of the warranty.
This judgment also deals with whether the vessel was a constructive total loss, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, whether the loss was caused by perils of the sea, whether the vessel was a decrepitude or debility, and fair presentation under the UK Insurance Act of 2015. These decisions relate to marine insurance law, are not of general application to insurers and insured, and are fact specific.