Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-01-17
THE INSURANCE IS EXEMPT.
Claims Arising from Loss Of the Steamer
Portland Cannot Touch II.

The wreck of the steamer Portland
has. in large measure, passed from thu
public mind. and the story of the ex
act details OF her fate can never b.
written. Nearly all Of her 200 passeng
ers ana crew are buried in the sands o!
shoals about Cape Cod or washed ava!
into deep water never to De recovered
But interest in her fate is still topic
for practical consideration in insurance
circles, and among those who, through
relationship with the lost, may have
claims for financial compensation
against the owners of the steamer.
One of these questions, which might
be supposed 10 have some weight in
this connection. can. however. be dis
posed of quite easily. BY a United
States statute. known as the limited
liability act, suits for damage for loss
of life. under the conditions governing
this disaster, can only be brought
against the steamer itself, and her
wreckage. and that alone is subject to
attachment or libel in such cases. In
this ease this, of course, is equivalent
to no redress whatever.
1t has been supposed, however, that
the insurance on the steamer might be
subject II attachment. to meet such
claims. but this is popular error. In
the case of the steamer City of Column
bus, wrecked on Gay Head. several
years ago. this point was raised, and
decided in the United States courts 1t
was claimed by the heirs of those who
there lost their lives that not only the
wreckage, but also whatever insur-
ance there was on the steamer was
subject to their claims. 1t was held
by the court that the insurance money
did not follow the steamer SO far as to
become subject to such claims, and
that claimants could not attach or libel
the funds in the hands of the UNDER
writer's. This is the accepted situation.
as understood in marine underwriting
circles.
At first glance this protection of ship
owners against suits for damages
through marine disasters may seem in
equitable. but. be this as it may, the
United States law is much more favor
able to the sufferer by marine disasters
than is the English law. Here the Of
Tending vessel is liable to her full
value. but the English limited liability
law provides that in such cases the LA
piiiiS VI Nht oiCiidihs3 hC-,SCi SiidiI iiol
extend beyond fixed sum-from four
to eight pounds per ton of her register.
according to circumstances. Thus. if
10000 ton ocean liner, and worth sew
eral million dollars. should run into and
sink another equally valuable, through
carelessness. the offending vessel can
only be libelled for GS0,OOO or less than
$400. 900.
In the same connection there is an
other question on which popular opin-
ion and law are at variance. On shore
the contributory negligence of the in
sured party may be pleaded by the I'M
derwriters, in avoidance of payment of
loss. But in marine matters the law is
more favorable to the insured. The
negligence, carelessness or even more
culpable misconduct by the master of
a vessel, resulting in wreck, cannot be
pleaded to absolve the underwriters
from payment of loss. The insurance
is against perils at sea, and the in
competence of a master is among those
perils. These laws are the result of
generations of experience of maritime
nations. and may be accepted as equi-
table. although sufferers by marine dis
asters may fairly be excused for COM
planning of the peculiar hardships Of
their standardization Globe.