Opinion ID: 435010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Antilles' Proof at Trial

Text: 16 Antilles concedes that it was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence three elements: (1) it was insured on a marine insurance policy underwritten by defendants; (2) a loss occurred; and (3) the loss was an event within the terms of the policy. The first two presented Antilles with no difficulty. Defendants conceded the first element in their answer and stipulated the second by agreeing that an explosion had occurred. Antilles' final hurdle was to prove that there was a loss within the terms of the policy, i.e., that the shipboard explosion, which concededly damaged the vessel, required the underwriters to pay for the cost of removing cargo or cargo debris from the ship's cargo spaces after the Alchemist had reached harbor safely in Antwerp. It was this last hurdle that plaintiff failed to clear. 17 Plaintiff has the burden of showing that both the loss and the peril which caused it fall within the meaning of the policy terms. See Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Linard, 498 F.2d 556, 561 (2d Cir.1974); S. Felicione & Sons Fish Co. v. Citizens Casualty Co., 430 F.2d 136, 138 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 939, 91 S.Ct. 936, 28 L.Ed.2d 219 (1971). 18 Antilles points to the testimony at trial of the expert witness Hicks who testified concerning customs and practices of the marine insurance industry. We examine this proof as it bears on the intent of the parties, construing it in a light most favorable to plaintiff. The testimony at trial demonstrated: the English Marine Insurance Act of 1906 provides, and all parties to hull policies apparently contemplate, that the underwriter is to bear the reasonable cost of repair of a vessel and machinery damaged by a covered peril, and underwriters generally assume responsibility under the Inchmaree clause for removal of cargo in two cases, i.e., removal of cargo from the cofferdam area and gasfreeing the vessel's cargo tanks to permit repairs. Hicks noted his familiarity with these principles of law and custom and also recognized the competing legal principle that a shipowner bears the cost of removing cargo at the port of destination. On cross-examination, when asked whether in his opinion there was coverage in this case, he answered no. No other evidence is found in the record to refute that opinion. 19 In essence, Hicks was of the view that the general practice of hull underwriters is to pay for the cost of removing only that portion of solidified or adhering cargo which remains in the cargo areas beginning with the layer where the process of removal begins to cause damage to the bulkhead. The witness acknowledged that he had stated publicly that the  'reasonable cost of repair' refers solely to the costs necessary to restore the vessel's 'physical being.'  And, in response to a leading question, he affirmed that removal of the hardened polymer was necessary to restore the vessel's physical being. Antilles repeatedly cites this testimony as proof supporting its argument that the loss falls within the Inchmaree clause. Quite the contrary, even when viewed most favorably to plaintiff, Hicks' testimony related solely to the limits of the hull policy's coverage, not to whether the cost of cargo removal, the loss here claimed, is covered. Moreover, Hicks elsewhere noted that even sound cargo would affect the physical being of the vessel for purposes of effecting repairs. Thus, we conclude that Antilles failed in its burden of producing sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case that removal of the bulk of the hardened cargo fell within the intended scope of the Inchmaree clause. 20 Antilles presented various letters and memoranda prepared over the years by experts in the marine insurance area. None of these documents supports plaintiff's argument that coverage here was contemplated. At most, these exhibits proved that hull underwriters customarily pay for removal of cargo or its derivatives from void spaces, e.g., a cofferdam, and for removing the last layer of residue from cargo spaces. Because these documents uniformly recognize the general rules established by Field v. Burr, infra, and the other authorities, Antilles' documents were at best equivocal and at worst detrimental to its claim of coverage. 3 21 We entertain some doubt as to whether the evidence taken as a whole was sufficient to make out plaintiff's prima facie case. Even if plaintiff produced enough proof to survive a motion for a directed verdict, a review of all the evidence in the case, including particularly the customs and practice in the field of marine insurance, convinces us that Antilles failed to sustain its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court's findings to the contrary were therefore clearly erroneous. 22