Liability Insurer’s Right to Limit Liability
for Maritime Claims: English and Chinese
Law Perspectives
Yuanjun Xia
Abstract Limitation of liability was once upon a time a phenomenon unique to
shipping law but today it embraces aviation and land-based transportation as well.
This article is concerned with the right of liability insurers to limit their liabilities
under relevant international conventions and domestic legislation focusing on the
respective laws of the United Kingdom and China. It is postulated that there are two
modalities or methodologies pursuant to which such rights are conferred. In line with
statements made by scholars in the field, one is described as the parasitical mode
exemplified in the global Limitation Convention of 1976 amended by its Protocol of
1996; the other is referred to as the independent mode, promulgated mainly through
the ship-source pollution conventions, the first of which was the Civil Liability
Convention of 1969, later replaced by the convention of 1992 bearing the same
name. The article presents a comparative analysis of the two modalities and concludes that the independent is the better option to follow in the interests of shipping
as a whole, including the national interests of China. It is thus proposed that the
LLMC 1976/1996 Convention be suitably amended to reflect this preferred proposition. As well, corresponding changes to the extant Chinese legislation should be
made to establish the independent mode of application of the rule of liability
insurers’ right to limit liability.
1 Introduction
Limitation of liability is a phenomenon that was hitherto unique to shipping law.
That being said, it has undergone evolutionary changes in terms of its scope and
application. Today, it embraces aviation and land-based transportation. Arguably,
the phrase “limitation of liability” is imprecise at best and a misnomer at worst.
1 That
is because, the aim of the legal regime in question is not to limit the perpetrator’s
Y. Xia (*)
Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, PR China
1 Mukherjee (2009), p. 40.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. K. Mukherjee et al. (eds.), Maritime Law in Motion, WMU Studies in Maritime
Affairs 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_31
657
for Maritime Claims: English and Chinese
Law Perspectives
Yuanjun Xia
Abstract Limitation of liability was once upon a time a phenomenon unique to
shipping law but today it embraces aviation and land-based transportation as well.
This article is concerned with the right of liability insurers to limit their liabilities
under relevant international conventions and domestic legislation focusing on the
respective laws of the United Kingdom and China. It is postulated that there are two
modalities or methodologies pursuant to which such rights are conferred. In line with
statements made by scholars in the field, one is described as the parasitical mode
exemplified in the global Limitation Convention of 1976 amended by its Protocol of
1996; the other is referred to as the independent mode, promulgated mainly through
the ship-source pollution conventions, the first of which was the Civil Liability
Convention of 1969, later replaced by the convention of 1992 bearing the same
name. The article presents a comparative analysis of the two modalities and concludes that the independent is the better option to follow in the interests of shipping
as a whole, including the national interests of China. It is thus proposed that the
LLMC 1976/1996 Convention be suitably amended to reflect this preferred proposition. As well, corresponding changes to the extant Chinese legislation should be
made to establish the independent mode of application of the rule of liability
insurers’ right to limit liability.
1 Introduction
Limitation of liability is a phenomenon that was hitherto unique to shipping law.
That being said, it has undergone evolutionary changes in terms of its scope and
application. Today, it embraces aviation and land-based transportation. Arguably,
the phrase “limitation of liability” is imprecise at best and a misnomer at worst.
1 That
is because, the aim of the legal regime in question is not to limit the perpetrator’s
Y. Xia (*)
Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, PR China
1 Mukherjee (2009), p. 40.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
P. K. Mukherjee et al. (eds.), Maritime Law in Motion, WMU Studies in Maritime
Affairs 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_31
657