Most CTL cases fall within the category where the estimated cost of recovering/repairing the ship would exceed the value of the ship when repaired. As to this point. MIA gives little guidance. However. for a long time it has been customary for hull underwriters to take the insured value as the repaired value in ascertaining whether the ship is a CTL. which is evidenced by clause 19 of ITC-Hulls(l/10/83) and 21 of International Hull Clauses. The estimated cost of repair should cover all expenses which would have been necessary had the vessel been repaired. including salvage charge. temporary repairs. class survey fee & etc. Finally. I suppose that the using a compromised total loss settlement shall be made. in practice. in place of carrying out uneconomical repairs, not being a CTL. However. there is no provision in the MIA. nor in the policy for this type of settlemenb and controversy could rise. Therefore, the insured value of vessel shall be closed to the cost of market value and it is a necessary to appoint a fair and reasonable average adjuster to settle such a controversiai claim as soon as possible. necessary had the vessel been repaired. including salvage charge. temporary repairs. class survey fee & etc.Finally. I suppose that the using a compromised total loss settlement shall be made. in practice. in place of carrying out uneconomical repairs, not being a CTL. However. there is no provision in the MIA. nor in the policy for this type of settlemenb and controversy could rise. Therefore, the insured value of vessel shall be closed to the cost of market value and it is a necessary to appoint a fair and reasonable average adjuster to settle such a controversiai claim as soon as possible.
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 船舶推定全損의 槪念
Ⅲ. 連續損害(Successive Partial Losses)
Ⅳ. 將來의 救助費
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract