Arnould's Law of Marine Insurance, 17th Edition, 1st Supplement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This new supplement is the first major update to the 17th edition of Arnould's Law of Marine Insurance, bringing the work fully up to date as of 1 October 2010. * Features extended commentary on the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 with chapters revised to take account of the changes made in the Clauses, and updates made to the sections on the transit clause and phantom vessels * Includes an extended war risks section *A rewritten chapter on third party rights to take account of the passing of the Third parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, and consequential amendments have made to the material on P&I Clubs * The conflict of laws chapters have been entirely recast to deal with the implementation of the Rome I Convention on choice of law, and of the changes made to the Civil Procedure Rules in respect of jurisdiction * Includes additional material on the placement of risks, brokers, the duty of disclosure, warranties, payment of premiums, fraudulent claims, subrogation, the payment of interest, contribution and abandonment * Provides discussion of the various reform proposals made by the English and Scottish Law Commissions in issues papers published in the last two years Cases discussed in the new supplement include: * Allianz Insurance Company-Egypt v Aigaion Insurance Co SA (No 2) [2009] Lloyd's Rep IR 69 (formation, payment of premium) * Chartbrook v Persimmon [2009] UKHL 38 (construction, rectification) * Dornoch Ltd v Westminster International B.V. (No 2) [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 191 * Dornoch Ltd v Westminster International B.V. (No 3) [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 420 * Dunlop Heywards (DHL) Ltd v Erinaceous Insurance Services Ltd [2009] Lloyd's Rep IR 464 (brokers) * Direct Line Insurance plc v Fox [2010] Lloyd's Rep IR 324 (fraudulent claim) * Financial Services Ltd v Smailes [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch) (return of premium) * Haywards (DHL) Ltd v Barbon Insurance Group Ltd [2010] Lloyd's Rep IR 149 * Jones v Environcom Ltd (No 2) [2010] EWHC 759 (Comm) (brokers) * Limit No. 2 Ltd v Axa Versicherung AG [2009] Lloyd's Rep IR 395 * Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society [2010] EWCA Civ 805 (claims) * Pratt v Aigaion Ins. Co. S.A. (The Resolute) [2009] Lloyd's Rep IR 149 * Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39 (imputation of knowledge) * Wasa International Ins. Co. v Lexington Insurance [2009] UKHL 40 (reinsurance) At the time of writing, the appeals in The Cendor Mopu (seaworthiness and inherent vice) and Masefield v Amlin (piracy, suing and labouring) were awaiting determination. The Supplement discusses the decisions of the lower courts in some detail and considers the implications of the possible outcomes of the appeals
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.023 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".