Wilburn Boat 사건판결 이후의 해상보험계약에 있어서 영미간의 차이점에 관한 연구

Abstract

The Anglo-American law of marine insurance stems from the same origins, and was largely the same until 1955. Before that date, for example, English cases were regarded as authoritative in American courts.This situation changed dramatically in 1955 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. In this case, the Supreme Court required the application of state not federal law on the ground that state law applied in every case where there was no well-established federal admiralty rule. The holding in Wilburn Boat has produced confusion and controversy in the lower U.S. federal courts charged with its application.The Wilburn Boat case dealt a double blow to the uniformity ideal. First, the holding in favor of a state law obviously splinters the unity of the domestic law of the United States. Second, the case destroys the unique relationship between English and American law :the extraordinary doctrine announced by the U.S. Supreme Court that English decisions could be cited as binding authority in U.S. courts. This latter aspect has been a secondary consideration in the uniformity debate. But it is of the utmost importance that Wilburn Boat brought to an end the interpretative uniformity of Anglo-Americanlaw. This was done without any debate or any consideration in the Supreme Court. In an age of economic globalization the breakdown of international uniformity looms at least as large as the breakdown of uniformity of domestic law.This paper reviews the divergences in the law of marine insurance, focusing on English and American law. It is important not only to identify the divergences, but also to investigate their causes and possible cures.