What the clause set decides
Marine cargo insurance is not one product. It is a choice between clause sets that define how much of the journey’s risk is transferred, and the choice is usually made in a single line of a quotation without anyone reading it. For ceramic sanitaryware that line decides almost everything about what a broken pan costs.
The three standard sets are known as ICC (A), ICC (B) and ICC (C). (A) is an all-risks cover, subject to the exclusions the policy names. (B) and (C) are progressively narrower, and (C) responds essentially only to major casualties. Read in the other direction: each set contains the one inside it, so a loss covered by (C) is also covered by (B), and a loss covered by (B) is also covered by (A). The reverse is not true.
This article is about choosing between them for a cargo that is heavy, brittle, and routinely damaged in ways that are nobody’s fault in particular. It contains no rates and no promises. What a policy pays is decided by its own wording, and that wording is the only thing worth arguing about.
ICC (A): all risks, subject to the exclusions
An (A) clause set transfers everything that is not excluded. That is the whole architecture of it: the policy does not list what it covers, it lists what it does not, and anything that falls outside the exclusions and inside the period of cover is recoverable in principle.
For ceramics, this is the difference that matters most. A pallet that arrives with two pans cracked is not usually the victim of a named event. Nothing sank, nothing burned, nothing was dropped from a height that anyone can prove. The carton looked fine from outside and the damage was found on unpacking. Under a named-perils set, that loss has to be fitted to a cause; under (A), the question becomes whether an exclusion applies.
Exclusions are where an (A) claim is won or lost. Policies of this type typically exclude loss caused by the insufficiency or unsuitability of packing, by the inherent nature of the goods, by delay, and by ordinary leakage or loss of weight. Each of those three words — packing, nature, delay — is a door through which a ceramic claim can be closed, which is why the packaging specification and the arrival evidence matter as much as the certificate of insurance.
(B) and (C): narrower by design
The middle and lower sets move from “all risks except” to “these risks only”. (B) sits between the two, covering a scheduled list of events that includes the serious casualty events plus some additional perils. (C) is the narrowest of the three and responds essentially to major casualties — the events that damage a whole container rather than a part of a pallet.
A buyer who takes a (C) policy on a ceramic consignment is buying catastrophe cover. If the vessel grounds and the container is flooded, that is the event the cover exists for. If a pallet is crushed by the cargo stowed above it and four pans break, that is not a catastrophe, and the policy may have nothing to say about it.
That is not a reason to avoid (C). It is a reason to know which one you bought. The failure mode is not choosing a narrow set deliberately; it is assuming a broad one because insurance was mentioned in the quotation.
Where ceramic claims actually fail
Claims rarely fail because there was no insurance. They fail for three reasons, and all three are avoidable before the container moves.
The first is the clause level. A loss that is a mystery — no identifiable event, damage discovered on unpacking — needs a set that responds to unexplained loss, which points to (A). A buyer holding (C) and a broken pallet has a policy that was never designed for the situation, and no amount of correspondence changes the wording.
The second is a gap between the cover and the Incoterm. Cover attaches and terminates at points stated in the policy; risk passes at a point stated in the trade term. If the policy begins later than the risk, or ends earlier than the delivery, there is a stretch of the journey with no cover on either side. A CIF sale and a buyer’s own policy can easily overlap in a way that looks like double cover and behaves like a gap.
The third is evidence. A survey needs something to inspect. If the packaging has been discarded, the carton has been flattened, and the pallet has been broken down, the loss has become an assertion. Photographs taken in sequence — the seal, the doors, the stow, the compression points, the carton in place, the break — are what turn an assertion into a claim.
Attachment, termination and the warehouse question
Cargo policies are usually written on a transit basis that begins when the goods leave the named place and ends when they are delivered to the named destination, with limits on how long they may sit in an intermediate warehouse and on what happens if the journey is interrupted.
Two consequences follow for a ceramic order. The first is that the named places have to match reality: the actual point of departure, the actual destination warehouse, and the actual route. A policy that describes a journey the goods did not take is a policy with an argument attached.
The second is that the storage leg is often longer than anyone plans. Goods that arrive and sit in a distributor’s yard for a season are, at some point, no longer in transit, and a transit policy is not a storage policy. If the plan involves holding stock before onward sale, that exposure needs its own answer, arranged deliberately rather than assumed to be inside the marine cover.
Packing: the warranty nobody reads
Most cargo wordings contain some form of packing warranty, requiring that the goods be packed in a manner sufficient to withstand the ordinary risks of the transit. It is not a clause about blame. It is a condition of the cover, and it is the clause most likely to be used against a ceramic claim, because ceramic is the product category where “sufficient” is hardest to define and easiest to dispute.
The defence is documentary. A written packaging specification, a supplier’s statement that the packing was built to it, photographs of a packed carton and a loaded pallet before the doors closed, and the packing’s own stack limits — together these answer the warranty question with evidence rather than opinion. A buyer who has never asked for those things has nothing to put in front of a surveyor except the damage itself.
This is also why the packaging article in this series treats packaging as a specification line. In a claim, it is not a cost line at all. It is the standard against which the loss is judged.
Who buys the cover
Under CIF terms the seller arranges carriage and insurance, and the cover arranged is commonly the minimum the term requires rather than the cover the cargo deserves. Under FOB and similar terms the buyer arranges its own cover, which means the buyer chooses the clause set and therefore controls the quality of the protection.
Neither arrangement is better in the abstract. What matters is that the party carrying the risk knows which clause set is in force. A buyer on CIF who wants all-risks cover has to ask for it specifically, and a seller who arranges the minimum is not behaving badly — they are behaving exactly as the term describes. The mismatch only appears when the buyer assumes CIF means (A).
Three things to confirm before the container moves
- Which clause set applies, stated by name on the certificate rather than implied by the word “insured”.
- Where cover attaches and where it terminates, compared line by line with the trade term and the actual route.
- What evidence the insurer requires at destination, and who is responsible for producing it on the day the doors open.
Answer those three before loading and the rest of the policy becomes a document rather than a hope. The premium, the deductible and the exact terms are matters for the insurer or the broker, and the wording of the policy governs in every case.
Frequently asked questions
What does ICC (A) actually cover?
All risks, subject to the exclusions the policy names. It does not list causes of loss; it excludes them. That structure is what makes it the appropriate set for damage with no identifiable event, which is the ordinary shape of a ceramic breakage claim.
How much narrower is (C)?
(C) responds essentially to major casualties — the events that damage a container rather than a pallet. A crushed carton or a cracked pan found on unpacking is not that kind of event. (B) sits between the two, covering a scheduled list that goes beyond casualties without reaching all risks.
Is a broken pan covered by all-risks insurance?
It can be, and it can also be refused, depending on the exclusions and the evidence. Insufficient packing and the inherent nature of the goods are the two grounds most often raised against ceramic. A written packing specification and photographs taken before the doors closed are what answer them.
Who arranges insurance under CIF?
The seller arranges it, and the cover arranged is commonly the minimum the term requires rather than the broadest available. A buyer who wants all-risks protection on a CIF shipment has to ask for it before the booking, and confirm which set appears on the certificate.
Does the policy cover storage after arrival?
A transit policy covers transit. Once the goods are delivered to the named destination and the transit period ends, storage is a separate exposure with separate cover. If stock will be held before onward sale, arrange that deliberately rather than assuming the marine policy still responds.
What evidence should I keep after a damage claim?
The seal and container condition as found, the stow before unloading, the compression points, the damaged carton in place, the break itself, and the delivery receipt. Keep the packaging until the surveyor has seen it. Discarded packaging is the most common reason a claim stops.
Related on this site
Documents and certificates
- Ask what packing documentation we can supply for a claim
- Catalogues, drawings and published test reports
Related reading
- Ceramic breakage claims: what evidence decides them
- Incoterms for sanitaryware: FOB, CIF and DDP
- HS 6910: Classifying Ceramic Sanitaryware