This Clause corresponds to Cl. 53 of the 1964 Plan and the relevant Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs).
The first sentence imposes on the assured a duty to avert or minimise the loss, while the second sentence requires the assured to consult with the insurer. The provision corresponds to Nordic ICAs, although the provisions do not contain any duty to consult with the insurer. It is somewhat superfluous to impose a duty on the assured to consult with the insurer, since it is already part of the duty to notify and the duty to keep the insurer informed of further developments under Cl. 3-29. The provision serves as a good signal, however, and has, accordingly, been maintained.
In the 1964 Plan, the duty of the assured to act was formulated as encompassing "what he can" do to avert and minimise the loss. In accordance with Nordic ICAs, this wording has been replaced with "what may reasonably be expected of the assured".
The duty to take measures to avert or minimise the loss will be present when there is an impending danger of a casualty occurring, and when the loss is to be minimised after the situation has been brought under some degree of control.
Under Cl. 53, third sentence, of the 1964 Plan, the assured was under a duty to comply with the requirements imposed by the insurer, unless the assured ought to have known that they were based on incorrect or insufficient information. This provision has been deleted because it raised the possibility of difficult conflicts of interest between the assured and the insurer, and possibly also between insurers inter se. For example, a situation could be envisaged where the ship had small cracks in the cylinder liners or other minor damage which did not make the ship unseaworthy, but which nonetheless had to be repaired. Under Cl. 53, third sentence, the loss-of-hire insurer could require that the shipowner request a seaworthiness certificate and continue to sail to avoid loss-of-hire. On the other hand, the shipowner would have a clear interest in having the repair carried out at once, particularly if he had a high daily indemnity under the loss-of-hire insurance. If there was a danger that the cracks could develop and cause a casualty, then the hull insurer would also have an interest in having repairs carried out promptly. The assured could then find itself in the position of receiving conflicting requirements from different insurers, a most unfortunate situation. Moreover, circumstances such as these should really be assessed under the rules in Cl. 3-22, and it would be unfortunate if the insurer could instead use Cl. 3-30 as authority to impose requirements on the assured.
A situation can be envisaged where the insurer needs to give separate instructions, e.g., in connection with salvaging the ship. Special rules are not needed for this; it is implicit in the requirement that the assured listen to the recommendations of the insurer. If the assured chooses to take other action which later turns out to be less expedient, there is the risk that he will be judged to have acted with gross negligence pursuant to Cl. 3-31.
In a conflict of interest between the assured and the loss-of-hire insurer as to whether the ship is so damaged that it cannot sail, the view of the classification society will usually be determinative. If the classification society is in doubt and different experts have divergent views on the matter, then the assured must make a decision based on what he believes is best in light of all of the interests involved.
Under Cl. 5-21, the duty to avert and minimise the loss continues after the object insured has been taken over by the insurer, if the insurer does not himself have the opportunity to take care of its interests.