Civil Law and UAE Marine and Aviation Insurance Claim Disputes

1. Introduction

Marine and aviation insurance disputes are specialised commercial insurance disputes because the insured risks are connected with highly regulated activities, international transportation, technical evidence, jurisdictional issues and often multiple insurance or reinsurance contracts.

In the UAE, marine insurance has a particularly detailed statutory framework under Federal Decree by Law No. 43 of 2023 Concerning the Maritime Law. Its Part on Marine Insurance covers:

marine risks;

hull insurance;

machinery;

cargo;

war risks;

multiple insurance;

reinsurance;

general average;

salvage;

abandonment;

notice;

disclosure;

increase of risk;

limitation periods.

The new Maritime Law expressly defines marine insurance as insurance against marine losses resulting from marine risks and contains detailed rules on insurer and insured obligations.

Aviation insurance is different. The UAE has a comprehensive civil-aviation regulatory framework and rules governing air-carrier liability, while insurance disputes are also governed by the relevant insurance policy, general insurance law, applicable commercial/civil legislation, international aviation conventions and the chosen jurisdiction.

The central question in both fields is:

Did the insured event fall within the policy, and if so, has the insurer established a valid exclusion, defence, limitation or avoidance ground?

2. Meaning of Marine Insurance

Under Article 278 of the UAE Maritime Law, the marine-insurance provisions apply to insurance concerning property exposed to risks at sea and liabilities arising from sea voyages. They also extend, subject to the statutory provisions, to reinsurance.

Article 280 defines the marine insurance contract as a contract under which the insurer compensates the insured for marine losses resulting from marine risks. A person can benefit from marine insurance only where there is a legitimate interest in the absence of the insured risk.

Examples

Marine insurance can cover:

vessel hull;

machinery;

cargo;

freight;

marine liabilities;

war risks;

piracy where covered;

collision risks;

general-average contributions;

salvage-related expenses.

3. Meaning of Aviation Insurance

Aviation insurance protects against risks associated with aircraft operations and aviation businesses.

Typical aviation policies may cover:

Aircraft hull

Physical damage to the aircraft.

Aircraft liability

Liability for injury or property damage caused to third parties.

Passenger liability

Liability associated with passenger injury or death.

Aviation war risks

Certain risks excluded from ordinary aviation policies, depending upon the policy.

Ground risks

Damage occurring while the aircraft is on the ground.

Airport/operator liability

Liabilities arising from airport or aviation operations.

Aviation reinsurance

Insurance purchased by an aviation insurer to transfer part of its risk.

The UAE Civil Aviation Act, Federal Law No. 20 of 1991, provides the basic federal aviation regulatory framework, including definitions of aircraft, aviation accidents, air carriers and related concepts. (UAE Legislation)

4. Main Difference Between Marine and Aviation Insurance

5. UAE Maritime Law: Core Insurance Rules

Article 281 — Written Contract

A marine insurance contract or amendment must be in writing. A temporary insurance contract issued by the insurer serves as evidence between the parties until the final contract is issued.

Importance

A marine-insurance claim therefore requires careful examination of:

policy wording;

endorsements;

certificates;

temporary cover;

amendments;

incorporated clauses.

6. Multiple Insurance

Article 282 provides that where several insurers insure the same risk under one contract, each insurer is liable only for its proportionate share and there is no joint liability between them.

Article 283 deals with multiple policies covering the same risk.

Where over-insurance results from fraud by the insured, statutory consequences can follow. Where there is no fraud, the policies can remain valid within the true value of the insured property.

7. Under-Insurance

Article 285 addresses under-insurance.

If the insurance amount is below the true value of the insured item, the insured effectively bears the uninsured proportion.

Example

Aircraft/vessel value:

AED 100 million

Insurance:

AED 60 million

The insured has retained significant risk.

A partial loss may therefore be subject to proportional consequences depending upon the applicable policy and statutory rule.

8. Insurer's Liability in Marine Claims

Article 286 identifies important insurer liabilities.

The insurer can be liable for:

material damage caused by an insured marine peril;

insured property’s share of general-average losses;

expenses incurred to protect insured property from physical damage;

certain damage caused by the insured's fault;

damage caused by pilot or seafarer fault, subject to statutory limitations.

Intentional or serious mistakes attributable to the insured can affect coverage.

9. Change of Voyage or Route

Article 287 is important in marine claims.

The insurer can remain liable where a change of route or voyage has a legitimate justification, including circumstances involving:

safety;

saving human life;

medical emergencies;

foreign causes beyond the captain's control.

Without legitimate justification, coverage can be limited to the agreed route unless the insurer agrees otherwise.

Example

A vessel insured for:

Dubai → Singapore

changes course because it must rescue people from a sinking vessel.

The change may fall within the statutory concept of legitimate justification.

10. War-Risk Insurance

Article 288 generally excludes certain risks unless otherwise agreed, including:

civil war;

foreign war;

disturbances;

piracy;

revolution;

strikes;

sabotage;

terrorism;

certain explosions/nuclear risks.

Article 289 provides that where war risks are specifically insured, coverage can include damage caused by hostilities, capture, seizure, arrest, coercion and related war events.

This distinction is extremely important in modern marine disputes.

11. Burden of Proof for War Risk

Article 290 contains a particularly important rule.

Where it cannot be determined whether damage resulted from a military danger or maritime danger, it is treated as resulting from a maritime danger unless proven otherwise.

The burden of proving that the damage resulted from a military risk lies on the insurer.

Practical significance

A missing vessel can create an evidentiary problem:

Was it lost because of an ordinary maritime peril, or because of war/capture?

The statutory burden becomes highly significant.

12. Excluded Marine Losses

Article 291 excludes, absent express agreement, several categories including:

ordinary defects;

insufficient packing;

normal cargo shortage;

fines;

confiscation;

attachment;

certain prohibited trade;

certain delay and commercial-operation losses.

Importantly, the provision distinguishes physical damage from losses such as unemployment, delay and price differences.

13. Insured's Duty of Disclosure

Article 293 requires the insured to:

pay the premium;

provide available information necessary to assess the risk;

notify the insurer of an increase in risk;

exercise reasonable care to preserve the insured property.

This is one of the most common areas of dispute.

Example

A vessel is insured as an actively trading vessel.

The owner later:

stops commercial operations;

cold-stacks the vessel;

changes its location;

changes its use.

If these circumstances materially increase the insured risk, notification obligations may arise.

14. Duty to Mitigate

Article 294 requires the insured, after occurrence of the insured danger, to exercise the utmost care to save the insured property and preserve the insurer's recourse against responsible third parties.

Failure caused by the insured's fault or negligence can produce liability for resulting damage to the insurer.

Example

A vessel suffers engine damage.

The insured simply abandons it even though reasonable emergency measures could prevent substantial additional damage.

The insurer may argue that part of the resulting loss was caused by failure to mitigate.

15. Incorrect Disclosure and Avoidance

Article 298 addresses incorrect statements or non-disclosure.

If the insured intentionally provides incorrect information or fails to disclose required information in circumstances affecting the insurer's assessment of risk, the insurer can seek invalidation.

The statute also provides different consequences where the misrepresentation/non-disclosure occurred in good faith, including possible reduction of the insured amount depending upon the circumstances.

This is highly relevant to:

marine hull claims;

aviation hull claims;

aircraft operational-risk claims;

high-value commercial insurance.

16. Increase in Risk

Article 299 requires notification where circumstances arising during the insurance period increase the possibility of the insured risk.

If the increase results from the insured's own action, the insurer has statutory options including:

termination; or

continuing coverage subject to an increased premium.

This principle is particularly important for:

vessels entering high-risk areas;

aircraft changing operational profiles;

vessels becoming laid up;

aircraft being used for different purposes.

17. Proof of Loss

Article 304 places an important evidentiary burden on the insured.

The insured must prove:

exposure of the insured property to the relevant danger; and

damage caused to it.

The law contains a presumption concerning the time and place of damage within the insurance coverage unless the insurer proves otherwise.

18. Marine Insurance Limitation Period

Article 309 is especially important.

Subject to legally admissible excuses, claims arising from marine insurance contracts generally cannot be heard after one year, with the starting point depending upon the type of claim—for example:

date of the incident for ship damage;

arrival/expected arrival for cargo claims;

incident for assignment;

payment for general-average claims;

relevant third-party claim/payment circumstances.

The period can be interrupted by a registered letter or delivery of documents relating to the claim, in addition to other legally prescribed grounds.

Exam point

Do not automatically apply the general civil limitation period to a marine-insurance claim.

Article 309 creates a specialised maritime rule.

19. Abandonment of Vessel

Article 319 permits abandonment in specified circumstances, including:

complete destruction;

no news of the ship for 90 days;

irreparable damage;

repair costs reaching at least three-quarters of the insured value.

Article 320 separately addresses capture, attachment or arrest in war-risk insurance and permits abandonment after four months where the vessel cannot be recovered.

20. General Average and Insurance

General average is particularly important in marine insurance.

Where extraordinary expenditure or sacrifice is reasonably made for the common safety of:

vessel;

cargo;

other interests,

the loss may be apportioned among participating interests.

The Maritime Law provides detailed rules for settlement and contribution.

Article 269 provides for settlement experts and permits marine experts to assist in determining the relevant credit and debit groups.

Insurance disputes can therefore involve:

Was the expense genuinely a general-average expense?

and:

Does the insurance policy cover the insured's contribution?

21. Marine Insurance Case 1 — Al Buhaira National Insurance Company v Horizon Energy LLC & Another

[2021] DIFC CFI 098

This is one of the most important UAE marine-insurance cases.

The dispute concerned the tanker BETA, insured under:

Hull and Marine Machinery Policy; and

Marine Hull War Policy.

The vessel disappeared and was later associated with the Iranian Navy as the MAKRAN.

The insurer sought declarations concerning avoidance of the policies based upon matters including:

fair presentation;

breach of warranty;

late notification;

coverage.

The DIFC Court ultimately declared that the insurer could avoid both policies and had no liability under them. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Marine-insurance disputes require close examination of:

risk disclosure;

policy warranties;

notice;

classification;

coverage;

insured perils.

22. Marine Insurance Case 2 — Horizon Energy LLC v Al Buhaira National Insurance Company

[2022] DIFC CA 015

The Court of Appeal considered jurisdictional questions arising from the same BETA marine-insurance dispute.

The Court rejected the argument that the UAE Insurance Authority dispute mechanism automatically deprived the DIFC Courts of jurisdiction over the insurer's claim for declaratory relief concerning avoidance of the policies. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Insurance jurisdiction can be as important as the substantive coverage question.

Before filing a claim, parties must examine:

policy jurisdiction clause;

statutory dispute-resolution mechanisms;

court jurisdiction;

arbitration provisions;

applicable UAE judicial legislation.

23. Marine Insurance Case 3 — Al Buhaira National Insurance Company v Horizon Energy LLC & Another

2024 DIFC CFI 098

The subsequent judgment again addressed the insurer's right to avoid the Hull and War Policies.

The Court declared that the insurer could avoid both policies and had no liability under them. The judgment considered the policies' governing law, notice provisions, classification requirements and coverage. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Policy compliance is not merely technical.

Requirements relating to:

classification;

notice;

risk presentation;

voyage;

warranties;

can materially affect insurance coverage.

24. Marine Insurance Case 4 — Al Buhaira National Insurance Company v Arab War Risks Insurance Syndicate

[2024] DIFC CFI 013

This is a major marine reinsurance dispute.

ABNIC had insured the BETA under Hull and Marine War policies and subsequently sought reinsurance from AWRIS.

The Court held that there was an implied term requiring AWRIS to indemnify ABNIC for costs and expenses properly incurred in defending claims arising from the underlying marine war policy. The remainder of ABNIC's claims were dismissed. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Reinsurance disputes require separate analysis of:

original policy;

reinsurance contract;

incorporation;

implied terms;

defence costs;

underlying liability.

Important point

Insurance and reinsurance are separate contractual relationships.

25. Marine Insurance Case 5 — Al Buhaira National Insurance Company v Arab War Risks Insurance Syndicate

[2026] DIFC CA 003

The Court of Appeal proceedings concerned the same marine war-risk reinsurance dispute.

The case involved:

marine hull insurance;

marine war-risk insurance;

reinsurance;

the missing BETA;

jurisdictional and contractual issues;

the relationship between underlying and reinsurance claims. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Complex marine claims can produce multiple layers of litigation:

insured → insurer → reinsurer.

Each relationship must be analysed independently.

26. Marine Insurance Case 6 — Nessim v Nader

CFI 013/2024 — DIFC Court of First Instance

This dispute involved:

a Marine Hull & Machinery Policy;

a Marine Hull War Policy;

a tanker;

USD 70 million sum insured;

underlying insurance;

reinsurance;

alleged non-disclosure;

notice requirements;

policy exclusions;

limitation questions.

The insurer had made a complaint before the UAE Insurance Authority and the matter was referred to an Insurance Dispute Resolution Committee. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A marine insurance dispute can simultaneously involve:

coverage;

disclosure;

notification;

limitation;

reinsurance;

regulatory dispute procedures.

This makes early identification of the correct legal framework essential.

27. Marine Insurance Case 7 — Ahmed Mohamed Eid Al Yahad Al Zaabi v Al Buhaira National Insurance Company

[2024] DIFC TCD 002

This case concerned a yacht called Dazaz.

The claimant purchased the vessel as a bare hull, arranged works and submitted a proposal for insurance as a pleasure craft. Shortly thereafter, a fire and explosion occurred. The claim sought AED 1.365 million under the policy. The policy contained a governing-law and jurisdiction clause selecting English law and DIFC Courts. (DIFC Courts)

The Court ultimately dismissed the claim and declared that the insurer was entitled to avoid/repudiate/cancel the policy. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Pre-contractual risk presentation can be decisive.

Practical lesson

For marine/pleasure-craft insurance:

Survey + proposal + policy wording + actual condition/use of vessel

must be examined together.

28. Aviation Insurance Case 8 — AIG International Group UK Ltd & Others v Qatar Insurance Company

[2022] DIFC CFI 003; [2024] DIFC CA 008

This case is an important UAE-related insurance/reinsurance authority involving aviation insurance principles, although the immediate underlying policy in the litigation was a banking/crime insurance policy.

The case involved US-owned reinsurers and a sanctions exclusion clause. The Court analysed the contractual effect of sanctions provisions and considered aviation-insurance examples involving aircraft operating in Iran. The DIFC Court of First Instance dismissed the reinsurers' claim and allowed the insurer's counterclaim; the DIFC Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the appeal. (DIFC Courts)

The judgment discussed a prior OFAC aviation-insurance enforcement matter involving aircraft hull and liability insurance covering aircraft operating in Iran. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Aviation-related insurance disputes can involve more than physical aircraft damage. They may involve:

sanctions;

territorial operation;

reinsurance;

exclusion clauses;

indirect insurance services;

governing law.

Important qualification

This is not a pure aircraft-hull claim. It is better used as an aviation-related insurance/reinsurance authority concerning sanctions and policy interpretation.

29. Aviation Liability and Insurance

The UAE Commercial Transactions Law contains provisions on air-carrier liability.

Article 355 provides for carrier liability for passenger death, wounding or bodily injury occurring during air carriage or during boarding/disembarkation operations. Article 356 addresses destruction, loss or damage to registered luggage and goods occurring during air carriage. (UAE Legislation)

This distinction matters because:

Passenger liability is not identical to an aircraft-hull insurance claim.

An aviation claim may involve two separate questions:

Question 1

Is the airline legally liable?

Question 2

Does the airline's insurance policy indemnify that liability?

These questions must be analysed separately.

30. Aircraft Hull Claim

Suppose an aircraft suffers substantial damage during landing.

The analysis may involve:

Was the aircraft insured?

Was the policy in force?

Was the incident within territorial/operational limits?

Was the aircraft being used for the insured purpose?

Was there pilot negligence?

Was there an excluded peril?

Was the aircraft airworthy?

Were maintenance requirements satisfied?

Was the insurer notified?

What is the valuation of the aircraft?

31. Aviation War-Risk Claim

Suppose an aircraft is damaged by:

missile;

military action;

terrorism;

hijacking;

political violence.

The claimant must determine whether the ordinary aviation policy covers the event.

Many aviation policies distinguish:

ordinary aviation risks

from:

war and terrorism risks.

This resembles the marine distinction between ordinary marine perils and war risks.

The BETA litigation demonstrates how important that distinction can become in marine insurance. (DIFC Courts)

32. Policy Interpretation

Insurance contracts are interpreted primarily through their wording and applicable governing law.

Important provisions include:

insuring clause;

definitions;

exclusions;

warranties;

conditions precedent;

notification provisions;

deductibles;

limits;

geographical limits;

jurisdiction;

governing law.

A court does not normally begin with:

“The insured suffered a loss, therefore the insurer must pay.”

Instead:

Loss + policy coverage + compliance − valid exclusions/defences = potential indemnity.

33. Exclusions

Insurance disputes frequently turn on exclusions.

Marine examples

war;

piracy;

ordinary wear and tear;

unseaworthiness;

defective machinery;

prohibited trade;

delay.

Aviation examples

war;

terrorism;

wear and tear;

mechanical breakdown;

unauthorized use;

pilot-related exclusions;

geographical exclusions.

The insurer generally needs to establish the contractual basis for relying upon an exclusion, subject to the applicable governing law.

34. Notice of Claim

Notice provisions can be extremely important.

The BETA policy contained provisions requiring prompt notification and provided for automatic discharge from liability if notice was not given within the specified period, absent agreement otherwise. (DIFC Courts)

Practical lesson

When an accident occurs:

Incident

↓

Immediate internal investigation

↓

Notice to insurer

↓

Preservation of evidence

↓

Survey/loss adjustment

↓

Formal claim

Failure to follow policy notification requirements can create a major coverage dispute.

35. Classification and Airworthiness

Marine claims often involve classification.

A vessel may be required to maintain a particular classification under the policy.

Similarly, aviation claims may involve:

certificate of airworthiness;

maintenance records;

aircraft certification;

operating approvals;

pilot licensing;

technical logs.

The common principle is:

Technical regulatory compliance can become legally significant when the insurance contract makes it relevant to coverage.

The BETA case illustrates the importance of classification warranties in marine insurance. (DIFC Courts)

36. Causation

A claimant must establish that the loss was caused by an insured peril.

Marine example

Ship sinks.

Possible causes:

storm;

collision;

piracy;

war;

mechanical failure;

intentional sinking.

The legal question becomes:

Which cause legally produced the insured loss?

Aviation example

Aircraft crashes.

Possible causes:

mechanical failure;

pilot error;

weather;

sabotage;

bird strike;

maintenance failure.

Technical expert evidence may become critical.

37. Marine Presumption Concerning Military Risk

Article 290's rule is particularly important where causation is uncertain.

If it cannot be determined whether damage resulted from a military danger or maritime danger, it is treated as maritime unless proved otherwise, with the burden of proving military risk on the insurer.

This is a specific statutory rule and should not simply be generalized to aviation claims.

38. Reinsurance Disputes

Marine and aviation insurance frequently involve several layers:

Insured

↓

Primary insurer

↓

Reinsurer

↓

Retrocessionaire

Each contract can contain different:

limits;

exclusions;

governing law;

arbitration clauses;

notice requirements.

The AWRIS/BETA litigation demonstrates how an underlying marine claim can generate extensive reinsurance litigation. (DIFC Courts)

39. Direct Action Against Reinsurer

As a general principle, the insured does not automatically acquire rights under the insurer's reinsurance contract.

The UAE Maritime Law specifically provides that the insured cannot rely upon the reinsurance contract concluded by the insurer unless otherwise agreed in the reinsurance policy.

Thus:

Primary insurance contract ≠ reinsurance contract.

40. Multiple Jurisdictions

Marine and aviation insurance disputes are inherently international.

Possible jurisdictions include:

UAE mainland courts;

DIFC Courts;

ADGM Courts;

foreign courts;

arbitration;

specialist insurance dispute mechanisms.

The BETA litigation is a good illustration: the underlying insurance involved UAE insurers and foreign vessel ownership, while disputes proceeded in both DIFC and Sharjah-related forums. (DIFC Courts)

41. Governing Law

A policy might say:

“This policy shall be governed by English law.”

while jurisdiction may say:

“The courts of the UAE shall have jurisdiction.”

These clauses are not necessarily contradictory.

A court may therefore have to determine:

governing substantive law;

jurisdiction;

mandatory UAE rules;

procedural law;

effect of international conventions.

The BETA policies expressly selected English law, and the DIFC courts analysed the consequences of that choice. (DIFC Courts)

42. DIFC and Mainland UAE Must Be Distinguished

This is particularly important for examination answers.

A DIFC case involving an insurance policy governed by English law should not automatically be presented as a statement of mainland UAE insurance law.

For example, the BETA litigation involved policies expressly governed by English law. (DIFC Courts)

Nevertheless, such cases remain highly valuable for understanding UAE-related insurance disputes because they demonstrate:

jurisdiction;

policy interpretation;

insurance disclosure;

reinsurance;

war risks;

notice;

procedural interaction.

43. General Claim-Assessment Framework

A marine or aviation insurance claim can be analysed using the following sequence:

Step 1 — Valid policy

Was the insurance contract validly formed?

Step 2 — Insured interest

Did the claimant have an insurable/legitimate interest?

Step 3 — Policy period

Did the incident occur during coverage?

Step 4 — Insured peril

Does the event fall within the insured risk?

Step 5 — Causation

Did that peril cause the loss?

Step 6 — Compliance

Did the insured comply with:

disclosure;

notification;

maintenance;

classification/airworthiness;

risk-change obligations?

Step 7 — Exclusions

Does an exclusion apply?

Step 8 — Quantum

What is the amount of recoverable loss?

Step 9 — Deductible

What amount remains after the policy excess?

Step 10 — Limitation

Was the claim filed within the applicable limitation period?

44. Evidence in Marine Claims

Important evidence may include:

vessel registration;

classification certificate;

navigation records;

AIS data;

port records;

captain's reports;

survey reports;

photographs;

weather data;

cargo documents;

bills of lading;

maintenance records;

expert reports.

45. Evidence in Aviation Claims

Important evidence may include:

aircraft registration;

certificate of airworthiness;

maintenance records;

flight data recorder;

cockpit voice recorder;

pilot qualifications;

air-traffic-control records;

accident investigation report;

weather data;

engineering reports;

aircraft valuation;

repair estimates.

46. Damages

The amount payable depends upon:

insured value;

actual loss;

agreed value;

policy limits;

deductible;

salvage;

depreciation where relevant;

partial/total loss;

general average;

mitigation.

For marine insurance, Article 313 recognises agreed valuation of a ship, subject to specified exceptions.

47. Salvage and Subrogation

After paying a claim, the insurer may acquire rights against responsible third parties.

Article 308 provides for the insurer to acquire the insured's rights and claims, within the amount of compensation paid, arising from insured damage.

Example

A vessel is damaged by a negligent terminal operator.

Insurer pays:

AED 10 million

The insurer may pursue the responsible third party within the legally applicable limits.

48. Total Loss vs Partial Loss

Total loss

The property is completely destroyed or treated as lost under the applicable legal/policy framework.

Partial loss

Only part of the property is damaged.

Marine law provides detailed rules for abandonment and compensation.

For example, Article 319 allows abandonment in certain circumstances, including complete destruction, prolonged disappearance and severe unrepaired damage.

Aviation policies similarly distinguish:

actual total loss;

constructive/economic total loss;

partial damage;

but the precise test depends heavily upon policy wording and governing law.

49. Marine Insurance and General Average

A major UAE marine-insurance issue is:

Does the insurer have to pay the insured's contribution to general average?

Article 286 expressly recognises insurer liability for the insured property's share of general-average losses unless they arise from an excluded risk.

The calculation can require:

marine surveyors;

average adjusters;

valuation experts;

cargo experts.

50. Aviation Insurance and International Conventions

Aviation claims may also involve international conventions to which the UAE is party.

Therefore, a legal analysis should identify:

the type of claim;

passenger/cargo/third-party status;

applicable convention;

UAE aviation legislation;

insurance contract;

policy limits;

applicable exclusions.

The UAE Commercial Transactions Law itself states that its air-carriage provisions operate without prejudice to international conventions to which the State is party. (UAE Legislation)

51. Important Distinction: Liability vs Insurance

This is one of the most important examination concepts.

Suppose an aircraft passenger is injured.

First question

Is the carrier legally liable?

Second question

What compensation is legally recoverable?

Third question

Does the carrier's aviation insurance policy respond?

Fourth question

Is the insurer entitled to rely on an exclusion?

The answers may be different.

Similarly:

Ship collision

→ vessel owner may be liable

but

→ insurer may dispute coverage.

52. Common Defences by Insurers

Insurers may raise:

1. No coverage

The event is outside the policy.

2. Exclusion

The loss falls within an exclusion.

3. Non-disclosure

Material risk information was not disclosed.

4. Misrepresentation

The insured provided incorrect information.

5. Breach of warranty

A contractual condition was breached.

6. Late notification

The claim was not reported within the required period.

7. Increase of risk

The insured materially changed the risk.

8. Lack of causation

The insured peril did not cause the loss.

9. Limitation

The claim is time-barred.

10. Fraud

The claim or underlying information is fraudulent.

53. Common Arguments by Insureds

The insured may argue:

the event falls within the insuring clause;

exclusion is not applicable;

insurer knew the relevant circumstances;

breach did not cause the loss;

notice was sufficiently prompt;

technical breach should not defeat the claim under applicable law;

the insurer waived reliance on a condition;

the insurer accepted premiums after learning the relevant facts;

loss was caused by an insured peril.

The precise availability of these arguments depends upon governing law.

54. Case-Law Revision Table

55. Key Statutory Provisions for Marine Insurance

These provisions come from Federal Decree by Law No. 43 of 2023.

56. Practical Example — Marine Claim

Facts

A UAE company owns a tanker worth:

USD 70 million

The vessel is insured for hull and war risks.

It disappears.

Legal questions

Was the policy valid?

Was the vessel properly classified?

Was the risk fairly disclosed?

Was the insurer notified on time?

Was the vessel actually lost?

Was the loss caused by marine peril or war peril?

Was war-risk insurance purchased?

Did the owner breach a warranty?

Does an exclusion apply?

Is the claim within Article 309's limitation period?

The BETA litigation demonstrates how complicated these questions can become in practice. (DIFC Courts)

57. Practical Example — Aviation Claim

Facts

A UAE airline aircraft suffers substantial damage during landing.

Analysis

Policy

↓

Aircraft insured?

↓

Policy period?

↓

Hull coverage?

↓

Cause of accident?

↓

Pilot/maintenance issues?

↓

Airworthiness?

↓

Exclusion?

↓

Repair cost?

↓

Total or partial loss?

↓

Deductible?

↓

Final indemnity.

If passengers are also injured, the separate carrier-liability claim must be analysed under applicable aviation law and international conventions. UAE commercial legislation recognises carrier liability for passenger injury and baggage/cargo loss subject to its applicable provisions. (UAE Legislation)

58. Marine and Aviation Insurance: Common Legal Principles

Despite their differences, both areas share several principles:

Principle 1

The policy is central.

Principle 2

Coverage must be distinguished from liability.

Principle 3

Causation is critical.

Principle 4

Disclosure matters.

Principle 5

Material changes in risk matter.

Principle 6

Notification requirements can be decisive.

Principle 7

Exclusions must be carefully interpreted.

Principle 8

Technical expert evidence can be crucial.

Principle 9

Reinsurance is legally distinct from primary insurance.

Principle 10

Jurisdiction and governing law must be established at the beginning.

59. Exam-Oriented Short Summary

Marine insurance in UAE is extensively regulated by Federal Decree by Law No. 43 of 2023.

The law regulates:

legitimate interest;

written contracts;

multiple insurance;

under-insurance;

insured risks;

war risks;

disclosure;

increased risk;

mitigation;

abandonment;

general average;

subrogation;

limitation.

Article 309 provides a specialised one-year limitation regime for many marine-insurance claims.

Aviation insurance operates within the UAE civil-aviation framework, commercial/insurance law, policy terms and applicable international conventions. The UAE Commercial Transactions Law contains carrier-liability provisions concerning passengers, baggage and goods. (UAE Legislation)

The most significant UAE-related cases include:

Al Buhaira v Horizon Energy

Horizon Energy v Al Buhaira

Al Buhaira v Arab War Risks Insurance Syndicate

Nessim v Nader

Ahmed Mohamed Eid Al Yahad Al Zaabi v Al Buhaira

AIG v Qatar Insurance

Al Buhaira v Arab War Risks Insurance Syndicate [2026] CA 003

60. Conclusion

UAE marine and aviation insurance disputes require analysis at three interconnected levels:

Level 1 — Insurance contract

Was there valid coverage?

Level 2 — Underlying event

Did the accident, loss or liability fall within the insured risk?

Level 3 — Legal/regulatory framework

Do maritime law, aviation law, international conventions, jurisdiction rules, limitation rules or regulatory requirements affect the claim?

For marine insurance, Federal Decree by Law No. 43 of 2023 provides an unusually detailed statutory structure. It specifically regulates coverage, war risks, disclosure, risk increase, proof, abandonment, subrogation and limitation.

The BETA/Horizon litigation is especially important because it demonstrates how a single marine casualty can generate disputes concerning coverage, war risks, disclosure, warranties, notice, jurisdiction, insurance-regulatory procedures and reinsurance. (DIFC Courts)

For aviation, the legal analysis must additionally distinguish air-carrier liability from the insurer's contractual liability, while considering aviation regulations and applicable international conventions. (UAE Legislation)

Core examination formula

Insurance Claim = Valid Policy + Insured Risk + Causation + Proof of Loss − Valid Exclusions/Defences − Applicable Deductible, subject to Limitation, Jurisdiction and Governing Law.

In short: marine and aviation insurance disputes in the UAE are fundamentally disputes about risk allocation—who assumed which risk, whether that risk materialised, whether the policy responds, and whether any statutory or contractual defence defeats or limits indemnity.