Hecht, Levis & Kahn, Inc. v. New Zealand Ins.

The action was upon a policy of marine insurance and was tried by consent without a jury to a judge who made findings of fact. The defendant somewhat faintly argues that even though the rubber was injured by the ship’s unusual pounding, in the storms she encountered (a whole gale on December 2 and 3, and very heavy weather earlier, though never quite so bad) the damage was not caused by a “peril of the sea.” At times it seems to have been thought that that phrase means something different in a bill of lading from what it does in a marine policy. Arbib & Houlberg, Inc. v. Second Russian…