2.1 The Nordic sources
Each of the Nordic countries has its own legislation on insurance contracts.(1) For Norway; the Insurance Contracts Act (ICA) of 16 June 1989 (no 69). For Denmark; The Insurance Contract Act 2015 (Lovbekendtgørelse 2015-11-09 nr. 1237). For Sweden: Försäkringsavtalslag (2005: 104). For Finland: Insurance Contracts Act 28 June 1994. However, none of the Nordic insurance contracts acts contain any regulation of the scope of cover for marine insurance. They will therefore not be addressed further in this article.
Until 2013, each of the Nordic countries also had its own marine insurance conditions. However, in 2013 a common Nordic Marine Insurance Plan (the NP) was introduced, based on the Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan 1996 Version 2010 (the NMIP 2010). The NP 2013 is widely used, not only by the Nordic ship owners, but also internationally.
As the NP is based on the NMIP 2010, it is appropriate to outline the historical development of the Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan, in order to establish the characteristic features of the current Nordic Plan.
The first Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan was published in 1871, and was later followed by several further Plans,(2) The Norwegian Marine Insurance Plans of 1881, 1894, 1907, 1930 and 1964. the most recent being the 1996 Plan. The 1996 Plan was published in several versions, up until 2010.(3) Version 1997, Version 1999, Version 2000, Version 2002, Version 2003, Version 2007 and Version 2010. In 2010, the Nordic Association of Marine Insurers (Cefor), which is responsible for the maintenance and publishing of standard marine insurance conditions in the Nordic market, decided that instead of operating with one set of standard conditions in each of the Nordic countries, the maintenance effort should be concentrated on one common set of conditions. As the basis for a set of unified Nordic conditions, Cefor chose the Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan 1996 Version 2010. An agreement was entered into between Cefor and the Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Finnish Ship-owner Associations on 3 November 2010 to construct the Nordic Marine Insurance Plan of 2013, which then came into force in January 2013. It was amended in 2016, in 2019 and in 2024.(4) Trine-Lise Wilhelmsen and Hans Jacob Bull, Handbook on hull insurance, 2. Ed., 2017 (Wilhelmsen and Bull) p. 26, agreement-nordic-plan---amended-8-may-2024---sign.pdf.
Several characteristic features of the Plan are important when considering its legal status. First, the Plan is an agreed document drafted by a committee consisting of participants from all interested parties, i.e. the ship-owners, the insurers, and the average adjusters. Secondly, widespread participation in the drafting of the Plan has secured its neutrality and balance. This stands in contrast to many other standard conditions in the marine insurance market drafted by the insurers with no participation from the assureds.(5) Wilhelmsen and Bull p. 26. A third characteristic feature of the Plan is that it contains a fully comprehensive regulation of all aspects of marine insurance. Both the structure of the Plan and the drafting of the individual clauses are more similar to legislation than to ordinary standard contracts.(6) Wilhelmsen and Bull p. 26.Fourth, the Plan is supplemented by extensive and published commentaries (the Commentary). The Commentary is published on Cefor’s website.(7)http://www.nordicplan.org/Commentary/ The references to Commentary 2019 and Commentary 2023 in this article are to the pdf download placed on this web site for these versions of the Plan.
These characteristic features also have some implications for the interpretation of the Plan conditions. As the Plan is an agreed document, one cannot fall back on the ordinary main rule: interpret a standard agreement against the party having drafted the clause. The similarity to legislation rather than to contract implies that it would be more correct to interpret the Plan according to principles for interpretation of legislation than for contracts. The Commentary also states that the Commentary “shall carry more interpretative weight than is normally the case with preparatory works of statutes”,(8) Commentary 2023 p. 26 to Cl. 1-4. even if the Plan does not contain any explicit reference to the Commentary and its significance as a basis for resolving disputes. The reason is that the Commentary has been thoroughly discussed and approved by the Nordic Revision Committee, “and must therefore be regarded as a part of the standard contract which the Plan constitutes”.(9) Commentary 2023 p. 26 to Cl. 1-4.
This statement in the Commentary has been accepted both by the Norwegian Supreme court(10) ND 2009 p. 202 NA Bulford Dolphin, ND 1998 p. 216 NSC Ocean Blessing, ND 1969 p. 49 NSC Grethe Solheim, ND 1956 p. 318 NSC Bandeirante, ND 1956 p. 323 NSC Pan, see also HR-2019-187-U referred below. See also Arbitration Case 5.8.2025 Heroic Idun. Similar statements have been made by other Nordic courts in relation to other so-called agreed documents with commentaries prepared by the drafting committee (see, for example, the judgment of the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 2018 p. 301, paragraph 11). and in arbitration practice.(11) ND 2000 p. 442 NA Sitakathrine. In the newest arbitration case 5.8.2025 Heroic Idun, the court made a detailed analysis of the weight of the Commentary and concluded in para 1208:
“Viewed collectively, while an important contribution to the interpretation and adaption of the provisions, the Commentary cannot and should not overshadow or substitute the wording of the provisions relevant to the case, and the weight to be given to references in the Commentary must always be assessed in light of its purpose and the context in which it appears.”
This implies that the weight given to the Commentary will depend on the relationship between the Plan text and that of the Commentary. If the wording does not directly solve the disputed issue, the Commentary is given much weight.(12) ND 1998.216 NSC Ocean Blessing. In arbitration practice, the court has also accepted that the interpretation of the Plan has been amended through the Commentary in cases where the Plan text could be interpreted in different ways and therefore did not hinder the amendment.(13) ND 2000.442 NA Sitakathrine. On the other hand, if there is obvious conflict between the Plan text and the Commentary, the text shall prevail over the Commentary as the primary legal source.(14) Cf. Commentary 2023 p. 26 to Cl. 1-4.