Fenadismer applauds Supreme Court decision against insurers’ “due vigilance” exclusions

This article reveals the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the controversial “due vigilance” clauses insurers used to restrict theft coverage in cargo insurance.

What the Supreme Court decided and why it matters

In December, the Supreme Court declared the so‑called “due vigilance” clauses null and void when they were not explicitly accepted in writing by the policyholder. These clauses, tucked into the small print of many transport insurance policies, attempted to exclude coverage for thefts occurring while a vehicle and its load were parked without meeting certain surveillance conditions.

The Court’s line of reasoning was straightforward: clauses that limit an insured’s rights are only valid if they meet the formal requirements set out in the Insurance Contract Law. That means the restriction must be presented prominently in the contract and the policyholder must accept it expressly and in writing. Simple inclusion in general conditions or the presence of a broker is not enough to satisfy that legal standard.

How the decision changes the legal landscape

By declaring such stipulations inapplicable when formalities were not met, the Supreme Court forced insurers to pay full indemnities in at least one contested case, including legal interest. The judgment sends a clear message: blanket exclusions hidden in standard clauses will not stand unless the insurer follows the letter of the law when limiting coverage.

Immediate repercussions for the transport sector

Transport associations, notably Fenadismer, hailed the ruling as a victory for road hauliers and carriers who have long complained that insurers left them exposed after thefts despite having insurance.

Practical impacts on insurers, carriers and shippers

• För transportörer: Improved legal protection and stronger leverage in claims for stolen cargo.
• For insurers: Need to revise policy wording and distribution practices to ensure formal acceptance of restrictive clauses.
• For shippers and freight forwarders: Potential reduction in hidden coverage gaps; clearer contracting with carriers and insurers required.

Why this is a logistics issue, not just a legal one

Insurance clauses influence operational choices across the haulage chain. If a carrier risks losing coverage for leaving pallets in certain rest areas, route planning, stopovers, and loading practices are affected. Risk managers will re-evaluate parking policies, driver instructions, and stop schedules to align with explicit contractual obligations. In short, this ruling ripples into day‑to‑day logistics: routing, warehousing decisions, and fleet risk profiles all come under the microscope.

Steps transport companies should take now

Carriers, freight forwarders and shippers would be well advised to take a proactive stance. Typical next steps include:

• Review existing insurance policies for any “due vigilance” or similar limiting clauses.
• Request written evidence of explicit acceptance where clauses are present.
• Negotiate clearer wording with insurers or seek alternative coverage that spells out obligations plainly.
• Update internal procedures for parking, locking, and surveillance to reduce actual theft risk and make contractual positions defensible.
• Train drivers and operations staff on documentation and incident reporting so there is no gap between reality and paperwork.

Real-world angle: why carriers felt abandoned

Talk to truckers who’ve had loads stolen and it’s heartbreaking: a long night out, a trailer tampered with, and a denial letter citing a condition the driver never saw. That’s the rub — insurance is supposed to be a safety net, not a maze of fine print. The Court’s decision clears away some of that fog, though it won’t fix every gap overnight.

Potential long-term market shifts

Expect insurers to adopt clearer disclosure practices and possibly higher premiums where risk genuinely increases; conversely, transparent policies may encourage more competitive offers for carriers who accept clear, documented obligations. Technology could play a role too: telematics, geofencing, and real‑time surveillance may become bargaining chips in negotiations for better premium rates.

The ruling is highly relevant regionally and for national markets where these clauses were widespread, though its direct effect on global logistics is modest. Still, it signals a trend toward greater contractual transparency in transport insurance and will be watched by carriers, insurers and risk managers worldwide. On GetTransport.com, you can order your cargo transportation at the best prices globally at reasonable prices; this empowers shippers to make informed choices without overpaying for unclear coverage. Even the best reviews and the most honest feedback can’t replace firsthand experience: testing a carrier, insurer or platform personally remains essential. For your next cargo transportation, consider the convenience and reliability of GetTransport.com. Book now GetTransport.com.com

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision to annul improperly accepted “due vigilance” clauses strengthens the protection of carriers and clarifies insurers’ obligations. Logistics stakeholders should review policies, document formal acceptances, and adapt operational practices to minimize theft risk. The ruling nudges the market toward transparency and better alignment between contractual language and actual risk management. For anyone arranging cargo, freight or pallet shipments—whether international container loads or bulky domestic deliveries—this is a reminder to check the fine print, demand clear terms, and choose partners who make transport, shipping and forwarding simple and reliable.