Statute

Marine Insurance Act 1906, section 33: nature of warranty

In short: Section 33 defines a promissory warranty and states that it is a condition which must be exactly complied with. Until 2016 subsection (3) went further and provided that breach automatically discharged the insurer from liability from the date of the breach. That second sentence was removed, and section 34 repealed, by section 10(7) of the Insurance Act 2015 with effect from 12 August 2016. The definition survives; the automatic discharge rule does not.

Category: Statute · Marine Insurance Act 1906
Also known as: MIA 1906 s.33, section 33 Marine Insurance Act 1906, nature of warranty, promissory warranty
Related concepts: IA 2015 s.10, Marine Insurance Act 1906

The section as it now stands

Section 33(1) provides that a warranty, in the sections relating to warranties, means a promissory warranty — that is to say, a warranty by which the assured undertakes that some particular thing shall or shall not be done, or that some condition shall be fulfilled, or whereby he affirms or negatives the existence of a particular state of facts.

Section 33(2) provides that a warranty may be express or implied.

Section 33(3) now reads, in full: “A warranty, as above defined, is a condition which must be exactly complied with, whether it be material to the risk or not.”

What was removed, and by what

Subsection (3) used to continue. The second sentence provided that if the warranty was not exactly complied with then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer was discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred before that date.

That sentence was omitted by section 10(7)(a) of the Insurance Act 2015, and section 34 of the 1906 Act (when breach of warranty excused) was omitted by section 10(7)(b). Both changes took effect on 12 August 2016.

The pre-2015 position, and why it was so harsh

Three features made the old rule severe. The discharge was automatic: the insurer did not have to elect, or give notice, or show prejudice. It applied whether or not the warranty was material to the risk — those words remain in subsection (3) today. And it applied whether or not the breach had any connection with the loss, and whether or not it had been put right long before the loss occurred. A warranty breached in January and remedied in February would still, on the strict rule, leave the insurer discharged from a loss in December.

Section 34 gave limited relief: a breach was excused where changed circumstances made the warranty inapplicable, or where compliance was rendered unlawful by subsequent law, and a breach could be waived by the insurer. Those three ideas were not lost when section 34 was repealed — they reappear, in modern form, in section 10(3) of the Insurance Act 2015.

The before-and-after, stated plainly

This is the point most often muddled, so it is worth setting out directly.

Before 12 August 2016: a warranty had to be exactly complied with, materiality was irrelevant, and breach discharged the insurer from liability from the date of the breach onwards — permanently, whether or not the breach was later remedied and whether or not it had anything to do with the eventual loss.

From 12 August 2016: a warranty still has to be exactly complied with, and materiality is still irrelevant to whether there has been a breach — section 33(1) to (3) as they now stand say so. But the consequence changed. Under section 10 of the Insurance Act 2015, breach suspends cover rather than discharging it: the insurer has no liability for loss occurring, or attributable to something happening, after the breach and before it is remedied, and cover resumes on remedy. Separately, under section 11, an insurer may be unable to rely on non-compliance with a risk-reducing term at all if the insured shows the non-compliance could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred.

So section 33 was not repealed and warranties were not abolished. What was removed was the sanction, not the standard.

Why a marine statute matters to non-marine insurance

The 1906 Act codified the law of marine insurance, but the courts have long treated section 33 as the working statement of what a warranty is in insurance generally, and the old discharge rule was applied to non-marine policies as a matter of common law rather than by statutory extension. That is why removing one sentence from a marine statute changed the position for commercial property, liability and other non-marine covers across the market.

Practical reading

When a schedule or endorsement describes a term as a warranty, the label still carries weight: exact compliance is required and materiality is no answer. What has changed is that a historic, remedied breach no longer destroys the policy. Whether your particular wording preserves the modern default is a separate question, because a non-consumer policy may contract out of sections 10 and 11 if the transparency requirements in section 17 of the 2015 Act are met.

Frequently asked questions

Is section 33 still in force?

Yes. Section 33 remains in force and still defines a promissory warranty and states that it is a condition which must be exactly complied with, whether material to the risk or not. What was removed, on 12 August 2016, was the second sentence of subsection (3), which contained the automatic discharge rule.

What exactly was the sentence that was removed?

It provided that if the warranty was not exactly complied with then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer was discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred before that date. It was omitted by section 10(7)(a) of the Insurance Act 2015.

Does a warranty still have to be exactly complied with?

Yes. The requirement of exact compliance, and the statement that materiality to the risk is irrelevant, both survive in section 33(3). What changed is the consequence of breach: under section 10 of the Insurance Act 2015 the effect is suspensory rather than a permanent discharge of the insurer's liability.

Related entries

This entry is part of the Apex Insurance Wiki. It is insurance information about how UK cover responds to the rules described, and is not legal or regulatory advice. Rules, limits and wordings change; the position stated is as at August 2026. Check the primary source and take your own professional advice before relying on any of it.

Is that condition a warranty?

Labels in a schedule have consequences. If you are unsure what your policy imposes, send us the wording and we will tell you.

Call 0117 325 0027 info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This page is general information, not advice on a specific policy.

Want a broker to look at your commercial cover?

If you have your renewal pack, Statement of Fact or schedule, send it over and we’ll come back with options — no forms to fill in. Arranging cover for the first time? That works too. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Start a commercial quote →

Larger or multi-site risk? We’ll come and see you.