The Yasin 
Cargo sold CIF, was shipped on a vessel, pursuant to a CP which required the shipowner to take out an insurance policy at its own expense, to cover the receivers for total loss of the cargo.
Subsequently, the ship and cargo were a total loss.
After indemnifying the receivers, the cargo’s insurers brought a subrogated action against the shipowner, alleging that the ship has been unseaworthy at the start of the voyage.
The shipowner argued, inter alia, there was an implied term that the insurer would not exercise any right of subrogation against the shipowner.
Lloyd J considered that:
1) The shipowner is the agent of the receiver to effect the policy
2) Even aside from the agent analysis, It is unnecessary to imply such a term to give business efficacy, such implication would actually be contrary to the express term which stated “in all cases to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss or to ensure that all rights against carriers, bailees or other third parties are properly preserved and exercised”