Definition
A phrase used in insurance policies—most commonly marine insurance—to extend coverage beyond named parties to any person who has an insurable interest in the subject matter at the time the policy is issued and who was contemplated by the party procuring the insurance. Rather than listing every potential beneficiary by name, the policy is written in open terms so that whoever holds the relevant interest at the time of loss may claim under it.
The phrase functions as a catch-all designation, allowing a single policy to serve multiple parties—such as a shipper, consignee, or factor—without requiring each to be identified at the time of contracting.
Common Confusion
The phrase is sometimes read as infinitely expansive, as though anyone who later acquires an interest in the insured property may claim under the policy. This is incorrect. Two limiting conditions apply: the person must have had an insurable interest at the date the policy was issued, and that person must have been within the contemplation of the party who procured the insurance. A subsequent purchaser who was unknown to and not contemplated by the procuring party at the time of contracting generally cannot claim the benefit of this language.
Core Elements
For a person to benefit from an "on account of whom it may concern" policy:
1. Insurable Interest: The claimant must have held a legally recognized insurable interest in the subject matter—not merely a speculative or future interest—as of the policy's effective date.
2. Contemporaneous Existence of Interest: The interest must have existed at the time the policy was procured, not merely at the time of loss.
3. Contemplation by the Procuring Party: The party who obtained the policy must have intended, even if only generally, to cover persons of the claimant's class or description. The contemplation need not be specific; a general intent to cover all parties with an interest in the cargo, for example, is typically sufficient.
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase appears almost exclusively in historical marine insurance materials and period commercial law sources. Researchers working with 19th and early 20th century shipping contracts, cargo insurance policies, or mercantile litigation will encounter it regularly; it is rarely used in modern insurance drafting, where named-insured and additional-insured endorsements have largely replaced the open-form approach.
The key research trap is treating this as purely archival language with no doctrinal consequence. Courts interpreting older policies—and occasionally modern policies that carry forward traditional marine insurance forms—still apply the two-part insurable interest and contemplation test. Understanding the phrase's limiting conditions is essential to evaluating the scope of coverage in any dispute involving such a policy.
Corpus researchers should also note that this phrase bridges insurance law and agency law: the party procuring the policy often acts as agent or factor for others, and questions about authority, ratification, and the procuring party's own interest frequently arise alongside coverage questions. Cases construing this phrase will often live in admiralty and commercial law reporters rather than general insurance law digests.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) defines the phrase by its operative scope: a policy using this language "will cover all persons having an insurable interest in the subject-matter at the date of the policy and who were then contemplated by the party procuring the insurance," citing 2 Parsons, Maritime Law, 30. This formulation closely tracks the leading 19th-century maritime treatise authority and reflects the doctrine as it was understood in the classic period of marine insurance practice.
Notably, Black's entry does not address the agency complications that arise when the procuring party acts for undisclosed principals, nor does it speak to ratification—the question of whether a person not initially contemplated can later adopt the policy and claim its benefits. Those issues, which received substantial treatment in English admiralty cases and American commercial courts, are not resolved by the dictionary definition alone and require consultation of primary sources from the period.
Jurisdictional Note
The doctrine developed primarily through English and American admiralty courts and applies most directly in maritime insurance contexts. American courts generally followed English marine insurance practice on this point, though variations exist in how strictly the "contemplation" requirement is applied. Researchers working with policies issued under Lloyd's forms or English law should consult English maritime law authorities alongside American sources.