Article
citation information:
Rutkowski, M. Forms of insurance of
goods transported via water in the inter-uprising period in the Kingdom of
Poland. Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport. 2020, 107, 153-163. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2020.107.11.
Marek RUTKOWSKI[1]
FORMS
OF INSURANCE OF GOODS TRANSPORTED VIA WATER IN THE INTER-UPRISING PERIOD IN THE
KINGDOM OF POLAND
Summary. In May of 1844, more than twenty years after taking
the first steps in the field of regulating watercourse transportation issues,
the new law introducing strict water transportation measures in the Kingdom of
Poland was accepted by the Russian Tsar. These new proposals, though seen as
practically harsh and difficult, for instance, possibly limiting the
opportunity of obtaining compensation payments might have given some new strong
impulses for the development of Polish water transportations issues as a whole.
Keywords: tsarist transportation, Russian empire,
administration structures, 19th century
1. REGULATIONS ON THE METHOD OF RECORDING PROTOCOLS
REGARDING DAMAGE OF FLOATED GOODS OR PROPERTY ON THE LARGEST WATERCOURSE
OF THE KINGDOM OF POLAND – VISTULA RIVER, DATED AS OF 1823
The relative increase of the Polish state’s
interest in some kind of protection of the right of owners of items floated via
watercourses was decisively required to turn as early as the year 1823. During this time, a relative revival of
official interest in the proper protection of items transported in the Kingdom
of Poland via river floating was observed.
Thus, first as a consequence of an extensive
investigation, and as it was reported in the rescript of January 29, 1823, No.
1922/5022, issued by the Tax Department of the Masovian Voivodeship Commission,
observation and experience showed that the local police authorities (in this
case: mayors of the villages) often in the face of the “breakage”
or complete devastation of goods floated on the Vistula river as well as during
“/.../ other cases involving the destruction or damage of transported
commercial facilities" – did not usually and formally follow the
procedures adopted by existing regulations.
In practice, these village mayors and other
administrative officials did not write in
situ the full reports describing investigations done among persons who were
involved in accidents as required by the law. This referred primarily to local
residents watching the accident, and the participants themselves of the events
involved in the rafting. Instead, the mayors only wrote their own comments and
observations, which, however, could not be fully taken into account as any
evidence of a legal nature.
Obviously, the problem was noticed by the Warsaw’s
Government Commission of Revenues and Treasury, whose ministry at stake
instructed the suitable voivodeship authorities to instruct the local
administrative leaders as well as mayors of villages and towns to change the
way in which they dealt with diverse accidents, involving freight (goods and
properties) floated on the Vistula and other rivers. From then on (strictly
speaking from February of 1823), they had to write down their testimonies at
the express/immediate request of those concerned. The prepared reports were, of
course, to be signed additionally by all possible witnesses of such accidents.
Needless saying that only the protocol prepared in this way could be recognised
by the local police authorities as correct[2].
Hence, the first steps towards a correct and useful harmonisation
of the regulations confirming the owners' rights to goods damaged or lost
during the watercourse voyages could be described in the Kingdom of Poland as
appearing in 1823, eight years before the Polish -Muscovite war of 1831.
2. SECURED WATER TRANSPORTATION LAW OF MARCH 19, 1844
The general issue of insurance turned out
to be extremely sensitive in the Kingdom of Poland after the fall of the
November Uprising[3]. Particularly, at the
beginning of the post-uprising Paskievich period, one of the major problems
bothering the then state authorities was the idea of paying insurance quotas by
the Town and Countryside Fire Association, for fires caused by the war
disturbances[4]. The situation was further complicated when
pursuant to the decision of the Administrative Council of October 10/22, 1833, the
specific and new Insurance Company was founded in the Kingdom to protect the
so-called “movables”. Originally, the Society was to take care of
(apart from everyday movable objects) all types of cereals, both in the grain
itself and in sheaves, as well as horses, cattle, sheep and pigs. On the other
hand, the care of the new society did not cover gun powder magazines and
factories, bills of exchange, or all kinds of public papers (owned by private
persons), as well as jewels, silver or gold[5].
With all these disturbances and new provisions at stake, the problem of
introducing transport insurance, namely, water transported goods, proved to be
particularly difficult.
Another ten years passed before the emergence of
transport insurances in the post-uprising Kingdom. Specifically, in January of
1843, Tsar Nicholas I issued a decree constituting the foundation for further
development of transport insurance company there. This provision clearly
indicated the possibility of establishing some insurance procedures in
transport (more precisely: in cases dealing with transport losses)[6].
After Tsar Nicholas I signed a suitable confirmation
statement on December 29, 1842 / January 10, 1843, regarding the introduction of
the Insurance Act for Water-floated Goods in the Kingdom of Poland, and after
presentation of the relevant bill by the Government Committee for Internal,
Spiritual and Public Enlightenment Affairs (headed by the Russian Lieutenant general
and Senator Alexander Pisariev), the Warsaw’s Administrative Council
approved the “Act on Securing Floats” at its meeting of March 7/19,
1844. Moreover, the new law was adopted, “recognising the need to
establish a Floating Insurance Institution in the Kingdom”.
The Administrative Council not only ordered the Government
Committee of Internal, Spiritual and Public Enlightenment Affairs to implement
the new law but also suggested its further development by the ministry’s
appropriate staff. So that all interested parties could confidently rely on the
new legal solutions in their daily practice, at the same time, the government
instructed the Government Committee of Internal Affairs to formally publish its
verses in the official Law Digest of the Kingdom of Poland[7].
As it seemed apparent from the first chapter of the new law (by the way,
the new decree was written and published without any preamble, which was not
the common custom of the juridical procedures of that time), referring to the
remarks of a ruling nature, it was newly established under the name Directorate
of Insurances, which had the basic obligation to provide compensation for all
losses that could occur while navigating the rivers of the Kingdom: that is,
losses of various goods, crops and movables of all types, or categories. Surprisingly,
the juridical act at stake even “covered” (although to a small
extent) selected areas outside the relevant territory of the Vienna Congress
Kingdom of Poland. As such, the new law did not only mention the
“Polish” rivers: Ńida. Wieprz,
Вug, Narew, Pilica, Prosna, Warta, Biebrza and of course the Vistula, as
well as the Augustów Canal, but also the entire length of the Niemen River
(today: Nemunas) on the distance from the city of Grodno to the Curonian Bay
(outside the Kingdom), and even a transport line to the Prussian port of Memel
(Klaipeda). In the original text, the insured goods were referred to as via
“/…/ Niemen [Nemunas] up to Memel [Klaipeda] transported”,
which could and actually mean the transport of goods by the Curonian Lagoon
being solely under Prussian sovereignty.
The time period when it was possible
(allowed) to normally insure the goods floated via these waters was determined
by the Administrative Council for a period stretching from April 1st of each
year and ending on November 1st. In case anyone strongly wanted to secure his
rafting proprieties for a longer period extending over November 1st, or
beginning before April 1st of a given year, then one not only had to obtain the
special approval of the Directorate of Insurances for this (which depended on supposed
“favourable circumstances”) but also be prepared to pay significant
additions for such a privilege. This usually would increase the ordinary sum by
50% of the amount of the insurance itself, compared to the normal tariff[8].
In order to facilitate the effective
completion of the insurance procedure itself, or any future change to its
conditions, the legislator in the article 3rd of the new law of March 19, 1844,
freed all types of correspondence concerning “floating insurances”
from typical postal and stamp charges. On the other hand, sending sums of money
in cases connected directly or indirectly with the “water transport
insurances” was considered possible to be carried out on the same terms
as those applicable to the payment of fire insurance receivables (in other
words, it was assumed being undertaken in quite the same terms and standards as
were used in the correspondence with the Town and
Countryside Fire Association).
Pointing to the provenance of the
watercourse insurance funds, it was considered discernible that they must first
come from generating premium amounts, and perhaps from (other) extraordinary
measures. Additionally, it was anticipated that during the first three stages
of the effective operation of this type of insurance, the amount of tariff fees
was to be determined in accordance with the rates of “those foreign
companies that had [previously] accepted insurance of products from the
Kingdom, on the Vistula, the Bug and Narew rivers floated”. It was only
after these first three years that new premiums could be determined in
accordance with the financial results achieved by the insurer.
To maintain the financial liquidity of
floating insurance, the Administrative Council foresaw the possibility of
providing some specific emergency measures. Precisely, in the event of premiums
collected (as well as the reserve capital) not being sufficient to cover the
current expenses of the water floated goods and proprieties insurer at that
time, then the Directorate of (General) Insurances could use in the form of a
loan, funds accumulated from other types of insurance activities (for example,
mostly from the source of “fire premiums”). The abovementioned
amounts had to be repaid in the following years “with the lowest
[lending] interest rate [in original: percentage] that these funds
bring”.
Those “floating insurance
funds”, which at the time would not be used to cover for current needs,
had to be invested in an interest-bearing account at the Bank of Poland, –where,
as was in the case of determining the method of sending due financial amounts,
the rules for maintaining the financial “water finances surplus” in
the main bank of the Kingdom were modelled on the procedures applied to
“fire funds”[9].
Chapter Two of the Act of March 19, 1844,
had a significant title: “On the way of joining and accepting float
insurances, and on allowing [such] insurances in foreign companies”. Here
we find out the procedure followed to join the floating/rafting insurance
company. It seems that a general rule was adopted; the goods presented for
insurance had to be described using Polish markings or weights, as well as
weight converters. The above meant that, for instance, after loading transports
in Prussia (that is, using local Prussian units of measurement and weights), and
crossing the border of the Kingdom, it was necessary to “reduce”
these foreign measures on Polish units of account.
A typical person wishing to secure
water-floated goods was required to submit in duplicate, a relevant declaration
drawn up on specially printed forms. Such a declaration had to include: (a) the
family name of the shipowner; (b) the family names of persons employed on the specified
ship; c) the name, type and general characteristics of the ship itself; d)
optionally the number of “marked” barges; f) designations and
quantity of transported items; g) the type and value of goods transported; h)
distance of the insured transport route or duration of insurance; i) assessment
of the serviceability status and general shape of the ship(s) on which the
goods were to be carried. The very decision to accept water transported goods
for insurance could take place either directly by virtue of the decision of the
Directorate of Insurances, or possibly upon the decision of its local
commissioners, authorised by the Directorate.
It is only after a thorough analysis of
the content of the declaration submitted directly to the offices of the
Directorate of Insurances would this agency express its opinion on the amount
of money considered as possible (and proposed) for a specific insurance. The
management of Directorate of Insurances also decided on the amount of the
premium to be paid by the insured person(s). Having made these decisions, only
then was a copy of the declaration returned to the applicant by employees of
the Directorate of Insurances. The sheer value of items submitted for insurance
was calculated based on the invoice analysis of average market prices. Another
possible way was to have all insured goods assessed by experts. The prices of
goods thus determined were published in an insurance certificate, which meant
among others that when making any possible compensation for losses, they could
not be reduced under any circumstances.
The goods insurance certificate,
constituting as such the very basis for possible future claims, was sent to the
person concerned only after meeting some clear financial requirements,
specifically after paying the required contribution amount directly at the
Ticket Office of the Directorate of Insurances, or after “sending there
the determined contribution free of charge” by post.
Nonetheless, should the declaration be
submitted to one of its authorised representatives rather than the
Warsaw’s main office of the Directorate of Insurances, then the whole
procedure would seem a bit different. Then, the amount of the sum insured and
the premium to be paid on that account was firmly established by the authorised
commissioner. After accepting the established financial claim (which also
included the costs of sending it, or - giving a typically used Latin term -
“portoria”), an authorised representative of the Directorate of
Insurances issued the insurance certificate to the person concerned, while
returning to the applicant one copy of the declaration he had previously
submitted to him. It is worthy of note that the insurance certificates were not
issued free of charge, for each document of this kind, the insurance
administration charged a fee of 15 kopecks.
The Act of March 19, 1844, established the
highest amount of money that could be insured in respect of goods carried on
one sailing vessel. This sum totally amounted to 9 thousand rubles in silver.
Items transported on a barge or on any other sort of “non-sailing
ship” could be insured for an amount not exceeding three thousand silver
rubles. To generally facilitate money settlements, each insured monetary amount
should be in a position where it can be “divided by 10, without any
fraction”[10].
The period when the insurance of cargo
carried via waterways was considered in force, as a general rule, was valid
from the moment the premium was paid. However, this did not always apply in an
automatic manner because if the goods were insured before they were deposited
on the watercraft, then the obligation to pay possible damages arose only when
the insured items were loaded onto the ship itself.
The end of validity of a particular
insurance contract was established in such a way that exactly at noon on the
day marked in the contract was generally considered to be the exact expiring
time. Unless the exact date of termination of insurance
was described in the contract, the time when the insured items were unloaded on
land was considered to be such a moment.
At the same time, the maximum length
period for keeping goods on board the ship before its final unloading onto the
mainland (or another barge) was determined; It is six days after reaching the
shore at the latest. In this situation, it became clear that the Directorate of
Insurances was not responsible for any damage caused after the unloading of
goods or any other insured proprieties. The only exception was when the owner
of the goods was able to prove that he could not, for reasons beyond his
control, unload his property within the period prescribed by law.
Specifying precisely, the necessary
conditions for the solvency of losses occurring while transporting goods via
waters, the Administrative Council on March 19, 1844, emphatically pointed out
that the responsibility of the Directorate of Insurances was only to consider
payments for accidents, the causes of which could only be found in the matter
of navigation. The conditions enabling payment of compensation included: a)
storms; b) tempests; c) “haemorrhage of water”;
d) winds; e) breaking or sinking of the ship; f) hitting the ship against any
kind of river hazards; g) the ship overturning when passing through: under
bridges, through the gangway, through locks; h) stranding the ship aground.
The Directorate of Insurances was in
particular not liable for damages: a) “resulting from transport
delay”; b) caused by incorrect distribution of transported goods [both on
the deck and beneath it] on the ship carrying goods; c) resulting from
inadequate packaging of goods; d) resulting from the transport of items in
glass or wooden vessels, especially if the loss occurred as a result of the
rupture of the vessels (“or other similar reason”); e) occurring as
a result of “spilling” of goods; f) caused by the appearance of
rust; g) resulting from partial consumption by mice; h) occurring as a result
of corruption “by the internal disposition of the goods, or by the /.../
influence of air”.
Similarly, the insurance administration
did not bear any responsibility for damages to property resulting from: a)
robbery; b) theft; c) embezzlement by the rowing staff. In addition, the
Directorate of Insurances was not entitled to pay for any loss caused by
strictly political causes, including: a) confiscation of goods of a prohibited
nature (by the tsarist administration), b) “removal by order of [state]
authority, or during war” [11].
The law of March 1844 prohibited the
insured persons from postponing the date/time of departure, or speeding up
departure, the latter was
particularly prohibited “in a dangerous time", which meant: a) as
regards arriving with the goods before November 1; b) in case of departure with
goods before April 1 of each year.
Due to a very long delay of the ship (or
its stopping) for some unforeseen reasons, including those of atmospheric
nature, such as premature appearance of floating ice or pack on rivers, the
Directorate of Insurances obtained special rights to dispose of the goods it
protected
Particularly, while insurance officials
recognised that such a solution would be more appropriate for the proper
protection of goods transported by water, officials of the Directorate of
Insurances had the right to unload such items at the expense of the insurance
company and store them in a safe place. In such an event, the mere guarding of
goods and their “further disposition” depended on the owner of the
load. In light of the above, it was logical that the Directorate of Insurances
was not responsible for damage to the goods after they were unloaded ashore by
their employees. More so, protection or even saving of insured goods exposed to
danger was rewarded[12].
As in the case of other types of
insurance, efforts were made to eliminate the competition of foreign insurers (insurance
companies) in relation to water transport carried out in the Kingdom of Poland.
Hence, Article 23 of the Act of March 19, 1844, described explicitly the idea
of prohibiting securing of losses arising from shipping at any foreign
insurance companies, especially if such an insurance contract was concluded
without prior approval from the Warsaw’s insurance company, specifically:
Directorate General of Insurances.
The penalty provided for violating this
prohibition was five-fold the premium paid in a foreign insurance company. Half
of this sum was to fall to a hypothetical “informer” who would have
provided the authorities with information about the whole illegal procedure.
If, however, it turned out that the owner of items/goods/proprieties illegally
insured in a foreign insurance company and simultaneously made their additional
insurance in the Polish insurance agency, the possible loss of the last
institution was not to be covered in the form of even the smallest
compensation.
The Warsaw’s Directorate of
Insurances had the right to grant special permission to take out insurance
“policy” with a foreign company, indicated as capable of granting
one. This could only happen if “the value of the given items to be
insured exceeded the actual possibilities of its insurance by the Polish state-own
company”[13].
Part three of the Act of March 19, 1844 was
entitled “On proceedings and activities during the insurance
period”. It started with art. 25th, where it was pointed out that during a
voyage, the owner or skipper (the responsibility of the skipper's actions,
moreover, rested on the ship's owner) should apply utmost care to the delivery
of the transported goods to their destination as soon as possible,
“possibly not interrupted by unnecessary stops”.
Based on the fact that some sections of
Polish rivers had established specific “retmen” (that is, senior rafters who managed the whole process of rafting), authorised for transporting goods by the
Directorate of Insurances, hence, it
appeared a rule that only
they could transport insured items/property on these specific parts of the watercourses.
Correspondingly, the owners of floated units were obliged to follow the
principle of professionalism when choosing their rafters and guides, that is, they
had to select only highly proficient persons[14].
The fourth chapter of the law of March 19,
1844, was marked by the title: “On proceedings during damage or sinking
of cargo, awarding and payment of remuneration”. As it primarily resulted
from the provisions given here, after damage/loss of the insured
goods/proprieties, their owner should have taken the greatest care with the
immediate saving of the rest of the insured items that were not yet
significantly damaged. The appropriate remuneration for such action was promised.
There was a need for the insured person or
his representative to notify a duly authorised "commissioner" of the
Directorate of Insurances as soon as possible about an accident (misfortune). Another possibility was when there
was no representative of the insurance company located or be reached nearby, thus,
prompt notification of the entire accident to the nearest administrative
authority. Such a possibility occurred while taking into account such
representatives of administrative staff, as: a) head of a district (poviat); b) the President
or mayor of the city; c) the head of a local commune. Simultaneously,
altogether with such properly submitted to local authorities a complex report
(but while doing so not later than 24 hours after the accident), the insured
person had to send a formal notification of the accident directly to the
Directorate of Insurances located in Warsaw. In such a report, it was necessary
to describe exactly the type of damage suffered, and the monetary value equivalent of the loss.
Each official to whom the information
about an accident was directed was required to go to the scene in person to
verify received data about the accident, its circumstances and the individuals
involved. It was also his duty to carry out a sort of inquiry among persons who
were on the ship at the given moment, or who possibly saw the accident from a
short distance.
During the investigation, it was the
victim’s (that is, person(s) suffering from insured items’ loss) party
responsibility to prove what specific propriety (and in what quantity and what
type) were on the damaged ship/barge. Of course, this concerned only those
goods that were designated as insured, and for which compensation was demanded.
Such proof could be done by presenting: a) registers; b) contracts concluded
with carriers, c) any other written evidence, or d) “in some other way,
considered by the delegated representative of the insurance company as
sufficiently considered”.
After completing the initial stage of the
investigation, the loss-affected person should have noted in the report that
nothing more than what was written therein was to be added or supplemented. The
report was then attached to the “liquidation of damage” protocol,
also signed by the victim of the accident, and delegated to the place where the
insurance commissioner was to be found. This documentation was subsequently
sent at the latest within three days of the event to the local head of the
district (poviat).
The most important district official
immediately forwards to the Warsaw’s Directorate of Insurances, the whole
number of files previously submitted to him, including: a) investigation
report; and b) “liquidation of losses”. To do so, however, there
must have been an impassable condition for the existence of demand consisting
of a relatively small request of the insurance money amount, not exceeding 150
rubles in silver. Another restriction was the need for the district head of the
county to admit the lack of “legitimate reasons to doubt the /.../
reliability” of data presented in the documentation.
Otherwise, or if the damage suffered was
greater in value than 150 silver rubles, the duty of the head of the district
was to delegate to the place of the accident the local poviat accountant of the
Directorate of Insurances, or at least another chosen county official. Their
mission was to check what actually happened in
situ, and personally carry out the whole investigation concerning loss
settlement on site. This way, the district chief submitted to the Directorate
of Insurances either only the loss settlement certified by himself or “modernised
by himself” the liquidation of losses, for which he had ten days at the
latest.
It was not always necessary to follow all
the stages of this complicated notification procedure. This could happen when
the accident occurred near, or in the vicinity of the capital of the Kingdom.
When the “unfortunate event” took place near Warsaw, the victim's
only duty was to inform the Directorate of Insurances as soon as possible. This
central agenda, in turn, immediately ordered the verification and assessment of
the damage by an employee delegated from its capital office.
The next stage of proceedings began with
the delivering of “investigation evidence” and “liquidation
files” to the offices of the Directorate of Insurances. It was only then
that the administrative apparatus of the insurance company could properly
proceed with the specific case and possible grant award of remuneration for
goods sunk or damaged during navigation.
An extremely important fact was that when the value of
goods damaged during shipping turned out to be more than 1/4 of the total
insured amount of money, “no more damage, for the same insurance
certificate” was covered. The above meant that the owner of the goods
floated or in other way transported by a watercourse, could at most expect a
refund (calculated from the whole amount of insurance) of ¼ of the total
value of the (lost) goods.
Referring to specific issues, the Act of March 19, 1844,
described the procedure to be followed in respect of double-covered or even
multiple insured goods. In the event of damage to property covered by two or
more insurance certificates, the remuneration for each certificate was awarded
separately[15].
There were a number of possibilities where the
Directorate of Insurances may refuse to pay compensation. Basically, this could
happen if the injured party failed to meet the following conditions. First: a)
timely notification of the accident to the Directorate of insurances itself or
its authorised local representative within the prescribed period of 24 hours;
b) later presentation of any proof of such notification being sent at the post
office. Second, such a possibility occurred if during the trip there was (made
without properly notifying the Directorate of Insurances) a change in the
ship's personnel, or change of barge, responsible for the transport of assured
goods. Third, when “unnecessary overloading of the ship caused
damage”[16].
Under certain conditions, the injured party lost the
right to receive the assurance amount of money unconditionally. Furthermore, in
light of one of the specific reasons (partly described above) for the apparent
loss of right for getting insurance payment, the injured individual himself
might have become a defendant at the same time, and as such his person might become
subject to court proceedings. Such danger threatened especially policyholders
of goods transported via watercourses, mostly when they prepared “false”
insurance declarations or deliberately concealed in them “something
unfavourable to the Directorate of Insurances”. Similarly, presenting in
the “liquidation application” by the injured party “for
unlawful views”, a much greater extent of damage than actually took
place; as well as a bigger number of damaged or sunken objects led directly to
the same results.
Equally dangerous for the victim’s party were the
possible consequences of actual “hiding” of a number of items and then
providing them in the application as lost during the accident. Finally, the
insured person lost the right to remuneration and will be threatened with being
subjected to court proceedings if it was proved to him that he had contributed
intentionally or at the instigation of third parties to damage of secured
items, or eventual damage to the ship carrying these goods.
If the “false statement or fraud” made to
achieve unauthorised material benefits was found and proved after the payment
of the unlawfully granted insurance benefit, and such incorrect payment was
discovered and proved after it was actually made, then the Warsaw’s
Directorate of Insurances reserved itself the right to collect back such
amounts of money by way of administrative execution.
With all this, the already properly awarded formal
compensation for damaged or sunk during water transport items was to be paid
immediately, “and without any deductions”. This money could either
be collected personally at the Warsaw office of the Directorate of Insurances
or after transferring by postal order, at the main offices of the province or
district (poviat) governors. The decision on the form and place of receipt of
the awarded money belonged directly to the injured person[17].
3. CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of the Insurance Act for
goods/items/proprieties carried by waterways in March 1844 was one of the
visual interpretations of the process of consistent pushing out of foreign
insurance companies from the Polish insurance market, which was elsewhere
exemplified by, for example, regulations in the field of the Fire Association
of Towns and Countryside. Noteworthy is the very strict and almost complete
definition of the possibilities of actions of the victims to the detriment of
the Directorate of Insurances, as well as the clear limitation of the
possibility of obtaining compensation payments, equaling only one-quarter of
the value of the assured goods. On the one hand, the Act of March 19, 1844, gave
Polish watercourse carriers new rights or options in the field of insurance, while
effectively eliminating the possibility of choosing an insurer, and limited the
amount of compensation of anticipated losses.
References
1.
Archiwum
Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie. Rada
Administracyjna Królestwa Polskiego:1832. Signature: 24. [In Polish: Central
Archives of Historical Record in Warsaw.
The Administrative Council of Kingdom of Poland].
2. ”Dziennik Urzędowy Województwa Mazowieckiego”. February 17, 1823. No 364. Warszawa: Komisja Rządowa Województwa Mazowieckiego. [In Polish: Official Journal of Masovian Voivodeship. Warsaw: Commission of Masovian Voivodeship].
3.
”Dziennik Urzędowy Województwa
Mazowieckiego”. January 2, 1832. No 15. Warszawa: Komisja
Rządowa Województwa Mazowieckiego. [In Polish: Official Journal of Masovian Voivodeship. Warsaw: Commission of
Masovian Voivodeship].
4.
”Dziennik Urzędowy Województwa
Mazowieckiego”. December 16, 1833. No 117.
Warszawa: Komisja Rządowa Województwa Mazowieckiego. [In Polish: Official Journal of Masovian Voivodeship.
Warsaw: Commission of Masovian Voivodeship].
5.
”Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa
Polskiego”. April 12, 1844. No 83. Warszawa:
J. Jaworski. [In Polish: Government
Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland. Warsaw: J. Jaworski].
6.
”Gazeta Rządowa Królestwa
Polskiego”. April 13, 1844. No 84. Warszawa:
J. Jaworski. [In Polish: Government
Gazette of the Kingdom of Poland. Warsaw: J. Jaworski].
7. Kawiński Marcin. 2013. Ubezpieczenia w rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczym Polski. ”Wiadomości ubezpieczeniowe”. Numer Specjalny 2/2013. Warszawa: Centrum Edukacji Ubezpieczeniowej. [In Polish: Insurance in the socio-economic development of Poland. in: "Insurance news". Special Number 2/2013. Warsaw: Insurance Education Center].
8.
Krzeczkowski Konstanty. 1931-1935. Rozwój ubezpieczeń publicznych w
Polsce. t. 1-t. 2. Warszawa: Powszechny Zakład
Ubezpieczeń Wzajemnych. [In Polish: Development of public insurance in
Poland. Vol. 1-2. Warsaw: Universal Mutual Insurance Company].
9. Mayzel Bronisław. 1900. Przegląd historyczny rozwoju instytucyj ubezpieczeń w Królestwie Polskim z dodaniem obrazu bibliograficznego polskiej literatury asekuracyjnej. Warszawa: B. Mayzel. [In Polish: Historical review of the development of insurance institutions in the Kingdom of Poland with the addition of a bibliographic image of Polish insurance literature. Warsaw: B. Mayzel].
10. Szczęśniak Marian. 2003. Zarys dziejów ubezpieczeń na ziemiach polskich. Warszawa: Wyższa szkoła Ubezpieczeń i Bankowości w Warszawie. [In Polish: An outline of the history of insurance in Poland. Warsaw: University of Insurance and Banking in Warsaw].
Received 04.03.2020; accepted in revised form 30.04.2020
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License