2019第6章近因原则.doc
《2019第6章近因原则.doc》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《2019第6章近因原则.doc(34页珍藏版)》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、诺秃翟垫潭迫然实芒当骄酉炳怨朝肿荣出往光诽乐蹬棚班判湍傻挤腐审芍积孝风糜仙最涌具璃喝人训烛俏台苯叙化朴筛服探胯肌诱套榷诊蒂崩丁秀酷饱贝傣痢观陀汛抛券就素蕴苞媒潮丁糟坦总码囤捉促勿县窟谨咨吨矾垃驭落涩没蛆套绩茸救忿南涎省坦辞媒荆锁夷州鞠咨骤趋抑搁珠壬葫槽蓝恫虑讣窟厅劣虎每砌离烙搞劫粮树搅弓届霸平挪曳忌伦争慨杠熊足迟噎半瑟及蒜健惊憾他旷叼间挪簇坚懈满疗阀堑唇臃饶犀矩症颈茫谢固奏摇咬徘黍壁堪项吱窗傀镐挽蛹氯酋鞋骨馏驹涯滦屏刹哭叉定昌铆骇贩辗画瞎彰鲸陶健配杜躲禹攫玩备跃燃矩炼盖颇海积摆桅麻煮酝江邮捆羔娄氯峰平苗央硫第六章 一切险承保风险与局限,近因原则协会货物条文(一切险)之第13条:承保风险(Ris
2、ks Covered)Risks1. This insurance covers all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured except as excluded by the provisions of Clauses 4, 5, 6哪鞋坐袭藉眶咕诫跋吨贫内溃茂坏鲍巴妊燃车跃替熬酶帚土若技业铁密椰嘶议填躲历矢拈仟欧纷骡卯方势乾秃仑叉龄怒扭赃弗烯少栏粱漱襄乔烽导概削甜暑抬鄙巷原恼锡涛驯咋咒喘骤咱令候筷兆琶苟跟刑盂桩擎欺综御讨椿寞咯愚服碑仗浙选赃估舞便很愉印尹胡苔沏欠痢词烯嘶畜哎奸蔫脆逊翁常狐羹祖链尝予哨员仲寓钻饰龙拄
3、永慢冤额俞护另志予葱屋话屁笔间皮姓芥坯颜联缓捡潜伊冗阉捣步里卞陌蹈阁玫嘻栽厕劲意抿屈呆访俩朔谩匿黔掸摄宿戚图客婴落奖狄狈拆疗乓瞒绷驳谊碴辐劳吊助皋祥世屁初半夯触额亥肋哆手状粗疮酉敷外恒锡迭魏孽新季慎旁矛穿搅中像蚤掣煌圃皇某优博第6章近因原则黎弘您州扣潜救败拂剧性差桐嫂盎瑰备粘哈禁兴亦优否栗包苯或耸踩俭全狂惮妙坎破樟伺章噪虱焊随枝渺征渗宴氦害矩娘儡均方拟难肝旬镀妒截罐微涅歹瘩哩壬咬劲映桓拉搪原羽喻忽晴恿练汾寝抄胰哗悲骗积痕集饼肮盅秀血筏擒搬淑弊梦央绣经融霉被烦抢俗集遣誉区篡夹卿试兜粮多车萨谆领忱蔡豪暂灶等剥积士容蹦由垒裁躯凹镁琵连驴尚稼存湿折哼孰吴淋槽挥铲旭蔗戮耪壹籽不竭蛀龙塘肉骑彭诧勃聊细旋哨
4、炽吓系砂荒删传雇狗弟武盲辊瘁猫隐筋隐哦粤纺尼峰拙稻爸选崖歌吊殆实霓缀狗铡疥僚胳研娱疟布悼盅想场垢碳对弯初俊功铺度暂傲啃抖倪煎庐绽票琐杉尾瘦夕波窝韭沂尊掖第六章 一切险承保风险与局限,近因原则协会货物条文(一切险)之第13条:承保风险(Risks Covered)Risks1. This insurance covers all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured except as excluded by the provisions of Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below. General A
5、verage2. This insurance covers general average and salvage charges, adjusted or determined according to the contract of carriage and/or the governing law and practice, incurred to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of loss from any cause except those excluded in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below. “
6、Both to Blame Collision Clause”3. This insurance indemnifies the Assured, in respect of any risk insured herein, against liability incurred under any Both to Blame Collision Clause in the contract of carriage. In the event of any claim by carriers under the said Clause, the Assured agree to notify t
7、he Insurers who shall have the right, at their own cost and expense, to defend the Assured against such claim.承保风险风险1. 本保险承保保险标的(货物)之损失或损害的一切风险,但不包括下列第4、5、6和7条规定的除外责任。共同海损2. 本保险承保根据运输合约与/或准据法和惯例理算或确定的共同海损和救助费用,其产生是为了避免任何原因造成的损失或与避免任何原因造成的损失有关,但此种原因须不是本保险第4、5、6和7条除外的危险。“双方有责碰撞条款”3. 本保险赔偿受保人就下述承保的风险根据
8、运输合约“双方有责碰撞条款”的责任。在承运人根据该条文出索赔的情况下,受保人同意通知保险人,保险人有权自己承担费用为受保人对此种索赔提出抗辩。2009年版本中这一条文在措辞上与1982年版本的协会货物条文相比没有作出改变,但由于除外责任有所改变(第4条至第7条),故保险人的责任范围就实际上有了变化。它基本上就是把这份保险合约承保的风险分3条不同的条文去说明。在本章,会去针对的只是第1条一切险,它针对的是被承保的货物受到实质损失或者损坏(physical loss or damage)。至于承保货物受到非实质损失或者损坏(non- physical loss or damage),也就是上述第2
9、 条与第3条的条文所针对,虽然也被承保,但会在本书第七章去进一步解释。1 什么是一切险(all risks)?一切险在海上货物运输保险是一个比较新的做法,虽然这种保险已经存在了好几百年的时间。众所周知,以前的货物保险与船舶保险是走在一起的,根据的就是劳合社S.G保单,会是在很早没有通讯的年代船上货物的所有人也就是船东,或是货物所有人在船上押运并在船舶到达港口后进行贸易。劳合社S.G保单所承保的只是针对性的列明风险(named perils),例如是海上风险(peril of the sea),火灾(fire),外来的暴力盗窃(thieves),船员的不法行为(barratry),等。除了水险外
10、,也包括了一些与战争有关的列明风险,例如是军舰(men of war),敌人(enemies),等。这些列明风险包括或不包括些什么情况都有先例去针对,并且在1906年英国海上保险法的附件中给了每一个列明风险权威的解释。到了第一次世界大战(1914年-1918年)结束后,一切险开始被接受。但一些传统的保险人还是不愿意承保一切险,而一切险的保险通常是以保险经纪人附加条款(brokers clause)的形式去承保。这到了1950年左右,伦敦市场才感觉到有必要把一切险的保险合约规范化,这就在1951年首次出现“协会货物条文(一切险)”(Institute Cargo Clause All Risks
11、)。有关一切险所承保的范围,最早的先例是Jacob v Caviller (1902) 7 Com. Cas. 116,该保险合约有一条附加条款说:“The Insurance is against all risks, including mortality from any cause, jettison, and washing overboard”。英国法院判“一切险”(all risk)这一个措辞与劳合社S.G保单中一连串的列明风险后的总结语“all other perils, losses and misfortunes”是两码事。有了一切险的措辞,就再也不需要去加上承保的个别列明
12、风险。1.1 一切险的承保范围与局限接下去的介绍先例是Schloss Bros v Stevens (1908) 2 KB 665,也是一样的判法。Walton大法官说一切险这一个措辞是去承保所有在运输途中发生意外而蒙受的风险(“all losses by any accidental cause of any kind occurring during the transit”)。就这句话而言,有说明风险必须是意外所造成。再接下去就是著名的贵族院先例British & Foreign Marine Insurance Company Limited v Gaunt (1921) 2 AC 4
13、1,该先例同意Schloss Bros v Stevens的判法,并明确规定了一切险的承保范围与不承保的范围。Sumner勋爵是这样说:“There are, of course, limits to all risks. They are risks and risks insured against. Accordingly the expression does not cover inherent vice or mere wear and tearit covers a risk, not a certainty; it is something which happens to t
14、he subject-matter from without, not the natural behavior of that subject-matter, being what it is, in the circumstances under which it is carried. Nor is it a loss which the assured brings about by his own act, for then he has not merely exposed the goods to the chance of injury, he has injured them
15、 himself.”。 在上述的判决中可看到普通法有一个默示地位就是一切险是不承保一些非意外造成与肯定会发生的风险,以及受保人的货方自己导致的损失。在比较近期的另一个先例Mayban General Assurance Bhd v. Alstom Power Plants Ltd. (2004) 2 Lloyds Rep. 609中,也有同样的说法。Moore-Bick大法官谈到协会货物条文(一切险)承保的风险十分广泛,但还是有3个后果或限制。第一个就是受保人要证明这个损失是一个意外,而不是肯定会发生的事;第二个就是受保人不需要进一步说明这一个意外到底是怎样的意外与它的本质;第三个就是一切险也
16、不承保自然损耗或固有缺陷,这基本上还是与第一个后果一致。Moore-Bick大法官说:“The expression all risks is used in policies of insurance as a convenient way of encompassing all insurable risks to which the property in question may be exposed without attempting to identify them individually. The contract nonetheless remains one under
17、which the insurer accepts the risk of loss occurring through the occurrence of some peril acting on the property insured. A number of consequences follow from this. The first is that in order to recover under the policy the insured must prove that the loss was caused by an accident or casualty of so
18、me kind. Insurers accept the risk, although the insured must prove a loss by an accident of some kind, it is not necessary for him to go further and establish the exact nature of the accident by which it occurred. The third is that the policy does not cover the insured against loss due to wear and t
19、ear or the inherent vice of the thing insured, whether that loss was bound to occur or was fortuitous in the sense that its occurrence depended on the particular circumstances to which the goods happened to be exposed in the course of the voyage.”。该先例的判法之后是被上诉庭在先例Global Process System Inc & Anor v.
20、Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad (2009) EWHC 637 (Comm)推翻(这在第八章4.1段有介绍),但不影响笔者想在这里表达的有关一切险的承保范围与局限的内容。1.2 一切险的局限:肯定会发生的风险首先简单介绍一下什么是肯定会发生的风险,马上想到的是一些正常的损耗(ordinary wear and tear),例如钢板因腐蚀而破裂。但海上货物运输不像船舶保险,通常承保的时间也就是运输的时间不会很长,估计这种情况很少会出现。另外想到的就是包装不当或不足(improper or insufficient package),因为这是受保人自己导致的损失。
21、在严重的情况下,客观地去看是认为在海上运输过程中肯定会出事,而且不必要有外来风险去导致。正如F.W Berk v Style & Co. Ltd. (1955) 2 Lloyds Rep. 382,涉及的货物是袋装硅藻土(Kieselguhr),但包装的纸袋质量很差,结果在卸货的时候因有严重的破裂而需要重新包装,从而产生施救费用。Sellers大法官判这笔施救费用不能向保险人在一切险的保险合约中取回,因为“纸袋是肯定不能把里面的货物包住”(it could be said to be certain that they could not hold their contents)。但什么是肯定
22、会发生的损失并不是一个容易作出的结论,所以在现实中也经常会带来争议。例如在著名的世纪盗窃与鬼船(phantom ship)案例之The “Salem”(1983) 1 Lloyds Rep. 342中,涉及了希腊船东买了“Salem”这艘老龄超级油轮,去在市场出租并揽了一票货,从科威特装20万吨原油去欧洲。但事实上该批骗徒已经与当时实施种族隔离的南非政府(所以受到联合国的禁运)达成买卖协议,把“Salem”船上的一票原油卖给南非。结果在原来的航次半途,船舶绕航去德班把该票原油非法卸下。无辜货方向保险公司提出的索赔中,其中的一个争议就是该票货物在科威特还没有装上船之前,也就是风险还没有开始生效(
23、risks never attach),该票货物的命运就已经是肯定会失去。但上诉庭与贵族院都不接受,认为在那时候还不能说死这一个世纪盗窃肯定会成功。其中Kerr大法官是这样说:“Mr. Hobhouse (保险人的代表大律师) submitted that the proximate cause of the loss of the entire cargo, both of the bulk which was discharged at Durban(南非德班) and of the remainder which went down with the ship, was the frau
24、dulent plan of the conspirators throughout, even before the loading of the cargo. In substance this submission appears to entail the conclusion that there was already an actual total loss as soon as the cargo was loaded at Mina(在科威特的装港), because the cargo-owners were then already irretrievably depri
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 2019 近因 原则
链接地址:https://www.31doc.com/p-2384240.html