第1章海上貨物保險(xiǎn)簡介

1、第一章 海上貨物保險(xiǎn)簡介1 序言簡單說，海上貨物保險(xiǎn)的歷史是十分悠久，早在意大利的Florentine Ordinance 1523就已經(jīng)有記錄。在英國，首次有關(guān)貨物的保單出現(xiàn)在1555年。到了1601年，英國議院就通過了第一次的立法去針對海上保險(xiǎn)，名為An Act Concerning Matters of Assurances Used Among Merchants。在19世紀(jì)海上貿(mào)易大增，這帶來有關(guān)法律的很大發(fā)展。在英國法院，例如是Mansfield 勛爵等著名法官以及陪審團(tuán)（當(dāng)時(shí)英國法院的民商事案件有關(guān)事實(shí)的爭議也是由陪審團(tuán)來審理）等，累積了2,000個(gè)判例，慢慢建立了海上保險(xiǎn)的法律

2、體系。這些判例給Mackenzie Chalmers大法官編成成文法，這就是1906年英國海上保險(xiǎn)法。針對貨物保險(xiǎn)，早在1795年，英國議院就把保單標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化并去收取印花稅。在該規(guī)定下，船舶與貨物保險(xiǎn)是分開，船舶是“S”Form （S顯然是代表Ship），貨物是“G”Form（G顯然是代表Goods）。到了1779年，在一個(gè)大會中勞合社保險(xiǎn)人同意去把保單合并為S.G.保單，畢竟是兩種保單所承保的海上風(fēng)險(xiǎn)都是很接近。S.G.保單使用了近200年，而且在1906年英國海上保險(xiǎn)法是被列為First Schedule，可以說是地位崇高。但開始有了批評，例如在先例Middows Ltd. V. Robert

3、son (1940) 68 Lloyds Rep. 45就被批評為是“clumsy, imperfect and obscure”。在The “Anita” (1970) 2 Lloyds Rep. 365，Mocatta大法官批評說“It cannot be beyond the writ of underwriters and those who advise them in this age of law reform to devise more straightforward and easily comprehended terms of cover”。 在先例The “Salem

4、” (1982) 1 Lloyds Rep. 369，Kerr大法官批評說：“marine policies are notoriously ill-drawn.”。而最關(guān)鍵性的就是聯(lián)合國貿(mào)易發(fā)展委員會（UNCTAD）于1975年發(fā)表的報(bào)告，其中對S.G.保單有十分尖銳的批評，并建議聯(lián)合國去擬定新的保單作為替代。有關(guān)這方面在筆者與汪鵬南教授所著的英國海上保險(xiǎn)條款詳論第3-5頁有詳論，請參閱。英國保險(xiǎn)市場為了去比UNCTAD先一步，在1982年由著名的海事律師Donald OMay先生擬定了一份新的海上保險(xiǎn)保單，以及去合并相關(guān)的協(xié)會條文，去完全替代勞合社標(biāo)準(zhǔn)S.G.保單。這種保單的格式是名為MA

5、R Form (Lloyds Marine Policy)，它的內(nèi)容相對簡單，不像S.G.保單去包括了許多的內(nèi)容（像列明承保風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，救助費(fèi)用等）。這些內(nèi)容都是在附加的協(xié)會條文內(nèi)。MAR Form只是針對一些主要的事項(xiàng)，例如是受保人的名字（name of assured），船舶名字（vessel），承保航次或保險(xiǎn)期間（voyage or period of insurance），保險(xiǎn)標(biāo)的（subject-matter insured），約定保險(xiǎn)價(jià)值（agreed value），投保金額（amount insured hereunder），保費(fèi)（premium）以及有關(guān)的條文，特別條件與承諾性保證條

6、文（clause, endorsements, special conditions and warranties）。MAR 基本上就是一個(gè)框架協(xié)議（framework agreement），它共有四頁紙，其中一頁主要內(nèi)容包括上述所講的主要事項(xiàng)。另外還有一頁是填寫“Definitive numbers of the Syndicates and proportions”，該頁的備注是“The List of Underwriting Members of Lloyds mentioned in the above Table shows their respective Syndicates

7、and Shares therein, and is deemed to be incorporated in and to form part of this Policy. It is available for inspection at Lloyds Policy Signing Office by the Assured or his or their representatives and at true copy of the material parts of it certified by the General Manager of Lloyds Policy Signin

8、g Office will be furnished to the Assured on application.”。如果投保的是海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)囊磺须U(xiǎn)，就會在“Clauses endorsements special conditions and warranties”中去合并協(xié)會貨物條文。在同一個(gè)地方也會去加上其他承保的條文（例如是協(xié)會戰(zhàn)爭條文或者是協(xié)會罷工條文）。上述簡單的內(nèi)容介紹就顯示了MAR與勞合社標(biāo)準(zhǔn)S.G.保單不同的地方，后者的前身就是份完整的保單，所以有不少內(nèi)容是針對承保的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，然后去附上協(xié)會貨物條文，只為了去增加一些承保的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)或者去排除在S.G.保單中本來承保的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這一來，S

9、.G.保單變得有點(diǎn)不倫不類。但在MAR，由于它只是個(gè)框架協(xié)議，所以是不去針對承保風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，只需要去合并協(xié)會貨物條文（一切險(xiǎn)）就已經(jīng)足夠。也可以說MAR Form只是一件“外衣”（jacket），真正保險(xiǎn)合約的內(nèi)容是在合并的協(xié)會條文。而針對貨物保險(xiǎn)，這些合并的條文包括了“協(xié)會貨物條文（一切險(xiǎn)）”(Institute Cargo Clauses A 1/1/82，這在2009年有了更新)；“協(xié)會戰(zhàn)爭條文（貨物）”（Institute War Clauses Cargo 1/1/82）；“協(xié)會罷工條文（貨物）”（Institute Strikes Clause Cargo 1/1/82）；“協(xié)會戰(zhàn)爭條文

10、（空運(yùn)貨物）”（Institute War Clauses Air Cargo）；“協(xié)會戰(zhàn)爭條文（郵寄）”（Institute War Clauses Sending by Post），等。這些條文會稍后介紹。在海上貨物保險(xiǎn)，由于越來越多的大批量的生意（volume business），做法上也有了改變，就是倫敦市場越來越少以MAR Form的保單去承保個(gè)別航次的付運(yùn)。替代的做法是承保一段較長的時(shí)間，例如是半年或一年不等，甚至是沒有期限（但有條文允許保險(xiǎn)人或者受保人去給一個(gè)通知終止保險(xiǎn)合約）的開口/預(yù)約保單，去承保所有或是大部分受保人在這一個(gè)期間去做出的付運(yùn)與相關(guān)商業(yè)活動。倫敦市場包括勞合社的

11、開口/預(yù)約保單的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)格式是名為Market Reform Contract或簡稱MRC，在本章第4 段會有進(jìn)一步介紹。這種保險(xiǎn)合約會是更加全面去針對受保人在保險(xiǎn)期間遇到的所有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而涉及海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)拈_口/預(yù)約保單都會去合并有關(guān)的協(xié)會貨物條文、協(xié)會戰(zhàn)爭險(xiǎn)條文（貨物）、協(xié)會罷工條文（貨物）等。2 開口/預(yù)約保單的做法（Open Cover）開口/預(yù)約保單在訂約自由下是可以各種形式出現(xiàn)。第一種是“選擇性的開口保單”（facultative open cover），這一種是對雙方都沒有約束力，受保人可以選擇是否去宣告某次貨物的付運(yùn)，而保險(xiǎn)人也是可以選擇是否接受該次宣告貨物的承保。這種開口保單沒有約束

12、力，好像一般商業(yè)合約中的無約束力意向書。第二種就是“受保人選擇宣告保險(xiǎn)人必須接受的開口保單”（facultative/obligatory open cover）。這種保單是允許受保人選擇性的做出宣告，而保險(xiǎn)人是必須接受，只要有關(guān)的付運(yùn)是在開口保單的保險(xiǎn)范圍內(nèi)。從保險(xiǎn)人角度看這種安排顯然會有危險(xiǎn)，即受保人選擇性的宣告一些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)大的付運(yùn)。也會有開口保單去把這兩種形式合并在一起，例如是有關(guān)貨物的海上運(yùn)輸或它的付運(yùn)是屬于必須宣告與接受，不存在任何一方有選擇權(quán)。但如果涉及了儲存（這會是受保人由于各種原因突然有這樣的需要，例如一批貨物到了卸港賣不出去而需要長期儲存，但也會不需要），就可以是讓受保人有權(quán)選擇

13、是否去投保/加保。在先例Glencore International v. Alpina Insurance (2004) 1 Lloyds Rep. 111中針對貨物的儲存，有關(guān)的規(guī)定是“Including, if required, storage and blending prior to shipment or after final discharge in Land Tankers, Refineries, and storage in barge(s)”。第三種就是“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)/必須接受的開口保單”(Standard/Obligatory Open Cover)，這是最常見的做法，就是

14、保險(xiǎn)人與受保人一達(dá)成開口保單，受保人必須宣告每次的付運(yùn)并去做出保費(fèi)的支付，而保險(xiǎn)人也必須接受承保，只要有關(guān)的付運(yùn)是在開口保單的保險(xiǎn)范圍內(nèi)。以上3種主要不同的開口保單，一個(gè)最關(guān)鍵的地方是它們什么時(shí)候達(dá)成對雙方都有約束力的保險(xiǎn)合約是有很大的不同之處。上文介紹的第一種是要到受保人宣告與保險(xiǎn)人接受后才會有保險(xiǎn)合約；第二種開口保單會是直到受保人宣告才會有保險(xiǎn)合約，但在約定這種開口保單的時(shí)候還不能算是達(dá)成個(gè)別付運(yùn)的保險(xiǎn)合約。在第三種開口保單就不一樣，開口保單達(dá)成的時(shí)候雙方就有了保險(xiǎn)合約，任何一方都無法脫身。這達(dá)成保險(xiǎn)合約不同的時(shí)間會在很大程度上影響受保人的披露責(zé)任，其中第二種開口保單更加是存在爭議。這方面

15、的影響在第二章第4.1.7段與本章第2.2段有提到，不再重復(fù)。在今天的國際貨物買賣，會是業(yè)務(wù)量達(dá)到一定規(guī)模的賣方與買方都會有開口保單的安排，也可以讓他們隨意以CIF、FOB、CFR、Ex-Work等方式進(jìn)行買賣。事實(shí)上，他們在談判買賣的時(shí)候，誰比較更容易安排海上貨物運(yùn)輸保險(xiǎn)也會是其中一個(gè)考慮。甚至?xí)蠧IF買賣，但賣方是要求買方去在他的開口保單中投保。在一些涉及集裝箱運(yùn)輸?shù)某羞\(yùn)人，他們也會有海上貨物保險(xiǎn)的開口保單，可去為一些小的貨方做出投保，真正是提供“一條龍”服務(wù)。2.1第一種：選擇性的開口保單（Facultative Open Cover）已經(jīng)在較早時(shí)提到過，說這種開口保單只是好像一般商業(yè)

16、合約中的無約束力意向書或框架協(xié)議（framework agreement），它根本不是有約束力與最終的保險(xiǎn)合約。受保人與保險(xiǎn)人所同意的也只是程序上的機(jī)制（procedural mechanism）去為將來個(gè)別付運(yùn)的保險(xiǎn)合約達(dá)成奠定基礎(chǔ)。而事后每次受保人的宣告，保險(xiǎn)人接不接受還是要看他每次的表態(tài)。如果接受的話，雙方在那時(shí)才算是訂立了保險(xiǎn)合約。反正是大家都有權(quán)去選擇：Societe Anonyme dIntermediaries Luxembourgeois v. Farex Gie (1995) Lloyds Rep IR 116。在這種開口保單下，受保人在每次宣告的時(shí)候有自動作出全面批露的責(zé)任

17、：Berger and Light Diffusesrs Pty Ltd. v. Pollock (1973) 2 Lloyds Rep. 442。在這里也可以去提另一種相同的做法，就是勞合社的保險(xiǎn)人或倫敦保險(xiǎn)公司授權(quán)給一家保險(xiǎn)公司或是保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人去接受某些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，例如是海上貨物保險(xiǎn)。這種做法可稱為是line slip。它的定義可見先例Balfour v. Beaumont (1982) 2 Lloyds Rep. 493，Webster大法官是這樣說：“A line slip is an authority (known in the London market as a facility) g

18、iven in writing by a number of underwriters which enables the leading underwriter (or writers) to agree to proposals for insurance of risks within a prescribed class on behalf of all underwriters subscribing to the line slip provided that the proposed insurance is within the scope of the terms of th

19、e authority.”。另在先例American Airlines v. Hope (1974) 2 Lloyds Rep. 301, 304，Diplock勛爵關(guān)于授權(quán)保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人是這樣說：“The broker takes the slip in the first instance to an underwriter whom he has selected to deal with as leading underwriter, i.e., one who has a reputation in the market as an expert in the kind of cover

20、 required and whose lead is likely to be followed by other insurers in the market. If it is the first contract of insurance covering that risk in which a particular underwriter has acted as leading underwriter it is treated as an original insurance. The broker and the leading underwriter go through

21、the slip together. They agree on any amendments to the brokers draft and fix the premium. When agreement has been reached the leading underwriter initials the slip for this proportion of the cover and the broker then takes the initialed slip round the market to other insurers who initial it for such

22、 proportion of the cover as each is willing to accept. For practical purposes all the negotiations about the terms of the insurance and the rate of premium are carried on between the broker and the leading underwriter alone.”。2.2 第二種：受保人選擇宣告保險(xiǎn)人必須接受的開口保單（Facultative/ Obligatory Open Cover）這種形式的保單已經(jīng)較早

23、時(shí)簡單介紹過，在這里去給一些權(quán)威的定義。在先例Ionides v. The Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Company (1871) LR 6 QB 674，Blackburn 大法官是說：“The contract of an underwriter who subscribes a policy on goods by ship or ships to be declared is, that he will insure any goods of the description specified which may be shipped on any

24、 vessel answering the description, if any there be, in the policy, on the voyages specified in the policy, to which the assured elects to apply the policy. The object of the declaration is to earmark and identify the particular adventure to which the assured elects to apply the policy. The assent of

25、 the insurer is not required to this, for he has no option to reject any vessel which the assured may select; nor is it necessary that the declaration should do more than identify the adventure, and so prevent the possible dishonesty of a party insured, who might intend to apply the policy to partic

26、ular goods, so that they should be at the risk of the assurers, and he could come on them if there was a loss; and then, when those goods had arrived safely, to pretend that he intended to apply the policy to another set of goods still subject to risks”。它比稍后會介紹的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)/必須接受的開口保單的缺點(diǎn)可以貴族院先例Aneco v. J & H (

27、2002) 1 Lloyds Rep. 157去顯示（內(nèi)容雖然針對再保險(xiǎn)，但道理一樣），如下：“Fac/Oblig treaties are naturally less attractive to reinsurers than quota share treaties. They are subject to the obvious risk that the insurer will retain good business for his own account and cede poor business to the treaty. There is, or at least is

28、 assumed to be, no obligation of good faith on the part of the ceding party when exercising his discretion whether to cede or retain a risk. The only constraint upon him is that he must exercise some restraint if he wishes to maintain a good reputation in the market and any hope of doing future busi

29、ness with existing and prospective reinsurers.”。該種開口保單只要是受保人選擇為某些付運(yùn)的貨物做出了宣告，保險(xiǎn)人都必須承保，所以是在受保人每次宣告的時(shí)候就產(chǎn)生獨(dú)立與有約束力的保險(xiǎn)合約。因此就有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為在受保人每次宣告的時(shí)候他就有相應(yīng)的披露義務(wù)。但法律地位并非是這樣，正如在本書第二章介紹的那樣，受保人之所以有很重的披露責(zé)任，是想讓保險(xiǎn)人有機(jī)會去評估風(fēng)險(xiǎn)以決定是否要承保以及保費(fèi)是多少。而該種開口保單下，受保人每次做出宣告，保險(xiǎn)人都必須承保，也就是說他已經(jīng)沒有任何選擇的余地，所有披露的作用實(shí)現(xiàn)不了，披露也就變的沒有必要。這可去節(jié)錄Bennett教授所著的

30、The Law of Marine Insurance第二版之2.42段所說的話：“Since the assured owes the insurer no counter-obligation, a facultative/obligatory cover must be regarded as a unilateral offer, albeit one that is regarded by market custom as irrevocable, accepted each time the assured makes a declaration within the terms

31、of the cover and giving rise to a separate contract on each occasion. In consequence, since the doctrine of utmost good faith is designed to ensure that the insurer makes an informed decision on the acceptability of the risk and the terms of cover, the doctrine attaches to the cover itself, but it h

32、as no function to perform in respect of and does not attach to individual declarations: Ionides v. Pacific Fire & Marine (1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 674; Law Guarantee Trust & Accident Society v. Munich Reinsurance (1915) 31 TLR 572; Citadel Insurance v. Atlantic Union (1982) 2 Lloyds Rep. 543; The La Pointe

33、 (1986) 2 Lloyds Rep. 513 (Supreme Court of British Columbia)”。2.3 第三種：標(biāo)準(zhǔn)/必須接受的開口保單（Standard/Obligatory Open Cover）去重復(fù)，今天海上貨物保險(xiǎn)通常是以開口保單形式投保，很少會單獨(dú)為一票貨物與一個(gè)航次去作出投保。開口保單會是去投保受保人在某個(gè)期間所有會購買、生產(chǎn)、出售的貨物。在受保人一有貨物需要付運(yùn)時(shí)，他可以向保險(xiǎn)人作出宣告。而該宣告會被視為僅具有行政意義，目的是去讓雙方根據(jù)開口保單所同意的保費(fèi)費(fèi)率去計(jì)算有關(guān)航次與該票貨物的保費(fèi)，而與保險(xiǎn)合約是否生效無關(guān)，因?yàn)殚_口保單已經(jīng)達(dá)成，后面每次

34、付運(yùn)的宣告已經(jīng)不存在需要去重新達(dá)成任何協(xié)議。這種是最常見的開口保單，也被是稱為是雙方必須接受的開口保單（obligatory open cover）或標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單（standard open cover）。在這種開口保單下，受保人所有的付運(yùn)都必須去宣告，而且受保人的定義會是特別廣泛（這方面在本章2.5段會介紹），而保險(xiǎn)人也必須接受承保每次宣告的付運(yùn)。這完全是來自標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單，是以文字清楚寫明的，沒有什么其他的巧妙。例如協(xié)會標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單所用的措辭是：“It is a condition of this contract that the Assured are bound to declare

35、hereunder every consignment without exception, Underwriters being bound to accept up to but not exceeding the amount specified in Clause 3 below.”。這種開口保單的定義也可去節(jié)錄R.H. Brown先生所著的Dictionary of Marine Insurance Terms，如下：“A form of long-term insurance contract whereby the insurer guarantees to accept ris

36、ks when they are put forward by the assured as they arise during the period of the contract. The assured agrees to declare every item that falls within the scope of the cover and does not have the option to place such risks elsewhere should he consider it an obligatory contract binding both parties

37、to its terms.”。這種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單受歡迎是可以理解的，因?yàn)槿绻看蔚母哆\(yùn)都需要重新談判保險(xiǎn)合約，這對保險(xiǎn)人與受保人都會帶來許多麻煩與不必要的工作量。而且還會有其他的問題，比如是時(shí)間上晚了、受保人漏了或錯(cuò)誤投保、保險(xiǎn)人沒有辦法去約束一家可能是龐大與信譽(yù)良好的貿(mào)易商成為他的長期客戶等。對保險(xiǎn)人還有另外的好處是，在談判開口保單的時(shí)候，受保人通常需要告訴保險(xiǎn)人在保險(xiǎn)期間，例如是一年內(nèi)估計(jì)的保費(fèi)收入（estimated premium income或簡稱EPI）。這就容許保險(xiǎn)人可以正確預(yù)期與該客戶的業(yè)務(wù)量。這EPI的估計(jì)是必須要絕對善意，不得有誤述，因?yàn)樵撔畔@然就是有實(shí)質(zhì)性重要。2.4 標(biāo)

38、準(zhǔn)/必須接受的開口保單的前身：浮動保單（floating policy）開口保單之前做法是浮動保單（floating policy），這是最早的一種做法去提供較長期的保險(xiǎn)安排。1906年英國海上保險(xiǎn)法是有去針對浮動保單在Section 29是這樣規(guī)定：“(1)A floating policy is a policy which describes the insurance in general terms, and leaves the name of the ship or ships and other particulars to be defined by subsequent d

39、eclaration.(2)The subsequent declaration or declarations may be made by indorsement on the policy, or in other customary manner.(3) Unless the policy otherwise provides, the declarations must be made in the order of dispatch or shipment. They must, in the case of goods, comprise all consignments wit

40、hin the terms of the policy, and the value of the goods or other property must be honestly stated, but an omission or erroneous declaration may be rectified even after loss or arrival, provided the omission or declaration was made in good faith.（加黑部分是筆者的強(qiáng)調(diào)，它要求受保人每次付運(yùn)必須宣告。）(4) Unless the policy other

41、wise provides, where a declaration of value is not made until after notice of loss or arrival, the policy must be treated as an unvalued policy as regards the subject-matter of that declaration.”。這種在19世紀(jì)就已經(jīng)開始有的做法，保險(xiǎn)人與受保人是同意一個(gè)總的保險(xiǎn)金額。然后在每次付運(yùn)并作出宣告后，總金額就會因?yàn)槊看胃哆\(yùn)所宣告的保險(xiǎn)價(jià)值而減少，直到總金額變?yōu)榱銥橹?。在這種做法下，可以看到受保人在每次宣告的

42、時(shí)候，要特別小心剩下的保險(xiǎn)金額。此外，宣告的次序也要準(zhǔn)確，因?yàn)槊看蔚男娑紩箍偟谋ｋU(xiǎn)金額發(fā)生改變。相比現(xiàn)在的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單，受保人就不用擔(dān)心這方面的問題，反正在開口保單有效的期間每次付運(yùn)的宣告保險(xiǎn)人都必須接受。更會有安排是在只需要受保人去按時(shí)例如是每一個(gè)月把所有付運(yùn)的貨物與航次去一次性的進(jìn)行宣告與支付保費(fèi)。而針對保險(xiǎn)金額的限制，再也沒有一個(gè)總的金額。但反而是會有一條去限制每次付運(yùn)或者貨物集中地點(diǎn)（例如是裝港、卸港或其他的儲存地點(diǎn)）的貨物總金額，例如是500萬美元。原因是為了避免風(fēng)險(xiǎn)太集中保險(xiǎn)人吃不消。這表示受保人要小心，例如有幾次不同的付運(yùn)，每艘船舶的貨物價(jià)值都不超過500萬美元。但由于卸港十

43、分擁擠，結(jié)果前后在裝港開航的5艘船舶都堵在卸港等候泊位。結(jié)果發(fā)生了一場重大的天災(zāi)，例如是臺風(fēng)。5艘船舶中的3艘受到了嚴(yán)重?fù)p壞，這也包括了船上的貨物。這一來，受保人向保險(xiǎn)人的索賠就會有所限制而賠不足。因?yàn)樵赟ection 29(3)中是規(guī)定了在浮動保單，受保人必須（must）在每次的付運(yùn)都需要去宣告，這在一定程度上是與現(xiàn)在的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單有相似之處。但另一方面Section 29(3)是規(guī)定了宣告必須是“in the order of dispatch or shipment”，這樣就缺少了現(xiàn)在的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單的一些靈活性（該靈活性是可以從下文要介紹的先例The “Beursgracht” (200

44、2) 1 Lloyds Rep. 574看出來）。但在受保人每次付運(yùn)都必須宣告與保險(xiǎn)人必須接受每次的宣告，這在現(xiàn)在的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)開口保單與以前的浮動保單是在本質(zhì)上一致。正如Tuckey大法官在先例The “Beursgracht”中所說：“So this is not a cover of the facultative/obligatory type, but one which is more like a floating policy.”。2.5 開口/預(yù)約保單中受保人的定義與范圍開口/預(yù)約保單由于是去針對將來的貿(mào)易活動中存在的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，但在投保的時(shí)候也不確定將來有什么貿(mào)易活動與所涉及的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，所以

45、訂立的條文都會盡量廣泛，其中就是受保人的定義與范圍，以避免在千變?nèi)f化的貿(mào)易活動中會有遺漏。例如是將來有一次或多次的付運(yùn)是分公司或聯(lián)營公司所作出，主要的受保人是出了事故之后才知道，去向保險(xiǎn)人宣告。如果受保人的定義是否包括出事故的分公司或聯(lián)營公司并不明確，就會受到保險(xiǎn)人的拒賠。在國際貨物買賣中，主要受保人還會經(jīng)常被對方的買方/賣方要求以某些條件投保，例如CIF賣方要求有一個(gè)開口保單讓CIF買方為他投保。在MRC，對受保人的定義就包括了主要受保人、他的代理人、分公司、聯(lián)營公司與任何希望他代為投保的人士（A Limited, and/or as agents and/or subsidiaries a

46、nd/or associated companies an/or for whom they may have instructions to insure）。至于在協(xié)會貨物條文第15.1條更是去加上了受讓人（assignee），這顯然是想去包括例如是CIF買方或分買方。有關(guān)這一方面，在本書第十三章第9.2段會有更詳盡的解釋。有關(guān)是否被包括在受保人的定義而成為是共同受保人（co-assured），有一些案例可以介紹。第一個(gè)是National Oil Well Ltd. v. Davy Offshore Ltd. (1993) 2 Lloyds Rep. 582，Colman大法官說：“(1)W

47、here at the time when the contract of insurance was made the principal assured or other contracting party had express or implied actual authority to enter into that contract so as to bind some other party as co-assured and intended to bind that party, the latter may sue on the policy as the undisclo

48、sed principal and co-assured regardless of whether the policy described a class of co-assured of which he was or became a member.（這種情況在海上貨物保險(xiǎn)應(yīng)該是不多，就是主要受保人投保的時(shí)候已經(jīng)有了其他第三人明示或者默示的授權(quán)去作為共同受保人。）(2) Where at the time when the contract of insurance was made the principal assured or other contracting party ha

49、d no actual authority to bind the other party to the contract of insurance, but the policy is expressed to insure not only the principal assured but also a class of others who are not identified in that policy, a party who at the time when the policy was effected could have been ascertained to quali

50、fy as a member of that class can ratify and sue on the policy as a co-assured if at the time it was intended by the principal assured or other contracting party to create privity of contract with the insurers on behalf of that particular party.（這種情況在海上貨物保險(xiǎn)最常見，就是在投保的時(shí)候主要受保人沒有其他第三人的授權(quán)，開口保單只是在受保人的定義包括了

51、其他的類別，但沒有講明是誰。這一來，將來只要是屬于這一個(gè)類別的人士就可以通過追認(rèn)授權(quán)去作為該保單的共同受保人。唯一的要求就是主要受保人有意圖使該類別人士與保險(xiǎn)人產(chǎn)生合約的相互關(guān)系。簡單說，就是將來該類別人士出現(xiàn)的時(shí)候主要受保人是希望他是作為共同受保人被包括在保險(xiǎn)合約內(nèi)。）(3) Evidence as to whether in any particular case the principal assured or other contracting party did have the requisite intention may be provided by the terms of

52、the policy itself, by the terms of any contract between the principals assured or other contracting party and the alleged co-assured, or by any other admissible material showing what was subjectively intended by the principal assured.（這里是針對怎樣去證明主要受保人有關(guān)上述所講的投保時(shí)的意圖。）”。另一個(gè)有關(guān)的先例涉及了受保人不夠廣泛的危險(xiǎn)，該先例并不是海上貨物保

53、險(xiǎn)，但道理是一樣。該先例The “Jascon 5” (2006) 2 Lloyds Rep. 195的案情涉及了一艘部分在中國建造的船舶（是一艘非常昂貴的用于海上管道鋪設(shè)的駁船），被拖去新加坡以完成建造工程。船東指令保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人去為他與船廠（新加坡的Sembawang船廠）對該船舶的可保利益去投保造船風(fēng)險(xiǎn)保險(xiǎn)（Builders Risk Policy），這在筆者所著的造船合約一書第十三章第3.3段有介紹。結(jié)果在該保單，受保人除了船東外，也包括了“Subsidiary, Affiliate, Associated and Interrelated Companies and/or Joint V

54、entures as may be required as their respective rights and interests may appear.”, 但沒有去把Sembawang船廠加入作為共同受保人，也沒有去告訴保險(xiǎn)人。結(jié)果發(fā)生了船舶在船廠完成建造的時(shí)候被損壞，這就涉及了船廠是否是共同受保人的爭議。上訴庭判是Sembawang船廠不是一個(gè)共同受保人，也不包括在“Subsidiary, Affiliate, Associated and Interrelated Companies and/or Joint Ventures”的范圍內(nèi)。另針對Sembawang船廠是否可以以未公開

55、的委托人身份作為共同受保人，上訴庭認(rèn)為在該先例的案情下是不可以，因?yàn)橥侗５臅r(shí)候是有機(jī)會去披露與加入Sembawang船廠為共同受保人。Moore-Bick大法官指出這種情況下委托人應(yīng)該在投保的時(shí)候就被披露出來，因?yàn)闀绊戯L(fēng)險(xiǎn)，就是保險(xiǎn)人會考慮到如果在船廠出事時(shí)涉及船廠有疏忽也不會有代位求償權(quán)去向船廠索賠把賠付給船東的錢要回來，說：“The mere identification, whether by name or description, of certain persons as assureds cannot be sufficient of itself to demonstrate

56、 an unwillingness on the part of the insurer to contract with any other person. If it were otherwise, the principles under discussion would have no application at all to contracts of insurance. Each case must therefore be decided by reference to the terms of the contract under consideration and the

57、circumstances in which it came to be made, though no doubt due regard should be had to the warning of Lord Lloyd in Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd. (1994) 2 AC 199 that if the courts are too ready to construe written contracts as contradicting the right of an undisclosed principal to inter

58、vene it would go far to destroy the beneficial assumption in commercial cases to which Diplock L.J. referred in Teheran-Europe Co. Ltd. v S. T. Belton (Tractors) Ltd. (1968) 2 QB 545Having regard to the circumstances of the present case I think the judge was right to attach particular significance t

59、o the omission of Sembawang from the categories of assureds set out in the slip. When a vessel enters a shipyard for completion and fitting out the persons most immediately interested in her safety are the owner and the shipyard. Other parties with commercial interests in her may also be adversely affected if she suffers loss or damage an