第1章海上货物保险简介

第一章 海上货物保险简介

1 序言

简单说，海上货物保险的历史是十分悠久，早在意大利的《Florentine Ordinance 1523》就已经有记录。在英国，首次有关货物的保单出现在1555年。到了1601年，英国议院就通过了第一次的立法去针对海上保险，名为《An Act Concerning Matters of Assurances Used Among Merchants》。在19世纪海上贸易大增，这带来有关法律的很大发展。在英国法院，例如是Mansfield 勋爵等著名法官以及陪审团（当时英国法院的民商事案件有关事实的争议也是由陪审团来审理）等，累积了2,000个判例，慢慢建立了海上保险的法律体系。这些判例给Mackenzie Chalmers大法官编成成文法，这就是1906年《英国海上保险法》。

针对货物保险，早在1795年，英国议院就把保单标准化并去收取印花税。在该规定下，船舶与货物保险是分开，船舶是“S”Form （S显然是代表Ship），货物是“G”Form（G显然是代表Goods）。到了1779年，在一个大会中劳合社保险人同意去把保单合并为S.G.保单，毕竟是两种保单所承保的海上风险都是很接近。S.G.保单使用了近200年，而且在1906年《英国海上保险法》是被列为First Schedule，可以说是地位崇高。但开始有了批评，例如在先例Middows Ltd. V. Robertson (1940) 68 Lloyd?s Rep. 45就被批评为是“clumsy, imperfect and obscure”。在The “Anita” (1970) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 365，Mocatta大法官批评说“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” (1982) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 369，Kerr大法官批评说：“marine policies are notoriously ill-drawn.”。而最关键性的就是联合国贸易发展委员会（UNCTAD）于1975年发表的报告，其中对S.G.保单有十分尖锐的批评，并建议联合国去拟定新的保单作为替代。有关这方面在笔者与汪鹏南教授所著的《英国海上保险条款详论》第3-5页有详论，请参阅。

英国保险市场为了去比UNCTAD先一步，在1982年由著名的海事律师Donald O?May先生拟定了一份新的海上保险保单，以及去合并相关的协会条文，去完全替代劳合社标准S.G.保单。这种保单的格式是名为MAR Form (Lloyd?s Marine Policy)，它的内容相对简单，不像S.G.保单去包括了许多的内容（像列明承保风险，救助费用等）。这些内容都是在附加的协会条文内。MAR Form只是针对一些主要的事项，例如是受保人的名字（name of assured），船舶名字（vessel），承保航次或保险期间（voyage or period of insurance），保险标的（subject-matter insured），约定保险价值

（agreed value），投保金额（amount insured hereunder），保费（premium）以及有关的条文，特别条件与承诺性保证条文（clause, endorsements, special conditions and warranties）。MAR 基本上就是一个框架协议（framework agreement），它共有四页纸，其中一页主要内容包括上述所讲的主要事项。另外还有一页是填写“Definitive numbers of the Syndicates and proportions”，该页的备注是“The List of Underwriting Members of Lloyd?s mentioned in the above Table shows their respective Syndicates and Shares therein, and is deemed to be incorporated in and to form part of this Policy. It is available for inspection at Lloyd?s 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 Lloyd?s Policy Signing Office will be furnished to the Assured on application.”。如果投保的是海上货物运输的一切险，就会在“Clauses endorsements special conditions and warranties”中去合并协会货物条文。在同一个地方也会去加上其他承保的条文（例如是协会战争条文或者是协会罢工条文）。上述简单的内容介绍就显示了MAR与劳合社标准S.G.保单不同的地方，后者的前身就是份完整的保单，所以有不少内容是针对承保的风险，然后去附上协会货物条文，只为了去增加一些承保的风险或者去排除在S.G.保单中本来承保的风险。这一来，S.G.保单变得有点不伦不类。但在MAR，由于它只是个框架协议，所以是不去针对承保风险，只需要去合并协会货物条文（一切险）就已经足够。

也可以说MAR Form只是一件“外衣”（jacket），真正保险合约的内容是在合并的协会条文。而针对货物保险，这些合并的条文包括了“协会货物条文（一切险）”(Institute Cargo Clauses [A] 1/1/82，这在2009年有了更新)；“协会战争条文（货物）”（Institute War Clauses [Cargo] 1/1/82）；“协会罢工条文（货物）”（Institute Strikes Clause [Cargo] 1/1/82）；“协会战争条文（空运货物）”（Institute War Clauses [Air Cargo]）；“协会战争条文（邮寄）”（Institute War Clauses [Sending by Post]），等。这些条文会稍后介绍。

在海上货物保险，由于越来越多的大批量的生意（volume business），做法上也有了改变，就是伦敦市场越来越少以MAR Form的保单去承保个别航次的付运。替代的做法是承保一段较长的时间，例如是半年或一年不等，甚至是没有期限（但有条文允许保险人或者受保人去给一个通知终止保险合约）的开口/预约保单，去承保所有或是大部分受保人在这一个期间去做出的付运与相关商业活动。伦敦市场包括劳合社的开口/预约保单的标准格式是名为Market Reform Contract或简称MRC，在本章第4 段会有进一步介绍。这种保险合约会是更加全面去针对受保人在保险期间遇到的所有风险，而涉及海上货物运输的开口/预约保单都会去合并有关的协会货物条文、协会战争险条文（货物）、协会罢工条文（货物）等。

2 开口/预约保单的做法（Open Cover）

开口/预约保单在订约自由下是可以各种形式出现。第一种是“选择性的开口保单”（facultative open cover），这一种是对双方都没有约束力，受保人可以选择是否去宣告某次货物的付运，而保险人也是可以选择是否接受该次宣告货物的承保。这种开口保单没有约束力，好像一般商业合约中的无约束力意向书。

第二种就是“受保人选择宣告保险人必须接受的开口保单”（facultative/obligatory open cover）。这种保单是允许受保人选择性的做出宣告，而保险人是必须接受，只要有关的付运是在开口保单的保险范围内。从保险人角度看这种安排显然会有危险，即受保人选择性的宣告一些风险大的付运。也会有开口保单去把这两种形式合并在一起，例如是有关货物的海上运输或它的付运是属于必须宣告与接受，不存在任何一方有选择权。但如果涉及了储存（这会是受保人由于各种原因突然有这样的需要，例如一批货物到了卸港卖不出去而需要长期储存，但也会不需要），就可以是让受保人有权选择是否去投保/加保。在先例Glencore International v. Alpina Insurance (2004) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 111中针对货物的储存，有关的规定是“Including, if required, storage and blending prior to shipment or after final discharge in Land Tankers, Refineries, and storage in barge(s)…”。

第三种就是“标准/必须接受的开口保单”(Standard/Obligatory Open Cover)，这是最常见的做法，就是保险人与受保人一达成开口保单，受保人必须宣告每次的付运并去做出保费的支付，而保险人也必须接受承保，只要有关的付运是在开口保单的保险范围内。

以上3种主要不同的开口保单，一个最关键的地方是它们什么时候达成对双方都有约束力的保险合约是有很大的不同之处。上文介绍的第一种是要到受保人宣告与保险人接受后才会有保险合约；第二种开口保单会是直到受保人宣告才会有保险合约，但在约定这种开口保单的时候还不能算是达成个别付运的保险合约。在第三种开口保单就不一样，开口保单达成的时候双方就有了保险合约，任何一方都无法脱身。这达成保险合约不同的时间会在很大程度上影响受保人的披露责任，其中第二种开口保单更加是存在争议。这方面的影响在第二章第4.1.7段与本章第2.2段有提到，不再重复。

在今天的国际货物买卖，会是业务量达到一定规模的卖方与买方都会有开口保单的安排，也可以让他们随意以CIF、FOB、CFR、Ex-Work等方式进行买卖。事实上，他们在谈判买卖的时候，谁比较更容易安排海上货物运输保险也会是其中一个考虑。甚至会有CIF买卖，但卖方是要求买方去在他的开口保单中投保。

在一些涉及集装箱运输的承运人，他们也会有海上货物保险的开口保单，可去为一

些小的货方做出投保，真正是提供“一条龙”服务。

2.1第一种：选择性的开口保单（Facultative Open Cover）

已经在较早时提到过，说这种开口保单只是好像一般商业合约中的无约束力意向书或框架协议（framework agreement），它根本不是有约束力与最终的保险合约。受保人与保险人所同意的也只是程序上的机制（procedural mechanism）去为将来个别付运的保险合约达成奠定基础。而事后每次受保人的宣告，保险人接不接受还是要看他每次的表态。如果接受的话，双方在那时才算是订立了保险合约。反正是大家都有权去选择：Societe Anonyme d?Intermediaries Luxembourgeois v. Farex Gie (1995) Lloyd?s Rep IR 116。在这种开口保单下，受保人在每次宣告的时候有自动作出全面批露的责任：Berger and Light Diffusesrs Pty Ltd. v. Pollock (1973) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 442。

在这里也可以去提另一种相同的做法，就是劳合社的保险人或伦敦保险公司授权给一家保险公司或是保险经纪人去接受某些风险，例如是海上货物保险。这种做法可称为是line slip。它的定义可见先例Balfour v. Beaumont (1982) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 493，Webster大法官是这样说：

“A line slip is an authority (known in the London market as a facility) given 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 the authority.”。

另在先例American Airlines v. Hope (1974) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 301, 304，Diplock勋爵关于授权保险经纪人是这样说：

“[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 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 the slip together. They agree on any amendments to the broker?s 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 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 第二种：受保人选择宣告保险人必须接受的开口保单（Facultative/ Obligatory Open Cover）

这种形式的保单已经较早时简单介绍过，在这里去给一些权威的定义。在先例Ionides v. The Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Company (1871) LR 6 QB 674，Blackburn 大法官是说：

“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 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 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 particular 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…”。

它比稍后会介绍的标准/必须接受的开口保单的缺点可以贵族院先例Aneco v. J & H (2002) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 157去显示（内容虽然针对再保险，但道理一样），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 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 business with existing and prospective reinsurers.”。

该种开口保单只要是受保人选择为某些付运的货物做出了宣告，保险人都必须承保，所以是在受保人每次宣告的时候就产生独立与有约束力的保险合约。因此就有观点认为在受保人每次宣告的时候他就有相应的披露义务。但法律地位并非是这样，正如在本书第二章介绍的那样，受保人之所以有很重的披露责任，是想让保险人有机会去评估风险以决定是否要承保以及保费是多少。而该种开口保单下，受保人每次做出宣告，保险人都必须承保，也就是说他已经没有任何选择的余地，所有披露的

作用实现不了，披露也就变的没有必要。

这可去节录Bennett教授所著的《The Law of Marine Insurance》第二版之2.42段所说的话：“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 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 has 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 Lloyd?s Rep. 543; The ?La Pointe? (1986) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 513 (Supreme Court of British Columbia)”。

2.3 第三种：标准/必须接受的开口保单（Standard/Obligatory Open Cover）

去重复，今天海上货物保险通常是以开口保单形式投保，很少会单独为一票货物与一个航次去作出投保。开口保单会是去投保受保人在某个期间所有会购买、生产、出售的货物。在受保人一有货物需要付运时，他可以向保险人作出宣告。而该宣告会被视为仅具有行政意义，目的是去让双方根据开口保单所同意的保费费率去计算有关航次与该票货物的保费，而与保险合约是否生效无关，因为开口保单已经达成，后面每次付运的宣告已经不存在需要去重新达成任何协议。这种是最常见的开口保单，也被是称为是双方必须接受的开口保单（obligatory open cover）或标准开口保单（standard open cover）。在这种开口保单下，受保人所有的付运都必须去宣告，而且受保人的定义会是特别广泛（这方面在本章2.5段会介绍），而保险人也必须接受承保每次宣告的付运。这完全是来自标准开口保单，是以文字清楚写明的，没有什么其他的巧妙。例如协会标准开口保单所用的措辞是：“It is a condition of this contract that the Assured are bound to declare hereunder every consignment without exception, Underwriters being bound to accept up to but not exceeding the amount specified in Clause 3 below.”。这种开口保单的定义也可去节录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 risks 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 to its terms.”。

这种标准开口保单受欢迎是可以理解的，因为如果每次的付运都需要重新谈判保险合约，这对保险人与受保人都会带来许多麻烦与不必要的工作量。而且还会有其他的问题，比如是时间上晚了、受保人漏了或错误投保、保险人没有办法去约束一家可能是庞大与信誉良好的贸易商成为他的长期客户等。对保险人还有另外的好处是，在谈判开口保单的时候，受保人通常需要告诉保险人在保险期间，例如是一年内估计的保费收入（estimated premium income或简称EPI）。这就容许保险人可以正确预期与该客户的业务量。这EPI的估计是必须要绝对善意，不得有误述，因为该信息显然就是有实质性重要。

2.4 标准/必须接受的开口保单的前身：浮动保单（floating policy）

开口保单之前做法是浮动保单（floating policy），这是最早的一种做法去提供较长期的保险安排。1906年《英国海上保险法》是有去针对浮动保单在Section 29是这样规定：

“(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 declaration.

(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 within 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.（加黑部分是笔者的强调，它要求受保人每次付运必须宣告。）

(4) Unless the policy otherwise 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.”。

这种在19世纪就已经开始有的做法，保险人与受保人是同意一个总的保险金额。然后在每次付运并作出宣告后，总金额就会因为每次付运所宣告的保险价值而减少，直到总金额变为零为止。在这种做法下，可以看到受保人在每次宣告的时候，要特别小心剩下的保险金额。此外，宣告的次序也要准确，因为每次的宣告都会使总的

保险金额发生改变。

相比现在的标准开口保单，受保人就不用担心这方面的问题，反正在开口保单有效的期间每次付运的宣告保险人都必须接受。更会有安排是在只需要受保人去按时例如是每一个月把所有付运的货物与航次去一次性的进行宣告与支付保费。而针对保险金额的限制，再也没有一个总的金额。但反而是会有一条去限制每次付运或者货物集中地点（例如是装港、卸港或其他的储存地点）的货物总金额，例如是500万美元。原因是为了避免风险太集中保险人吃不消。这表示受保人要小心，例如有几次不同的付运，每艘船舶的货物价值都不超过500万美元。但由于卸港十分拥挤，结果前后在装港开航的5艘船舶都堵在卸港等候泊位。结果发生了一场重大的天灾，例如是台风。5艘船舶中的3艘受到了严重损坏，这也包括了船上的货物。这一来，受保人向保险人的索赔就会有所限制而赔不足。

因为在Section 29(3)中是规定了在浮动保单，受保人必须（must）在每次的付运都需要去宣告，这在一定程度上是与现在的标准开口保单有相似之处。但另一方面Section 29(3)是规定了宣告必须是“in the order of dispatch or shipment”，这样就缺少了现在的标准开口保单的一些灵活性（该灵活性是可以从下文要介绍的先例The “Beursgracht” (2002) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 574看出来）。但在受保人每次付运都必须宣告与保险人必须接受每次的宣告，这在现在的标准开口保单与以前的浮动保单是在本质上一致。正如Tuckey大法官在先例The “Beursgracht”中所说：“So this is not a cover of the facultative/obligatory type, but one which is more like a floating policy.”。

2.5 开口/预约保单中受保人的定义与范围

开口/预约保单由于是去针对将来的贸易活动中存在的风险，但在投保的时候也不确定将来有什么贸易活动与所涉及的风险，所以订立的条文都会尽量广泛，其中就是受保人的定义与范围，以避免在千变万化的贸易活动中会有遗漏。例如是将来有一次或多次的付运是分公司或联营公司所作出，主要的受保人是出了事故之后才知道，去向保险人宣告。如果受保人的定义是否包括出事故的分公司或联营公司并不明确，就会受到保险人的拒赔。在国际货物买卖中，主要受保人还会经常被对方的买方/卖方要求以某些条件投保，例如CIF卖方要求有一个开口保单让CIF买方为他投保。

在MRC，对受保人的定义就包括了主要受保人、他的代理人、分公司、联营公司与任何希望他代为投保的人士（A Limited, and/or as agents and/or subsidiaries and/or associated companies an/or for whom they may have instructions to insure）。至于在协会货物条文第15.1条更是去加上了受让人（assignee），这显然是想去包括例如是CIF买方或分买方。有关这一方面，在本书第十三章第9.2段会有更详尽的解释。

有关是否被包括在受保人的定义而成为是共同受保人（co-assured），有一些案例可以介绍。第一个是National Oil Well Ltd. v. Davy Offshore Ltd. (1993) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 582，Colman大法官说：

“(1)Where 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 undisclosed principal and co-assured regardless of whether the policy described a class of co-assured of which he was or became a member.（这种情况在海上货物保险应该是不多，就是主要受保人投保的时候已经有了其他第三人明示或者默示的授权去作为共同受保人。）

(2) Where at the time when the contract of insurance was made the principal assured or other contracting party had 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 qualify 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.（这种情况在海上货物保险最常见，就是在投保的时候主要受保人没有其他第三人的授权，开口保单只是在受保人的定义包括了其他的类别，但没有讲明是谁。这一来，将来只要是属于这一个类别的人士就可以通过追认授权去作为该保单的共同受保人。唯一的要求就是主要受保人有意图使该类别人士与保险人产生合约的相互关系。简单说，就是将来该类别人士出现的时候主要受保人是希望他是作为共同受保人被包括在保险合约内。）

(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 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.（这里是针对怎样去证明主要受保人有关上述所讲的投保时的意图。）”。

另一个有关的先例涉及了受保人不够广泛的危险，该先例并不是海上货物保险，但道理是一样。该先例The “Jascon 5” (2006) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 195的案情涉及了一艘部分在中国建造的船舶（是一艘非常昂贵的用于海上管道铺设的驳船），被拖去新加坡以完成建造工程。船东指令保险经纪人去为他与船厂（新加坡的Sembawang船厂）对该船舶的可保利益去投保造船风险保险（Builder?s Risk Policy），这在笔者所著的《造

船合约》一书第十三章第3.3段有介绍。结果在该保单，受保人除了船东外，也包括了“Subsidiary, Affiliate, Associated and Interrelated Companies and/or Joint Ventures as may be required as their respective rights and interests may appear.”, 但没有去把Sembawang船厂加入作为共同受保人，也没有去告诉保险人。结果发生了船舶在船厂完成建造的时候被损坏，这就涉及了船厂是否是共同受保人的争议。上诉庭判是Sembawang船厂不是一个共同受保人，也不包括在“Subsidiary, Affiliate, Associated and Interrelated Companies and/or Joint Ventures”的范围内。另针对Sembawang船厂是否可以以未公开的委托人身份作为共同受保人，上诉庭认为在该先例的案情下是不可以，因为投保的时候是有机会去披露与加入Sembawang船厂为共同受保人。Moore-Bick大法官指出这种情况下委托人应该在投保的时候就被披露出来，因为会影响风险，就是保险人会考虑到如果在船厂出事时涉及船厂有疏忽也不会有代位求偿权去向船厂索赔把赔付给船东的钱要回来，说：

“The mere identification, whether by name or description, of certain persons as assureds cannot be sufficient of itself to demonstrate 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 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 intervene 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 545…

Having regard to the circumstances of the present case I think the judge was right to attach particular significance to 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 and it is not surprising, therefore, to find that the assureds in the present policy include other companies within the same group as the owner and even joint venturers. In this context the absence of any reference to the shipyard and its sub-contractors is striking, particularly when it is borne in mind that their inclusion as co-assureds would have a significant effect on the insurers? rights of subrogation and therefore on the risk.

Bearing in mind the context in which this policy was issued, I have come to the

conclusion that the omission of any reference to the yard or its sub-contractors is not neutral but must be regarded as a positive indication that the insurers were not willing to contract with them. I am satisfied that this is a case, therefore, in which the terms of the contract by implication exclude any right on the part of Sembawang to sue on it as an undisclosed principal.”。

3. 延误宣告

延误宣告在3种开口保单下都是会发生。在第一种选择性的开口保单（Facultative Open Cover），因为是每次付运只有在受保人宣告与保险人接受的情况下才会有独立的保险合约产生。所以如果是受保人晚了去宣告（特别是在已经发生货损货差时，而且这是必须做出披露的），保险人也就不可能去接受，也就不会有相应的保险合约产生，自然保险人也就没有任何的赔付责任。至于其他的两种开口保单下的延误宣告，会在以下段节做出详细介绍。

3.1 标准/必须接受的开口保单下的延误宣告（late declaration under Standard/Obligatory Open Cover）

3.1.1善意的延误宣告（late declaration in utmost good faith ）

在这种开口保单，由于是承保人必须接受受保人的宣告，所以是除非在保险合约中另有规定，法律默示地位对受保人延误的宣告（但必须是在绝对善意的大精神下）也特别宽松。在合约中另有规定的例子可见先例：Union Insurance of Canton v. George Wills & Co., (P.C.) (1916) 1 A.C 281，该浮动保单中有一条明示条文要求受保人在开航后尽快（as soon as possible after sailing of vessel）作出宣告。法院判这是一条承诺性保证条文，一去违反保险人就自动解除保险合约下的赔付责任。在该先例，保险人提供证据证明延误宣告的违反对他的严重后果，因为他在每次准时宣告后都要去作出再保安排。

但在先例The “Beursgracht” (2002) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 574，受保人Glencore与保险人签订了标准开口保单，有次风险（该开口保单是承保受保人Glencore对租赁船舶的责任保险）的宣告是晚了7年，法院还是判保险人需要对船东的责任（涉及了一个装卸小工的死亡）作出赔付。在该先例，高院与上诉庭比较详尽的探讨了受保人延误宣告的后果。由于在该标准开口保单没有特别的字样要求受保人尽快做出宣告，加上宣告在这种形式的开口保单被视为只是有行政与计算保费的意义，所以高院与上诉庭都判延误宣告不是违反承诺性保证，也不是违反赔付的先决条件。它只是该标准开口保单中的中间条文，而在该先例延误了７年才宣告产生的后果被认定是并不严重。延误宣告的风险所涉及的保费只是该月份的1%，保费金额只是250美元，

而且保险人也没有提供任何有关再保险会带来什么影响的证据。所以即使受保人是违反，这也是局限在金钱的赔偿而不可以让保险人逃避赔付责任。上诉庭的Tuckey大法官是这样说：

“For the purpose of analyzing the seriousness and effect of the admitted breach one must bear in mind that despite the absence of a declaration underwriters were at all material times on risk and that the failure to make a declaration of this one risk was due to a good faith mistake. The mistake may not have been formally rectified for some time, but by mid-1992 at the latest underwriters were aware that the assured were saying that they were on risk. The Lloyd?s brokers? fax of Aug. 2, 1994, to which I have referred, makes this perfectly clear. In terms of this risk, which would have yielded a premium of U.S. $250, the commercial consequences for underwriters of not having the declaration on their file were negligible, as the Judge said. Underwriters called no evidence to the contrary and one would not expect them to have been able to do so. I do not ignore the extent of the potential exposure, but this could not possibly have affected their reinsurance program or reinsurance to close.”。

另Tuckey大法官也提到了受保人善意的延误宣告，即使是属于违反中间条文，损失也会只局限在赔付晚了去计算与支付保费带来的利息损失，说：

“This is not the time or the place to consider whether as a matter of law underwriters could have recovered lost interest as damages for the breach of the obligation to make a timely declaration. In this case the liability to do so was conceded and in practice I would expect an assured who had made a late declaration by mistake to offer to pay interest on his late payment of premium. In any event I do not think that the fact that underwriters? legal right to recover interest is, or may be, doubtful is a good reason for saying that underwriters should be entitled to avoid liability for the risk.”。

针对海上货物保险，晚了宣告的付运货物会被视为是非定值保单(unvalued policy)，原因是如果标准开口保单是定值保险（valued policy），在作出宣告并同时已经发生了事故，岂非保险人还是要硬着头皮去赔付保险价值（insured value），而这个保险价值是来自受保人延误的宣告，受保人也无需去证明？但如果是被视为是非定值保单，就会需要受保人证明保险标的的可保价值（insurable value）。这方面请看本书第十二章第3段，这也是在1906年《英国海上保险法》Section 29(4)的规定。

3.1.2恶意的延误宣告（late declaration in bad faith）

恶意的延误宣告或选择性宣告在先例Rivaz v. Gerussi Bros & Co. (1880) 6 QBD 222

有出现过。这带来的后果显然就是违反在第二章所针对的绝对善意大原则，有关保险人可以有的救济就是去做出令保险合约无效（avoid the contract）的选择。这也是1906年《英国海上保险法》的法律地位：“A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party.”。

3.2受保人选择宣告保险人必须接受的开口保单下的延误宣告（late declaration under Facultative/ Obligatory open cover）

在这种形式的开口保单下，显然是提供了给受保人伸缩性与取巧的机会。其中一种取巧的机会就会在宣告，这要不就是宣告的内容尽量含糊，或是在知道损失发生后才去宣告。看来，英国法律对这种开口保单的宣告比较严格，不像标准开口保单的晚了7年去做出宣告仍然可以被视为是有效：The “Beursgracht” (2002) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 574。

首先针对内容含糊的宣告，不去明确说明是什么航次或付运，这在先例Ionides v. Pacific Fire & Marine (1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 674中有去针对宣告的内容，即宣告的内容必须明确，为了避免不诚实的受保人在他本来宣告针对的那票货物安全到达目的地后去假装本来的宣告其实是针对另外一票尚在运输途中的货物。这在本章第2.2段有提到。现去将Blackburn大法官说过的比较重要与相关的话重新节录如下：

“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 vessel answering the description, if any there be, 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…”。

至于在损失发生后才去做出宣告，这在Glencore International v. Alpina Insurance (2004) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 111先例中有涉及，有关的部分判决可以节录如下：

“Under a contract of this kind (这是指标准开口保单) making declarations in arrears does not give rise to any difficulty in relation to transits because the insurance is obligatory on both sides. Accordingly, even if the insured fails to declare a shipment it is covered: see The 'Beursgracht' [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 574. Declarations simply provide the insurer with information about the risks that have already attached to the cover in accordance with its terms. Under this cover (这是指受保人可以选择宣告保险人必须接受的开口保单), however, the position in relation to storage risks is different because in respect of them the insurance is facultative on the part of the insured, but obligatory on

the part of the insurers. Without a declaration of some kind, therefore, there is no means of telling whether the insured wishes to invoke his right to obtain cover. I think Mr. Rainey Q.C. (保险人的代表大律师) was right, therefore, in saying that in that situation the declaration performs a quite different function.

Mr. Rainey submitted that in principle under a facultative/obligatory cover on goods such as this the insured must communicate his intention to attach the particular goods to the cover before the insurers can come on risk. That is certainly a good starting point, but it is necessary to have regard to the particular terms of the contract, the nature of the business insured and any established course of dealing between the parties. In the present case it would have been difficult in practical terms for Glencore (受保人) to have declared storage risks in advance. Transit risks were declared some months in arrears because, as Alpina (保险人) recognised, it took time for an organisation such as Glencore to collate the information necessary to enable that to be done, but in most cases the storage risk arose when the relevant transit risk ended and it would have been equally difficult therefore for Glencore to collate the necessary information to enable it to declare goods for storage cover more promptly. Moreover, if declarations with retrospective effect could never be made, the storage cover would have lost much of its commercial value in a situation where risks were routinely being declared three months or more in arrears because in many cases the goods are likely to remain in store for a much shorter period than that. That appears to have been recognised by Alpina which consistently accepted declarations of storage risks in arrears in the same way as transit risks without ever suggesting that cover attached only from the date the declaration was received. Mr. Rainey submitted that those declarations did not make it clear whether cover was being sought retrospectively or only prospectively, but the natural inference in the absence of any indication to the contrary is that Glencore was seeking cover from the moment the goods were put into store rather than from some later and largely arbitrary date and expected to be charged a premium on that basis (as indeed it was). In those circumstances, whatever might otherwise have been the position, I do not think that Alpina can now say that declarations of storage risks were effective only from the date at which it received the relevant declarations and that the goods were therefore covered only from that time.”。

虽然是如上述节录判词的第2段中所讲，Moore-Bick大法官说可以理解像Glencore这样庞大的贸易商是需要时间去收集资料后（例如去明确货物会要储存多久）才能向保险人做出选择性宣告，所以免不了有些延误。而且保险人在过往的做法中，也都接受了Glencore做出的延误宣告。但接下去的判决中显示了在Facultative/Obligatory 的保险安排下，还是不像标准/必须接受的开口保单（在这个

先例必须接受的开口保单是只适用在付运风险[transit risks]而不适用在储存风险[storage risk]）。道理是受保人可以有选择宣告或者不宣告的权利，这就表示了受保人可以随时改变主意而且是没有违反绝对善意。所以，虽然两种形式的保单都可以延误宣告，但针对Facultative/Obligatory 的保险安排，在知道发生损失后就不能再做出有效的宣告了。而标准/必须接受的开口保单，就没有这个限制，正如1906年《英国海上保险法》Section 29(3)所说的情况，就是在浮动保单下（这是标准/必须接受的开口保单的前身，在本章第2.4段有介绍），漏掉或错误宣告是可以在损失发生后才做出或者是修正，只要是善意。Moore-Bick大法官接着是这样说：

“I can see the commercial force of that argument in a case where it can be shown that there was a fixed intention to declare the risk in question to the cover, but it does face very substantial difficulties. The element of risk is fundamental to a contract of insurance and for that reason it is essential where the cover is facultative/obligatory in nature that an unequivocal step of some kind attaching the risk to the cover has been taken before the insured knows of the loss. If, whatever may have been its original intention, Glencore remained free to change its mind at any time before making a formal declaration, it would have been able to declare a risk when a loss had been suffered and free not to declare it if there had been no loss.”。

所以Moore-Bick大法官在最后判是受保人在知道货物或保险标的有了损失后不能去作出有效的宣告，也就是判保险人不必赔付，说：“In these circumstances I am unable to accept that Glencore was entitled to declare to the cover with retrospective effect goods which it already knew had been subject to a loss.”。

这样看来，也可以说是facultative/obligatory的保险安排对受保人或保险人都会有不利，比不上标准/必须要接受（standard/obligatory）的开口保单，就是受保人在发生损失后去作出宣告已经为时太晚。

4 标准开口保单的有关条文

以下是一个标准开口保单格式（contract of insurance），在伦敦市场通常就是一份Market Reform Contract或简称MRC的样本，并去加上相关的内容解释让读者知道会涉及什么内容：

RISK DETAILS（承保风险细节）

REFERENCE: （档案号）

TYPE: Marine Cargo Insurance (风险类别：海上货物保险)

ASSURED:

[A Limited, and/or as agents and/or subsidiaries and/or associated companies an/or for whom they may have instructions to insure]

（受保人：A公司或/与它的代理人或/与他的分公司或/是与它们的联营公司或/与它们被要求去投保的第三人。受保人通常是尽量广泛以避免在千变万化的贸易活动中会有遗漏，例如是有一次的付运是分公司所做出，A公司是出了事之后才知道。或是，在国际货物买卖中被对方的买方/卖方要求以某些条件投保。）

PRINCIPAL ADDRESS: （这里是指A公司的地址）

PERIOD: Risk attaching from___to___both days inclusive, local

standard time.

（保险期间：风险从哪一天开始到哪一天为止，例如是为期一年。也会有情况是约定更精确的时间，例如是写明是从某天的几点开始与到某天的几点终止。也会是一条常青条文[evergreen clause]，说明保单每年自动更新，只在受保人或保险人提前3个月给通知的情况下才去终止保险合约。）

Cancellation Clause: [For example: This insurance may be cancelled either by the Assured or by the Underwriters by one party giving the other 7 days notice in respect of War and Strikes Risks except in respect of sendings to or from the United States when Strikes Risks will be subject to 48 hours notice of cancellation.]

（终止条文：这也是针对终止保险合约的权利。但针对的会是有关战争与罢工的风险可以做出7天的终止通知，除了美国是只有48小时。这方面所涉及的Waterborne Agreement在本书第八章第9.2段有介绍。）

CONVEYANCE: [For example: Any land water or air conveyance, …Ocean

going vessels in accordance with the Institute Classification Clause 01/01/2001 (CL. 354) … ]

（运输工具：这里可以去规定是什么运输工具，例如是航空、火车、公路加上船舶。

如果是船舶，由于无法去确定将来会租用什么船舶，所以在这里会加上协会船级条文，以保证去做出运输的船舶不会是太差劲。有关协会船级条文在本书第八章第8.4段有详细介绍。）

INTEREST: [For example: Goods and/or merchandise of every

description consisting principally of crude oil, petroleum products…]

（保险利益：例如是所有不同类别的货物或/与商品，主要是包括了原油，石油产品…。受保人也是通常会去尽量广泛以避免在千变万化的贸易活动或者在保险期间有新的业务中会产生遗漏。在先例Glencore International A.G. v. Alpina Insurance Company Limited [2004] 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 111，它包括的是 “crude oil, kerosene, gas oil, naphtha, liquid petroleum gases and all products incidental to Glencore?s business or otherwise as might be declared.”。）

VOYAGE: [For example: At and from ports or places anywhere in

the world…]

（航次：例如是从或去世界的任何港口或地点。受保人也是通常会去尽量广泛以避免在千变万化的贸易活动或者在保险期间有新的业务中有遗漏。）

LIMIT: [For example: US$ 10,000,000 any one sending

and/or shipment and/or location…]

（保险金额的限制：例如是1千万美元在每次付运或/与地点。这方面在较早前已经解释过，就是保险人去加上这一个条文去限制每次的付运或者一个地点[例如是装港、卸港或其他的储存地点]的保险金额，避免风险太集中。）

Contract Leader Initial(首席保险人签署)

Basis of Valuation Clause: [[For example: Cost insurance and freight plus 10%…]

（货物保险价值：这是针对每次宣告时计算货物保险价值的基础，就是CIF价格加上10%不等的估计利润。根据这样计算出来的保险价值，再根据保费率算的出每次付运要交的保费。另在发生赔付的时候，也可以作为定值保单去赔付。这方面在本书第十二章第3.5与3.6段有介绍。

该条文有时也会变的很复杂，因为承保风险广泛的开口保单不一定是只有CIF买卖，

而会涉及千变万化的不同贸易活动。例如在先例Glencore International A.G. v. Alpina Insurance Company Limited [2004] 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 111的开口保单中，Basis of Valuation Clause是规定为如下：

“1. Shipments which are sold by the Assured prior to attachment of risk are valued at: 1.1 The sum declared if such declaration is made prior to known or reported loss but in no event shall such declaration be less than the Assured?s Sale Price.

1.2 In the event of no declaration having been made prior to loss, valued at Assured?s Sale Price plus, if applicable, additional charges.

2. Shipments which are not sold at the time of attachment of risk are valued at: 2.1 The sum declared if such declaration is made prior to loss;

2.2 If no declaration is made prior to loss valued at the higher of either the Assured's cost plus expenses plus 10% or replacement cost.

3. Shipments insured on instruction of third parties: …

4. Interests in store which are not sold at time of attachment are valued at ?replacement cost?.”。）

CONDITIONS: All terms and conditions as LPO62A Lloyd?s Marine

Policy (MAR 91)

（开口保单的条文：通常情况下是会由两部分组成，标准印本条文与保险经纪人根据特定的情况/要求去自己草拟的附加条文。前者像协会货物条文[Institute Cargo Clauses]，而后者像由Joint Cargo Committee根据某些特定的情况草拟的附加条文。以下去举一些例子：

Institute Cargo Clauses [A] 01/01/2009 协会货物条文[一切险] Institute War Clauses [Cargo] 01/01/2009 协会战争条文[货物] Institute Strikes Clause [Cargo] 01/01/2009 协会罢工条文[货物] Institute War Clauses [Air Cargo] 协会战争条文[空运货物] Institute War Clauses [Sending by Post] 协会战争条文[邮寄]）

LOSS PAYEE(S): Loss, if any, payable to Assured and/or order. [This

heading is deleted if there are no loss payee instructions agreed.]

（接受保险赔付的人士：赔付给受保人或/与根据受保人的指令赔付给相关的人士，[如果没有赔付指令是要把本条文删除]。在涉及银行融资，会是在保险合约中接受保险赔付的就是有关的银行。也会是受保人不只是一家公司或个别人士，就有必要说明接受保险赔付的是谁。）

EXPRESS WARRANTIES: [If none, this is stated]

（明示承诺性保证：根据保险人与受保人之间有约定的明示承诺性保证就需要在此列出。但如果没有明示承诺性保证约定的话，也要在此说明是没有。有关在保险法律中承诺性保证条文的特殊性与严格，请看本书第四章有针对，另在本书许多其他地方也有涉及，例如是第八章第8.1段有关船舶适航的默示保证。）

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: [If none, this is stated]

（先决条件：根据保险人与受保人之间有约定的先决条件就需要在此列出。但如果没有明示先决条件的话，也要在此说明是没有。有关保险合约的先决条件也请看本书第四章。）

SUBJECTIVITIES: [Any subjectivities are stated in full, with the

timeframe for compliance and consequence of non-compliance: if none, this is stated]

（保险经纪人的自拟条文：在本格式内介绍“开口保单的条文”时就提到说“开口保单的条文通常情况下是由两部分组成：标准印本条文与保险经纪人根据特定的情况自己草拟的附加条文。”而这里subjectivities实际上就是属于保险经纪人根据特定的情况自己草拟的附加条文。它有可能是保证条文或是条件条文。）

CHOICE OF LAW AND JURISDICTION:

[For example: This insurance shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of England and Wales and each party agrees to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales, except as may be expressly provided herein to the contrary.]

（适用法与管辖权：除非有其他的相反规定，保险合约是要根据英国法解释并且英国法院是有排外管辖权。这个问题在本书第五章有详论，请参阅。）

PREMIUM: [For example: Minimum and deposit premium of ...

payable

in

equal

quarterly/half-yearly

installments on the following dates… adjustable at expiry…]

（保险费：这里也是订约自由，可以有根据双方的约定有不同的规定。例如，最低金额的保险费的支付、保险费的押金必须是要每季度/半年一次在以下日期支付，承保期间结束或其他时间做出实际保费的计算，等。）

PREMIUM PAYMENT

TERMS: [For example: if the premium due under this policy

has not been paid to Underwriters by the 60th day from the inception of this policy…Underwriters shall have the right to cancel this policy by notification to the Insured…]

（保险费支付条文：例如，如果到期的保险费在保单签发后60天还没有支付给保险人，保险人有权给予受保人通知并取消保险合约。）

TAXES PAYABLE BY INSURED AND ADMINISTERED BY INSURERS:

[This specifies country and tax applicable; e.g. x% UK Insurance Premium Tax]

（受保人要支付的印花税并由保险人管理：这是关于英国政府对印花税的征收。）

Contract Leader Initial (首席保险人签署)

RECORDING TRANSMITTING AND STORING INFORMATION:

Where [the broker] maintains risk and claim data/information / documents [the broker] may hold data / information / documents electronically.

另外Denning大法官也在上述的先例讲到保险人是怎样去拟定保险证明的条文，说：

“When the insurance company printed conditions on the back [of the certificate] they presumably printed all those which concerned the holder, and omitted those which did not concern him. I do not think it would be right to hold him bound by other conditions which were not drawn to his attention, especially procedural conditions which do not affect the insurance itself but only the way of enforcing it.”。

另在先例National Oilwell (UK) Limited v. Davy Offshore Limited (1993) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 582，Colman大法官是这样说：

“(1) Where at the time when the contract of insurance was made the principal assured or other contracting party has express or implied actual authority to enter into that contract so as to bind some other party as co-assured and intended so to bind party, the latter may sue on the policy as the undisclosed principal and co-assured regardless of whether the policy described a class of co-assured of which he was or become a member.

Where at the time when the contract of insurance was made the principal assured or other contracting party had 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 qualify as a member of that class can ratify and sue on policy as co-assured if at that 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.”

6.3 保险证明不是一份保单

在1906年《英国海上保险法》，有不少条文是针对保单（insurance policy）的定义，但没有去针对保险证明。例如在1906年的立法是提到了一份保单必须有3个要求：（一）在Section 23(1)要求保单明确谁是受保人或者他的代理人；（二）在Section 24(1) 要求保单是由保险人或者在他的授权下签发；（三）Section 26(1) 要求保险标的必须在保单下合理明确的说明。

在1906年的立法，也说明是海上保险合约不被接受为证据，除非是在一份保单内（a contract of marine insurance is inadmissible in evidence unless it is embodied in a marine policy in accordance with this Act. The policy may be executed and issued either at the time when the contract is concluded, or afterwards.）估计这样的立法都有它的历史背

景，例如是保单涉及了缴付印花税，到了现在就已经是没有关系（海上保险的印花税是在1970年的《财政法》[Finance Act]被取消），但1906年的立法还是改不了。

一份保险证明不一定能够去同时满足保单的3个要求，例如保险证明通常只会针对开口保单受保人，以及很多由保险经纪人做出的保险证明是没有保险人的签字。而最重要的或明显的就是劳合社的标准海上保单（Lloyd?s Marine Policy）与劳合社的标准保险证明（Lloyd?s Certificate of Insurance），在保险证明中的第一大段说明是保险人承诺签发保单以承保有关的货物（the said Underwriters have undertaken to issue to [开口保单的受保人] policy/policies of insurance at Lloyd?s to cover, up to [每次付运的保险金额限制] in all by any one steamer and/or conveyances…）。在这样的明确写法下，保险证明应该不是一份保单。

这会带来一些争议，例如在先例Diamond Alkali Export Corporation v. FL. Bougreois (1921) 8 Lloyd?s 282，就是涉及了CIF买卖，文件的要求是包括了一份保单，但卖方提供的是一份保险证明。这被法院判是不符合要求，买方可以拒绝该文件买卖。

这一来，1906年《英国海上保险法》的其他有关保单的条文也不适用在一份保险证明，其中就是有关转让。该立法的Section 50(3)是这样说：“海上保单是可以通过背书或者其他的习惯性方式转让。”（A marine policy may be assigned by indorsement thereon or in other customary manner）。事实上，以前针对海上货物的保单，通常或习惯性做法就是去交出这份保单(连同提单与发票) 给CIF买方/分买方。正如先例Safadi v. Westrn Assurance Company (1933) 46 Lloyd?s Rep. 140中Roche大法官所说：“I have no doubt myself that policies often are assigned otherwise than by indorsement. In the case of c.i.f. contracts they are so often handed over without any indorsement being made upon them that I should be surprised if it could not be proved that that is a customary manner of assigning policies.”

这样看来，一份保险证明就不一定能够根据1906年的立法去转让，虽然它能够去转让还是有必要，因为CIF买卖经常涉及在海上运输的时候转售（以文件买卖的方式）。但还是有不同的看法例如在John Dunt在所著的《Marine Cargo Insurance》之53页之注脚168就提到了Clarke大法官在先例The “Surf City” (1995) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 242所说：“…treated a certificate that purported to represent and take the place of the original stamped policy as entitling the assignee to sue the insurer in his own name under s. 50(2) of the Act of 1906.”。

虽然这份保险证明不一定能够根据1906年的立法去转让（因为它严格意义说不上是保单），它还是可以根据一般合约利益（保险证明下就是向保险人索赔货损货差的利益）去做出转让。它可以根据1925年《财产法》（Law of Property Act）之Section 136

去做出立法转让（legal assignment），或是根据衡平法进行衡平转让（equitable assignment）。有关这一方面，在本书第十三章第7段有更详细的介绍请参阅。在立法转让下，是要求转让方以文书做出通知给债务人（保险人）。但这不应该是一个困难，在损失发生后，转让的通知会去给保险人。正如John Dunt在所著的《Marine Cargo Insurance》第3.53段所说：“Neither of these requirements present insuperable problems even if, as may commonly be the case, assignment will not take place by way of written notice to the insurers, until after loss. The notice of assignment will normally take the form in practice of the presentation of the claim by the assignee to the insurers or their agents as, for example, where a loss is notified to Lloyd?s agents.”。

这样看来，去把一份保险证明在一连串的CIF买卖中转让应该是不成问题，也经常是这样做，甚至好像保单一样不必去背书（除非保险证明有规定需要背书），只去交出给受让人或下一个CIF买方。另也可以把保险证明视为是持有人与保险人之间的合约，不论他是CIF买方还是分买方，因为在开口保单中对受保人广泛的定义就有可能包括了他们。

7 开口/预约保单与保险证明之间的矛盾

由于开口保单与保险证明是两份不同的保险合约，所以有了争议，也必须是根据它们自己的条文去做出解释。但无可否认，它们之间还是有密切关系，会在有些情况下两份文件是需要相互参考。显然，有不少开口保单中的条文，只是保险人与原受保人之间有关，与保险证明无关。这包括是开口保单中的保费计算与结算、受保人可能有的选择去在不同层次被承保（different levels of cover）、选择去终止开口保单、保险金额的限制（保险证明会有每次付运的限制，但通常不会有开口保单中的地点限制）、开口保单的绝对免赔额，等。

有关这两个不同保险合约的解释，也有说法是保险证明中的明示或默示条文应该有较多的分量，因为它有针对性。Andrew Smith大法官在先例Evialis v. S.I.A.T (2003) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 377是这样说：

“I consider that the proper approach to identifying the contract of insurance is to consider both documents as potentially expressing the parties' intention as to the terms upon which the insurance was effected. I do not consider that, in the absence of express words so providing, it is proper to approach the question on the basis that the certificate is the only contractual document determining the terms of the insurance and to have regard to the terms of the open cover only to the extent that they have been incorporated into the certificate. However, in determining the terms of the insurance contract by interpreting the two documents, it is likely that the certificate will be given more weight, since,

being directed to the specific risk, it is likely to prevail over more general terms. As Visc Dunedin put it in De Monchy v Phoenix Insurance Co. of Hartford (1929) 34 201, it ?clinches the bargain as to the particular shipment? and as such is ?the determinative of the two instruments?. It is true that there are references in the judgments to the terms of the cover being ?incorporated? into the certificate, but this does not, in my judgment, require express reference to them in the certificate. On analysis, I do not consider that that requires more than that the parties evinced an intention that a term in the open cover should be of contractual effect in relation to the insurance of the particular risk, which they might do despite it not being referred to in the document that was specifically directed to that risk.”。

开口保单与保险证明也可以由不同国家的法院管辖：Tradigrain SA v. S.I.A.T (2002) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 553，Craft Enterprises (International) v. Axa Insurance Co. (2005) Lloyd?s Rep. IR 14。

如果保险证明的承保范围比开口保单更广泛，看来也应该是分别去解释：Silver Dolphin Product Limited v. Parcels & General Assurance Association (1984) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 404。在该先例，涉及的航次是从纽约到Felixstowe，装有肥皂与香水的集装箱因为坏天气的原因被冲落入大海。保险证明是在这次事故发生后才签发，不过在签发的时候保险人与受保人都不知道该事故的发生。开口保单中的运输条款（transit clause）是很广泛，规定保险人的责任是要从货物离开供货商的工厂时开始。保险证明中是规定如果签发该证明时货物是在海上，则承保的风险是从保险证明签发之日开始。受保人争辩说，综合考虑开口保单与保险证明中的条文，并考虑开口保单的通常做法，该份保险合约是意图去承保货物离开工厂后的整个运输过程。但是Neill大法官判风险是从保险证明签发之日起才开始被承保，本案中也就是在损失已经发生后。所以受保人是不能够索赔成功。由此可见保险证明中条文的效力是高于开口保单中的。

（记录传输与信息储存：保险经纪人是可以以电子形式储存数据、信息等。）

INSURER CONTRACT

DOCUMENTATION: This contract document details the contract terms

entered into by the Insurer(s) and constitutes the contract document.

（保险合约：这份合约文件代表了保险合约的所有具体内容。）

[Broker’s Wording and Clause appear here as well as any amendments to standard Market Referenced/ Registered Wording and Clauses.]

INFORMATION

INFORMATION:

Underwriting Information: [This includes source and date of any information provided.] （承保信息：这将包括所有受保人提供的数据与信息）

Loss Experience: [This includes source and date of the loss experience]

（过往索赔记录：这会是包括受保人所有过往的索赔信息。）

SECURITY DETAILS

INSURERS LIABILITY: Insurer’s liability several not joint

[This section provides that the liability of insurers is several not joint and is not re-produced]

Proportion of liability

[This section deals with insurer?s proportion of liability in case of adjustment to the ?signed? lines and is not re-produced]

（保险人责任：英国法律针对保险人的责任是按份额而并非是连带，每一个保险人

的责任只限于自己承保的份额。）

ORDER

HEREON: 100% of 100% [This identifies the percentage amount of

the order placed with the broker concerned. This may be less than 100% where the assured bears part of the risk himself or where, for example, part of the risk is placed in overseas markets.]

（承保份额）

Contract Leader Initial（首席保险人签署）

BASIS OF WRITTEN LINES: [This will specify one of the following] Percentage of Order Percentage of Whole Part of Whole Signing

Provisions: [This section deals with adjustment of lines,

particularly by signing down and is not re-produced.]

Written Lines

（这是针对不同保险人愿意承保的份额。）

This section of the contract is for insurers to evidence their agreement to enter into their

stated participation to the contract.

Written % Singed and Dated Stamp`

Incorporation Underwriting Reference

[The insurer?s lines, e.g. 10%, appear here adjacent to their “box” stamps which, as indicated, give their market reference and are then signed and dated by the insurers to indicate acceptance of the insurance contract for their own percentage of the risk.]

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND ADVISORY SECTIONS

[The Market Reform Contract also includes Contract Administration and Advisory Sections which are not re-produced here.]

5 开口保单内容

5.1 开口保单内容例子之一：Glencore International v. Alpina Insurance

开口保单作为保险合约的内容千变万化，主要是在订约自由下去满足贸易商作为受保人的需求。而贸易商的业务也是不断会在改变，所以开口保单的内容也会在每年或其他保险期间去作出改变。这一个做法的介绍可去节录Moore-Bick大法官在Glencore International v. Alpina Insurance (2004) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 111中所说：

“For many years Glencore has made use of open covers in connection with its commodity trading activities for the purposes of insuring goods in transit. This form of policy, under which goods in transit falling within the terms of the cover are automatically insured as soon as the policyholder acquires an interest in them, provides the flexibility and continuity of cover which are essential to enable a large trading organisation to carry on business in the modern world. Commerce could not function efficiently if traders handling any significant volume of business had to negotiate separate terms for each individual shipment. Open covers also provide benefits for underwriters because they enable large numbers of similar risks to be underwritten without the need for individual presentations.

From the early 1980's Glencore's open cover in respect of oil and oil products was placed in the London market through the brokers Lloyd Thompson (now Jardine Lloyd Thompson). Over the years the policy wording developed in response to changes in the nature of Glencore 's business but the underlying philosophy throughout was to procure a broad and flexible contract providing cover against all risks of loss and damage to oil in which Glencore acquired an interest wherever it was situated. As the insurers were aware, Glencore's involvement in the purchase and sale of crude oil and products was solely as a trader; it did not participate either in the production of crude oil or in the final distribution of products.

As might be expected in these circumstances, the contract was worded in very broad terms. It took the form of a marine open cover in favour of Glencore and its associated and subsidiary companies and other interested parties for whom they might receive orders to insure. It covered transit by land, water, air and pipeline from any ports or places in the world to any other ports or places in the world. It covered crude oil, kerosene, gasoil,

naphtha, liquid petroleum gases and all products incidental to Glencore's business or otherwise as might be declared. It provided cover on four different bases at the insured's option, that which was most commonly used being based on the American Institute Cargo Clauses. To these basic conditions was added a large number of general conditions dealing with various aspects of the business insured. It will be necessary to refer to some of those in detail at a later stage. Subject to the insured's right to choose the basis of cover, the contract was obligatory on both sides as regards transit risks. There was also a separate section providing cover, if required by the insured, against political risks (confiscation etc., usually known as 'CNED' risks) at a rate to be agreed by underwriters. The policy ran for 12 months from 1st April each year. In the year 1994-95 approximately 79.75 million tons of crude oil and products with a total value of US$4.9 billion were declared to the open cover generating a gross premium of about US$5.5 million.”。

上述针对的Glencore是跨国的贸易商，尤其是在石油贸易。为了让他庞大业务的每次货物（主要是原油）付运或涉及有利益的货物都在一开始有风险就自动获得承保，所以在伦敦市场投保了一个非常广泛的开口保单。这开口保单的内容随着Glencore业务的改变也不断有修改。该广泛的开口保单对受保人的定义非常广泛，包括了Glencore与他的联营公司或分公司或其他相关人士（例如在买卖合约中要求Glencore去为货物投保等）。付运的方式是包括了陆上的公路与火车、海上、空中与管道，不论是从世界上哪一个港口去其他任何港口。针对货物，是包括了原油以及所有其他石油产品，只要是与Glencore的业务有关或Glencore作出宣告。该开口保单还去允许Glencore通过选择CNED条文去加保政治风险（这方面不属于针对货物运输的必须接受的开口保单，而只是facultative/obligatory 的保险安排）。这开口保单的保险期间是12个月，而在1994到1995年，大约有7,975万吨的原油与其他石油产品被Glencore宣告而获得承保，保险人收到的保费是550万美元。

政治风险的部分是属于facultative/obligatory保险安排，就是让Glencore可以选择是否要投保，但保险人不得拒绝接受承保，另一个部分也属于这种保险安排的是储存风险，这在该先例中的开口保单是第1.18条：“Including, if required, storage and blending prior to shipment or after final discharge in Land Tanks, Refineries, and storage in barge(s), irrespective of whether transit covered hereunder subject to Policy terms and conditions but excluding loss and/or damage caused by faulty blending on amount at risk at particular location involved at Additional premium of 0.015% each 30 days or pro-rata in excess of first 30 days if transit covered hereunder, otherwise, 0.015% each 15 days or part thereof.”。

5.2 开口保单内容例子之二：WISE (Underwriting Agency) Ltd. v. Grupo Nacional Provincial S.A

有关WISE (Underwriting Agency) Ltd. v. Grupo Nacional Provincial S.A (2004) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 483先例的介绍在第二章第4.4.5段对案情有详细介绍，这里可以去节录有关再保险纸条（reinsurance slip）内容的部分是如下：

“There was no policy. The reinsurance contract was made on about 28 December 2000 on the basis of a slip presentation, which, unusually, was not even initialled by the reinsurers' underwriter. The slip provided as follows:

Cedant: Grupo Nacional Provincial, S.A. Insured: Perfumeria Ultra S.A. De C. V . Locations: 1) Classical Gift Inc 9431 S.W. 65 Street Miami…

2) Fragrances of the Word [sic] Inc. 10840 S.W. Street Miami

3) Jewelry Time Inc 13228 N.W. Street Miami…

Period: From December 31st, 2000 to December 31st, 2001 Type: Facultative cargo reinsurance. With monthly declarations

Interest: All real and personal property of any kind and description, including property but not limited to property of other in care, custody or control of the insured or for which the insured has assumed responsibility. All the shipments done by the insured consistent in but not limited to, cosmetics, perfumery, gifts, jewelery, Lladró, (kind of porcelain) accessories, and in general on any type of supplies related to the Insured's activity and in which it has an insurable interest. Coverage:

Ordinary Transit Risk terrestrial, maritime and air Total and/or partial theft. Wetting Spots Pollution

All risk of cargo as per GNP wording Warehouse to warehouse Theft by bulk by hole [sic]

Breakage, bump, bend or crack Oxidation

Contact with other charges [cargoes?] Spillage

Strikes and civil commotion Loading and unloading manoeuvres. Damage for derailed. [sic] Lay up for 15 fifteen days

Activity: Commercialisation of Perfumes, gifts Lladro, and jewelery. Transportation: Any kind of usual transportation, terrestrial, maritime and air. Geographic Limit: From Miami Florida US to Cancun Q.R. Mexico From warehouse to any store in Cancun city. Maximum Limit of US$ 1,500,000.00 per shipment Responsibility: US$ 50,000.00 per vehicle inside Cancun Annual Estimated: US$ 17,000,000.00 of Shipments: Conditions: …

Cancellation clause (60 days)

Cooperation clause as per GNP wording\

The slip contained an Information clause as follows:

Information: Loss Record: Nil for the last 12 Twelve years

Maximum amount and rate of the merchandise: - Perfumes and cosmetics: US$700,000 US$250,000

- Gifts (crystals, porcelain, leather bags, clothes, silverware): US$250,000 US$150,000 - Clocks: US$1,000,000 US$200,000

- Jewelry (gold, diamonds, stones, precious pearls and semi-precious and over and lose [sic]: US$350,000 US$200,000.

- Clocks: less expensive piece: US$40. Most expensive piece US$18,000 and average cost US$1,500.

- Jewelry: more expensive piece (rare circulation); more expensive piece: US$30,000; Most expensive set US$50,000 average cost - Maximum Transport: US$1,500,000 (high season). - Average: US$500,000

- Average Transport US$500,000 per trip - During the month: Three trips…”。

6 保险证明（certificate of insurance）

保险证明是一份文件去确认有关的付运货物已经有了承保，并把有关保险合约（通常是指开口保单）的条文（主要是与有关的付运或者航次有关系）去列明。保险证明的使用通常是在CIF买卖，因为卖方或者发货人需要去为这票付运的货物投保，并需要一份保险证明才能去向买方收取货款或去向银行的信用证结汇。通常，卖方如果是大的贸易商，他是会有广泛的标准开口保单。而该标准开口保单往往也包括了这票货物的付运。但问题是卖方不可能去把整个可能是长达一年或更久的开口保单去交出给买方作为投保的证明，以利将来发生货损货差的时候让买方去向保险人索赔。加上，开口保单也无法去显示该票付运的货物是什么与根据买卖合约要去的目的地，所以就有了保险人针对每次付运或航次签发保险证明的做法。在保险证明中，例如是劳合社的标准格式1，它是有一句说明劳合社保险人承诺去签发保单，承保在保险证明中所列明的风险/货物（underwriters at Lloyd?s have undertaken to issue policy）。劳合社的标准格式也有关于索赔的重要指示，例如要求买方去提供这份正本的保险证明或者保单，正本提单或其他运输合约、检验报告，等。

在法律的角度，CIF买方是一定要去提供一份海上货物保险的保单（policy）而不能是一份保险证明。这可去节录《Benjamin?s Sale of Goods》第6版19-041段所说：“The seller is prima facie bound to tender a policy of insurance. He does not perform his obligations by tendering some other document such as a certificate of insurance or a broker?s cover note or a written statement that he holds the buyer ?covered by insurance.?： Diamond Alkali Export Corporation v. FL. Bougreois (1921) 8 Lloyd?s 282.”。此外，根据1906年《英国海上保险法》Section 50(3)，法律也要求保单是可以去转让。 还有是要求保单只针对买卖合约的货物而不是把其他无关的货物扯在一起：Manbre Saccharine Export Corp v. Corn Products Ltd. (1919) 1 KB 198。还有是法律要求保单必须包括全程直到买卖合约中约定的交货目的地：Lindon Tricotagefabrik v. White & Meacham (1975) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 384。

但在今天的国际贸易中，通过大家的做法与明示条文规定，保险证明的接受性可以说是已经没有太大的问题。这包括在Incoterms 2000第A3段要求CIF卖方提供给买方保单或其他投保证明（provide the buyer with the insurance policy or other

1

该标准格式当然是有针对不同的付运内容去填写，例如有关的船舶名字，从哪里到哪里，保险价值，货物标记与数量等。另是在劳合社标准格式的两页纸，第二页是一些标准条文与有关发生损失需要索赔的重要指示，例如即时去向承运人或托管人或其他第三人保留索赔的权利，向保险人提供索赔所需要的文件，等。其他标准条文包括：Own Vehicle Theft Exclusion Clause, Pairs and Sets Clause, Accumulation Clause, Brands Clause, Cargo ISM Endorsement, Cargo ISM Forwarding Charges Clause, Increased Value (Duty and/or Taxes) Clause, Labels Clause, Process Clause, Secondhand Replacement Clause, Exhibition Risks Extension Clause,

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 Exclusion Clause (Cargo), Concealed Damage Clause, Debris Removal Clause, Insolvency Exclusion Clause, Termination of Transit Clause (Terrorism)。

evidence of insurance cover）。另在UCP 600，Article 28说：“An insurance document, such as an insurance policy, an insurance certificate or a declaration under an open cover”。在今天的海上货物保险，在英国的做法是很少会有一份保单（policy），所以普遍使用的文件还是一份保险证明。这一个做法的改变，也因为是海上货物运输的保险普遍是以开口保单而不是以个别的保单去承保。而在开口保单，只能是为个别的货物付运去出一份保险证明。稍后在本章第6.3段，会进一步去分析保险证明与保单的区别。

6.1 保险证明的有关条文或内容

以下也去给一个样本去看看保险证明的有关条文或内容，是在先例The “Surf City” (1995) 2 Lloyd?s Rep. 242，保险人做出的保险证明主要内容如下：

“This is to certify that this Company has insured under Open Policy No. MOP/454 issued on behalf of Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and/or Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (UK) Ltd, as their respective interest may appear. (这是去说明是哪一份开口保单与受保人)

US $ 5,115,000/--(US Dollars Five Million One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Only). (保险价值/金额，这是根据稍后计算货物保险价值的基础得出的，通常也就是实际付运的货量去乘以CIF价格加10%)

On Goods as specified below, valued at sum insured.

Per ?SURF CITY? B/L dd. 18.2.1990. (承保货物是装在Surf City轮并且有关货物的提单是在1990年2月18日签发)

Voyage: Mina Abdullah Kuwait to 1/2 Italian ports. (航次)

Claims to be adjusted according to the conditions of the policy which contains, inter alia, the following clause: (承保风险与索赔理算如下)

Bulk Oil Clause (SP 13C) extended to include shortage and/or leakage and/or contamination howsoever arising subject deductible 0.5% of the insured value of the whole shipment (other than claims for contamination), total loss, constructive total loss, general average and salvage charges which shall be payable in full irrespective of percentage).

Including war and strike clauses. (包括战争与罢工险)

Special Conditions as attached.

The validity of this insurance coverage attaches from the date of the Bill of Lading. (本保险在提单日期也就是货物装船的一天生效)

Then a little further down, the goods are described as: Naphtha for ENIMONT SUPPLY SA, LUGANO. (稍后去重复该批货物详述)

QUANTITY as per Bill of Lading dated 18.2.1990. (货物重量根据提单记载的数据) Valued for US $ 4,650,000/-+10% (计算货物保险价值的基础)

There is a printed note at the bottom which reads: This Certificate represents and takes the place of the original Stamped Policy and conveys, subject to the terms of that Policy, all the rights of the original Policy-Holder (for the purpose of collecting claims) as fully as if the property insured was covered by a Special Policy direct to the holder of this Certificate.”。

6.2 保险证明与开口保单是属于两份不同的保险合约

保险证明是在一份开口保单下由保险人（例如劳合社）或保险经纪人所签发，但往往保险证明只是去引进了开口保单部分的内容（显然最重要的就是承保的风险，例如是协会货物条文［一切险］），它甚至会有不同的条文。它也不像租约提单，会在提单中明确去引进租约的条文。保险证明只会提到有关的开口保单，而反过来开口保单也不会去引进保险证明。看来，英国法律下保险证明与开口保单应该是属于两份不同的保险合约，可以理解为保险人在开口保单中允许受保人去将来作为代理人为CIF买方/分买方的利益做出投保。而不是原来的受保人去把只有一份合约的开口保单下的索赔利益去转让给CIF买方，也就是保险证明的持有人。这可以节录John Dunt在所著的《Marine Cargo Insurance》第3.54段所说：“The position, which is explored further below, appears to be that the certificate holder becomes party to a new and separate contract. It may be said, therefore, that he is not an assignee in the usual sense that A (CIF卖方) passes all his own rights and obligations under a contract to B (CIF买方). What happens is that the underwriters ?open? the contract made with the original assured so as to enable the original assured, as agent, to insure for the benefit of his c.i.f buyers.”。

这一个说法，也符合劳合社标准开口保单的Market Reform Contract中要求明确受保人的规定，而受保人通常是非常广泛，也会去包括这种CIF卖方代替买方投保的情况，说：“ASSURED: ABC Limited, and/or as agents and/or subsidiaries and/or associated

companies and/or for whom they may have instructions to insure.”。另在协会货物条文（一切险）1/1/09第15.1条文，也去十分广泛包括了受让人，说：“covers the Assured which includes the person claiming indemnity either as the person by or on whose behalf the contract of insurance was effected or as an assignee.”。

保险证明与开口保单是前后两份不同的保险合约，也可以去节录有关的先例，第一个是Denning大法官在先例Macleod Ross & Co., Ltd. v. Cie d?Assurances Generales I?Helvetia (1952) 1 Lloyd?s Rep. 12是说：

“It was argued on behalf of the insurance company that there was only one contract between the insurance company and the forwarding agents, namely, that contained in the policy No. 648. I do not think that argument is correct. In my opinion, in respect of each of these parcels of goods, there were two of these parcels of goods, there were two contracts between the Swiss insurance company and the forwarding agents:

1. The open cover, whereby the insurance company agreed to insure all goods of which the forwarding agents took charge, provided that their customers had asked them to effect insurance of them. In order that the goods should be covered the forwarding agents, on taking charge of them, had to enter details in a book and send corresponding declarations to the insurance company.

2. The open cover, or ?certificate of insurance?, whereby the insurance company implemented the contract contained in the open cover. Each of these certificates was, I think, a new contract in respect of the goods covered by it. That is shown by the fact that the certificate covered strike risks and war risks on conditions which are not to be found in the open cover at all. It also contained a special provision to the effect that: ?Every indemnity for the goods mentioned above will only be paid to the holder of this certificate of insurance indorsed by the forwarding agents and against presentation of this certificate. This certificate will be of no value if the duplicate is presented before it.?

Now, that provision did not appear in the open cover at all. Indeed, the open cover contained no reference whatever to certificates of insurance. This provision—that the indemnity was only payable to the holder of the certificate—was obviously intended to facilitate the transfer of the certificate and to make it freely assignable. It was a new provision of a new contract which was intended to be acted upon, not only by the forwarding agents, but also by the customer on whose behalf they were acting and any holder to whom it was duly indorsed.”

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/s90v.html