B: you see, Mr Smith, the situation would be somewhat different if you
had put in your letter of credit the words all risks instead
of all marine risks. Under an all risks cover,
loss by breakage would have been recoverable, because, though by the word
risksis meant that any loss occurring must be due to some fortuitous
happening and through external cause, when a loss does arise in transit
it will be often rather difficult to distinguish between accidental and
ordinary loss, especially as far as breakage or leakage is concerned, In such
cases,ordinary loss will quite possibly be included in a claim and met by the
insurer.
白：史密斯先生，你知道，如果你在信用證上注明一切險而不是一切
海洋運輸貨物險，情況就有所不同了。按一切險投保，破碎損失就能得
到賠償，因為雖然這個險字是指：必須由于某些偶然事故與外部原因所造成的損
失，但當貨物在運輸途中發生損失時，常常很難區分是意外的或是普通的損失，
特別是有關破碎或滲漏。在這種情況下，普通損失很可能就包括在索賠之列而得
到承保方的理賠。
S: Then all marine risksmeans less than all risks?
B: The English understand by Marine risksonly risks incident
to transport by sea, such as collision, standing, fire, penetration of
sea water into the holds of the ships, etc. In other words, under the
all marine risks,losses recoverable will only be confined
to those arising from perils of the sea and maritime accidents, whereas
the all riskscover will admit all losses occurring at any
time throughout the whole currency of the cover, irrespective of whether
they are caused by accidents at sea or on land. In this sense,all
marine risksprovides a more limited cover than all risks.
In insurance parlance, the termall marine risksis liable to
be misinterpreted and its use should be avoided in letters of credit.
Now let us turn to loses through inherent vice or nature of the
subject matter insured,such as deterioration of food, leakage of
liquid and breakage of glass or ceramics. These are not considered marine
risks. Risks of this kind must be specifically applied for and explicitly
accepted by the insurer.
史：那么一切海洋運輸貨物險是否意味著比一切險范圍狹一些呢？
白：英國人對海洋運輸貨物險只理解為海運中的意外風險，諸如船舶碰撞，擱淺，
起火，海水進入船艙等。換句話說，以一切海洋運輸貨物險投保，其損失的
賠償只限于因海上災難和海運意外事故所引起的損失，而保一切險，在整個承保期
內的任何時間，不論在海上或陸上所產生的意外事故，其全部損失都予以賠償。在這個
含義上一切海洋運輸貨物險比一切險所承保的責任范圍更為有限。按保險的說法，
一切海洋運輸貨物險條款容易被誤解，應避免在信用證中使用。現在我來談談因
貨物內在缺陷或特性，諸如：由于物品變質，液體滲漏以及玻璃或陶瓷器破碎所引起的損
失。這些都不認為是海洋運輸貨物險。這類特殊險別必須特別投保并須得到承保方明確接受。
S: That seems clear enough, now that you have explained it. but what
I don't understand at this moment is the advantage of W.P.A.cover. I thought
that the W.P.A. insurance should cover all principal risks whilst, according
to what you say, this W.P.A. cover means very little. It seems to be a
phrase without much substance. Just what is the difference between W.P.A.
and F.P.A.?
B: Your question is very much to the point, Mr Smith. It is a very common
but mistaken idea that a merchant has done every common but mistaken idea
that a merchant has hone everything that is required to protect himself
against losses when he has taken out a W.P.A. insurance. There is, perhaps,
no mistake more detrimental to his interests.
史：現在經你這樣解釋，似乎夠清楚了。不過現在我不明白的是，保水漬險有什
么好處。我想水漬險應包括全部主要風險，而根據你所說的，這種水漬險所承保
責任卻最很少。徒有其名而沒有很多內容。那么水漬險和平安險有
什么區別呢？
白：史密斯先生，你的問題提到點子上來了。這是個很普遍，但是個錯誤的想法，那就是
商人投保了水漬險便以為足以保障各種損失。恐怕沒有別的錯誤比這更為有害于他們自
己的利益。
B: you see, Mr Smith, the situation would be somewhat different if you
had put in your letter of credit the words all risks instead
of all marine risks. Under an all risks cover,
loss by breakage would have been recoverable, because, though by the word
risksis meant that any loss occurring must be due to some fortuitous
happening and through external cause, when a loss does arise in transit it will
be often rather difficult to distinguish between accidental and ordinary
loss, especially as far as breakage or leakage is concerned, In such cases,
ordinary loss will quite possibly be included in a claim and met by the
insurer.
白：史密斯先生，你知道，如果你在信用證上注明一切險而不是一切海
洋運輸貨物險，情況就有所不同了。按一切險投保，破碎損失就能得到賠
償，因為雖然這個險字是指：必須由于某些偶然事故與外部原因所造成的損失，但
當貨物在運輸途中發生損失時，常常很難區分是意外的或是普通的損失，特別是有關破碎
或滲漏。在這種情況下，普通損失很可能就包括在索賠之列而得到承保方的理賠。
S: Then all marine risksmeans less than all risks?
B: The English understand by Marine risksonly risks incident
to transport by sea, such as collision, standing, fire, penetration of
sea water into the holds of the ships, etc. In other words, under the
all marine risks,losses recoverable will only be confined
to those arising from perils of the sea and maritime accidents, whereas
the all riskscover will admit all losses occurring at any
time throughout the whole currency of the cover, irrespective of whether
they are caused by accidents at sea or on land. In this sense,all
marine risksprovides a more limited cover than all risks.
In insurance parlance, the termall marine risksis liable to
be misinterpreted and its use should be avoided in letters of credit.
Now let us turn to loses through inherent vice or nature of the
subject matter insured,such as deterioration of food, leakage of
liquid and breakage of glass or ceramics. These are not considered marine
risks. Risks of this kind must be specifically applied for and explicitly
accepted by the insurer.
史：那么一切海洋運輸貨物險是否意味著比一切險范圍狹一
些呢？ 白：英國人對海洋運輸貨物險只理解為海運中的意外風險，諸如船舶碰撞，
擱淺，起火，海水進入船艙等。換句話說，以一切海洋運輸貨物險投保，其
損失的 賠償只限于因海上災難和海運意外事故所引起的損失，而保一切險，
在整個承保期內的任何時間，不論在海上或陸上所產生的意外事故，其全部損失都予
以賠償。在這個含義上一切海洋運輸貨物險比一切險所承保的責任范圍
更為有限。按保險的說法，一切海洋運輸貨物險條款容易被誤解，應避免在信
用證中使用。現在我來談談因貨物內在缺陷或特性，諸如：由于物品變質，液
體滲漏以及玻璃或陶瓷器破碎所引起的損失。這些都不認為是海洋運輸貨物險。這類
特殊險別 必須特別投保并須得到承保方明確接受。
S: That seems clear enough, now that you have explained it. but what
I don't understand at this moment is the advantage of W.P.A.cover. I thought
that the W.P.A. insurance should cover all principal risks whilst, according
to what you say, this W.P.A. cover means very little. It seems to be a
phrase without much substance. Just what is the difference between W.P.A.
and F.P.A.?
B: Your question is very much to the point, Mr Smith. It is a very common
but mistaken idea that a merchant has done every common but mistaken idea
that a merchant has hone everything that is required to protect himself
against losses when he has taken out a W.P.A. insurance. There is, perhaps,
no mistake more detrimental to his interests.
史：現在經你這樣解釋，似乎夠清楚了。不過現在我不明白的是，保水漬險
有什么好處。我想水漬險應包括全部主要風險，而根據你所說的，這種水漬險
所承保責任卻最很少。徒有其名而沒有很多內容。那么水漬險和平安險
有什么區別呢？
白：史密斯先生，你的問題提到點子上來了。這是個很普遍，但是個錯誤的想法，那
就是商 人投保了水漬險便以為足以保障各種損失。恐怕沒有別的錯誤比這更為有害
于他們自己的利益。
|
