摘要(Abstract)：
保险合同可以分为赔偿性保险合同和非赔偿性保险合同,从广义上而言,所有的财产保险是典型的赔偿性保险,海上保险是其中之一。在赔偿性合同中,损失是一个必须要素,被保险人受到的损失应与其能得到的赔偿相关联。在英国Richards v.Forestal Land,Timber and Railways Co.Ltd一案中,英国上议院法律委员会将"损失赔偿原则"确认为MIA1906的基本原则,其中第1条开宗明义明确了海上保险合同的性质即是损失赔偿合同。然而,海上保险合同可否被视为完善的赔偿合同?英国法官Patteson在Irving v.Manning一案中首次明确提出,在海上保险合同中,定值保单是不完善赔偿合同的典型,其原因和缺陷是本文探讨的重点问题之一。但是,基于定值保单能够减轻被保险人对于适保价值的举证负担、避免繁琐的理赔程序、便于确定赔偿金额等这些不容小觑的优势,它被大量用于海上保险中,船舶保险、货物保险和运费保险多以定值保险的形式存在。在这种情况下,法律和法院是如何在实践中解决定值保单的赔偿问题的、如何使损害发生后被保险人得到公平公正的赔偿、司法改革如何提高定值保单在海上保险中的可适用性,这些问题亦在本文进行综合分析。
关键词(KeyWords)：
Abstract:
Keywords:
基金项目(Foundation):
作者(Author): 王涵;
Email:
参考文献(References)：
- 1 Section 1 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 2 SUSAN HODGES,CASE AND MATERIALS ON MARINE INSURANCE LAW,at 3(Cavendish Publishing Limited,1999).
- 3 Brotherston v.Barber[1816]5 M&S 418,425.
- 4 Rickards v.Forestal Land,Timber and Railways Co.[1941]3 All ER 62,76,HL.
- 5 Castellain v.Preston[1883]11 QBD 380,386.
- 6 Id.,401.
- 7 Section 27(3)of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 8 British and Foreign Insurance Co.,Ltd.v.Wilson Shipping Co.,Ltd.[1921]1 AC 188,214,HL.
- 9 Irving v.Manning[1847]1 HLC 287.
- 10 Id.,307.
- 11 Section 16 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906:“Subject to any express provision or valuation in the policy,the insurable value of the subject matter insured must be ascertained as follows:In insurance on ship,the insurable value is the value,at the commencement of the risk,of the ship,including her outfit,provisions and stores for the officers and crew,money advanced for seamen’s wages,and other disbursements(if any)incurred to make the ship fit for the voyage or adventure contemplated by the policy,plus the charges of insurance upon the whole;the insurable value,in the case of a steamship,includes also the machinery,boilers,and coals and engine stores if owned by the assured,and,in the case of a ship engaged in a special trade,the ordinary fittings requisite for that trade;in insurance on freight,whether paid in advance or otherwise,the insurance value is the gross amount of the freight at the risk of the assured,plus the charges of insurance;in insurance on goods or merchandise,the insurable value is the prime cost of the property insured,plus the expenses of and incidental to shipping and the charges of insurance upon the whole;in insurance on any other subject matter,the insurable value is the amount at the risk of the assured when the policy attaches,plus the charges of insurance.”
- 12 Section 68(2)of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 13 Berger&Light Diffuser Pty v.Pollock[1973]2 Lloyd’s Rep 442.
- 14 Supra note 9.
- 15 Section 27(2)of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 16 Lewis v.Rucker[1761]2 Burr 1167.
- 17 Id.,1171.
- 18 Lidgett v.Secretan[1871]LR 6 CP 616,627.
- 19 Id.
- 20 The“Maira”[1986]2 Lloyd’s Rep 12.
- 21 Section 16(1)of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 22 Supra note 9,291.
- 23 ROBERT H.BROWN,MARINE INSURANCE VOLUME ONE PRINCIPLES AND BASIC PRACTICE,at 151(London Witherby,1998)
- 24 HOWARD BENNETT,THE LAW OF MARINE INSURANCE,at 72(Oxford University Press,2006).
- 25 SUSAN HODGES,supra note 2,187.
- 26 Barker v.Janson[1868]LR 3 CP 303.
- 27 Id.,307.
- 28 Woodside v.Globe Marine Insurance Co.,Ltd.[1896]1 QB 105.
- 29 Lidgett v.Secretan[1871]LR 6 CP 616.
- 30 Loders and Nucoline Ltd.v.Bank of New Zealand[1929]33 Ll L Rep 70,75.
- 31 Id.,76.
- 32 Haigh v.de la Cour[1812]3 Camp 319.
- 33 Id.,320.
- 34 The Gunford[1911]AC 529,HL.
- 35 Id.
- 36 Id.,548.
- 37 Section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 38 Ionides v.Pender[1874]LR 9 QB 531.
- 39 Id.,531.
- 40 Id.,535.
- 41 Id.,538.
- 42 Herring v.Janson and Others[1895]1 Com Cas 177.
- 43 In Herring v.Janson&Others[1895]1 Com Cas 177,as a result of all the answers to the four questions were negative,the judgment was accordingly in favor to the assured-plaintiffs.
- 44 Gooding v.White[1913]29 TLR 312,312.
- 45 “The Borre”[1923]15 Ll L Rep 175.
- 46 Id.,176.
- 47 The Grecia Express[2002]EWHC 203.
- 48 Id.,203.
- 49 “The Gunford”[1911]AC 529,HL.
- 50 HOWARD BENNETT,supra note 24,75.
- 51 Supra note 9.
- 52 Section 67(1)of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 53 HOWARD BENNETT,supra note 24,439.
- 54 Section 27(3)of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 55 Supra note 26.
- 56 Id.,305.
- 57 Id.,306.
- 58 Supra note 9,302.
- 59 Id.
- 60 Id.,304.
- 61 North Atlantic SS Co.,Ltd.v.Burr[1904]9 Com Cas 164.
- 62 Sailing Ship Holt Hill Co.v.United Kingdom Marine Association[1919]2 KB 789.
- 63 The“Kastor Too”[2004]2 Lloyd’s Rep 119.
- 64 Johanna Hjalmarsson,Constructive Total Loss,47(3)Shipping and Trade Law 171(2009).
- 65 Section 61 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 66 Id.,section 62(1).
- 67 Id.
- 68 F.D.ROSE,MARINE INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE,at 448(London Witherby,2012).
- 69 Pesquerias y Secaderos de Bacalao de Espana SA V.Beer[1946]79 LI LR 417,432.
- 70 Rob Merkin,Marine Insurance,59 British Insurance Law Association Journal 237(2009).
- 71 Stewart v.Steel[1842]11 LJCP 155,157.
- 72 Aitchison v.Lohre[1879]4 Asp MLC 168,169.
- 73 Richard Cornah,Reasonable Cost of Repairs under Hull and Machinery Policies,23(2)Journal of International Maritime Law 169(2005).
- 74 Section 69 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
- 75 ROBERT H.BROWN,MARINE INSURANCE VOLUME THREE HULL PRACTICE,at 396(London Witherby,1921).
- 76 Rule 14 of the Institute Time Clause Hulls 1983.
- 77 B21 of the Rules of Practice of the Association of Average Adjusters 1986.
- 78 Irvin v.Hine[1949]1 KB 555.
- 79 HOWARD BENNETT,supra note 24,251.
- 80 Which provided:“where the ship has not been repaired,and has not been sold in her damaged state during the risk,the assured is entitled to be indemnified for the reasonable depreciation arising from the unrepaired damage,but not exceeding the reasonable cost of repairing such damage,computed as above”.
- 81 Irvin v.Hine[1949]1 KB 555,572.
- 82 SUSAN HODGES,supra note 2,675.
- 83 Kusel v.Atkin[1997]2 Lloyd’s Rep 749.
- 84 Section 77(1)provides:“Unless the policy otherwise provides,and subject to the provisions of this Act,the insurer is liable for successive losses,even though the total of such losses may exceed the sum insured”.
- 85 SUSAN HODGES,supra note 2,695.
- 86 Kusel v.Atkin[1997]2 Lloyd’s Rep 749,756-757.
- 87 Id.,757.
- 88 Supra note 9,307.
