評論
打印
A: But the risk of breakage is covered by marine insurance, isn’t it?
J: Certainly, but it is a usual practice to make specific mention in the insurance policy or certificate that the risk of breakage is included. The inclusion of this special risk will be subject to an additional premium that will normally be higher than the basic insurance for the ordinary marine risks. The rate for such risk will vary accord- ing to the kind of commodity, or, as in ceramics, according to the fragility of the goods. I think you must know all about that.
A: Well, I have heard something about it but I can’t say that it is very clear to me. I must admit I’m a layman as far as insurance is concerned.
J: Then let me explain this insurance.
B: Mrs. Wang, would you care for a cup of tea? Or some coffee?
A: Thank you. A cup of tea would be nice. And now, let me hear more about the problem of insurance.
-- 但破碎險是包括在海洋運輸貨物險之內，對不對？
-- 當然，可是按照通常慣例要在保險單或保險憑證上特別注明破碎 險包括在內。包括這種特別險就必須附加保險費。這種保險費一 般要比通常的海洋運輸貨物險的基本險高。這類險別的保險費率 將根據貨物種類，比如陶瓷器，根據貨物的易脆性而有所不同。我想這些你應該都知道。
-- 哦，我聽說過一些，但我不能說很清楚。我得承認，就保險而言，我是個外行。
-- 那我來解釋一下這種保險吧。
-- 王小姐，想喝杯茶呢還是咖啡？
-- 謝謝，來杯茶倒挺好的。現在，我還想再聽聽關于保險的問題。
Dialogue 2
W: Do I understand that All Marine Risks means less than All Risks?
J: The English understand by marine risks?only risks incident to transport by sea, such as collision, stranding, fire, pen e tra tion of sea water into the holds of the ships, etc. In other words, under ?all marine risks? recoverable loss will only be con fined to those arising from perils of the sea and maritime accidents only. The all risks?coverage will admit all losses occurring at any time throughout the whole currency of the coverage, irrespective of whether they are caused by accidents at sea or on land. In this sense, all marine risks provides a more limited cover than all risks?
W: I see. Another thing I don’t understand at this moment is the advantage of W.P.A. coverage. I thought that the W.P.A. insurance should cover all principal risks while, according to what you say, it means very little. It seems to be a phrase without much substance. Then what is the difference between W.P.A. and F.P.A.?
-- 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？
-- 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、海水侵入船艙等。換句話說，投保“一 切海洋運輸貨物險”，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”，在全部承保期內的任何時期，不論海上或陸上所產生的意外事故，其全部損失都予以賠償。在 這個意義上，“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。
-- 我懂了。另外一件事我現在還不明白的是，保“水漬險”有什么 好處。 我原以為“水漬險”應包括全部主要風險，而根據你所說 的，它的承保責任卻是很少。徒有其名，而沒有本質意義。那么，“水漬險”與“平安險”有什么區別呢？
J: This is a question that is very often overlooked, Mrs. Wang. It is a very common but mistaken idea that a merchant has done everything that is required to protect him against loss es when he has taken out W.P.A. insurance. There is, perhaps, no mistake more det ri men tal to his interests.
W: That interests me very much. I must confess that I was under the impression that W.P.A. insurance was quite sufficient and that losses due to breakage were covered. I know that F.P.A. insur- ance does not cover losses on consumer goods, but I did think that the W.P.A. in sur ance covered more risks than the F.P.A.
J: Actually it is like this. There is some difference between W.P.A. and F.P.A. The F.P.A. clause does not cover par tial loss of the nature of particular average, whereas the W.P.A. claus es cover such losses when they exceed a prearranged percentage. This is the only dif fer ence between W.P.A. and F.P.A. Otherwise, the protection under the F.P.A. clause will be al most identical with that of fered by the W.P.A. clause, because in the event of mari- time ac ci dents en coun tered in transit, such as stranding, fire, explosion or collision, both clauses will cov er particular average losses in full.
-- 王小姐，這是一個經常被人忽略的問題。這是個很普通卻又是個 很錯誤的想法，那就是商人投保了“水漬險”，便以為足以保障其 利益不受損失。恐怕沒別的錯誤比這個更有損他自己的利益的了。
-- 很有意思。我得承認，以往我總認為投保了“水漬險”就夠了； 而且以為破碎引起的種種損失也包括在內。我知道“平安險”并 不包括消費品的種種損失，但我確實以 為“水漬險”比“平安 險”承保的范圍更大。
-- 確實是這樣。“水漬險”與“平安險”是有些不同。“平安險”條款 不包括單獨海損性質的部分損失，而“水漬險”條款當超過事先
商定的百分比時，則包括此類損失。這是“水漬險”與“平安險”唯一不同之處。除此之外，“平安險”條款所承保的責任與 “水漬險”條款所承保的責任差不多相同。因為萬一在運輸途中遭遇海上意外事故，諸如擱淺、著火、爆炸或碰撞，這兩種條款都全部賠償單獨海損的損失。
W: I don’t mean to annoy you, Mr. Jordan, but I don’t quite grasp this. Couldn’t you say it in simpler terms?
J: I’ll try. Neither the W.P.A. nor the F.P.A. mentions the risks covered or the risks excluded. The extent of in sur ance is stipulated in the basic policy form and in the various risks clauses. Look at the in sur ance certificates and you will find that the risks of theft and pilferage, freshwater, oil, grease, hooks, breakage, leakage, contamination, deterioration, etc. are specifically mentioned and must be specifically applied for. These are special risks. F.P.A. stands for free of Particular Average?while W. P. A. or W.A. stands for With Particular Average?
W: Mr. Jordan, I must say that you have corrected my ideas about the insurance. I see now that this is far more complicated than I had imagined.
B: Now I know why you often point out to us the wording of some letter of credit which you don’t feel happy about. But what are we to do about it? We must keep to the stipulations of the contract and the letter of credit.
-- 喬丹先生，我并不想讓你生氣，但是我還是不太懂。你能否說得 簡單一點？
-- 我試試看。無論“水漬險”還是“平安險”都不注明包括哪些險別 或者不包括哪些險別。 保險范圍是寫在基本保險單內和各種險別條 款里。你看保險憑證就會發現偷竊險、淡水險、油漬險、油污險、 鉤損險、破碎險、滲漏險、沾污險、變質險等都特加注明，并且必 須特別申保。這些就是特別險。F.P.A.代表Free from Particular
