2011-12-19 10:33:25 版主
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.?
-- 英国人对“海洋运输货物险”只理解为海运中的意外风险，诸如 船舶碰撞、搁浅、起火、海水侵入船舱等。换句话说，投保“一 切海洋运输货物险”，其损失的赔偿只限于因海上灾难和海运意外事故所引起的损失。而保“一切险”，在全部承保期内的任何时期，不论海上或陆上所产生的意外事故，其全部损失都予以赔偿。在 这个意义上，“一切海洋运输货物险”比“一切险”所承保的责任 范围更为有限。
-- 我懂了。另外一件事我现在还不明白的是，保“水渍险”有什么 好处。 我原以为“水渍险”应包括全部主要风险，而根据你所说 的，它的承保责任却是很少。徒有其名，而没有本质意义。那么，“水渍险”与“平安险”有什么区别呢？
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，这是一个经常被人忽略的问题。这是个很普通却又是个 很错误的想法，那就是商人投保了“水渍险”，便以为足以保障其 利益不受损失。恐怕没别的错误比这个更有损他自己的利益的了。
-- 很有意思。我得承认，以往我总认为投保了“水渍险”就够了； 而且以为破碎引起的种种损失也包括在内。我知道“平安险”并 不包括消费品的种种损失，但我确实以 为“水渍险”比“平安 险”承保的范围更大。
-- 确实是这样。“水渍险”与“平安险”是有些不同。“平安险”条款 不包括单独海损性质的部分损失，而“水渍险”条款当超过事先
W: I don’t mean to annoy you, Mr. Jordan, but I don’t quite grasp this. Couldn’t you say it in simpler t.mp3s?
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 f.mp3 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?