手机版
二维码
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，如果你在信用证上注明一切险而不是一切
海洋运输货物险，情况就有所不同了。按一切险投保，破碎损失就能得
到赔偿，因为虽然这个险字是指：必须由于某些偶然事故与外部原因所造成的损
失，但当货物在运输途中发生损失时，常常很难区分是意外的或是普通的损失，
特别是有关破碎或渗漏。在这种情况下，普通损失很可能就包括在索赔之列而得
到承保方的理赔。
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：那么一切海洋运输货物险是否意味着比一切险范围狭一些呢？
白：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，海水进入船舱等。换句话说，以一切海洋运输货物险投保，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，在整个承保期
内的任何时间，不论在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
含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。按保险的说法，
一切海洋运输货物险条款容易被误解，应避免在信用证中使用。现在我来谈谈因
货物内在缺陷或特性，诸如：由于物品变质，液体渗漏以及玻璃或陶瓷器破碎所引起的损
失。这些都不认为是海洋运输货物险。这类特殊险别必须特别投保并须得到承保方明确接受。
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：现在经你这样解释，似乎够清楚了。不过现在我不明白的是，保水渍险有什
么好处。我想水渍险应包括全部主要风险，而根据你所说的，这种水渍险所承保
责任却最很少。徒有其名而没有很多内容。那么水渍险和平安险有
什么区别呢？
白：史密斯先生，你的问题提到点子上来了。这是个很普遍，但是个错误的想法，那就是
商人投保了水渍险便以为足以保障各种损失。恐怕没有别的错误比这更为有害于他们自
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，如果你在信用证上注明一切险而不是一切海
洋运输货物险，情况就有所不同了。按一切险投保，破碎损失就能得到赔
偿，因为虽然这个险字是指：必须由于某些偶然事故与外部原因所造成的损失，但
当货物在运输途中发生损失时，常常很难区分是意外的或是普通的损失，特别是有关破碎
或渗漏。在这种情况下，普通损失很可能就包括在索赔之列而得到承保方的理赔。
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：那么一切海洋运输货物险是否意味着比一切险范围狭一
些呢？ 白：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，海水进入船舱等。换句话说，以一切海洋运输货物险投保，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，
在整个承保期内的任何时间，不论在海上或陆上所产生的意外事故，其全部损失都予
以赔偿。在这个含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。按保险的说法，一切海洋运输货物险条款容易被误解，应避免在信
用证中使用。现在我来谈谈因货物内在缺陷或特性，诸如：由于物品变质，液
体渗漏以及玻璃或陶瓷器破碎所引起的损失。这些都不认为是海洋运输货物险。这类
特殊险别 必须特别投保并须得到承保方明确接受。
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：现在经你这样解释，似乎够清楚了。不过现在我不明白的是，保水渍险
有什么好处。我想水渍险应包括全部主要风险，而根据你所说的，这种水渍险
所承保责任却最很少。徒有其名而没有很多内容。那么水渍险和平安险
有什么区别呢？
白：史密斯先生，你的问题提到点子上来了。这是个很普遍，但是个错误的想法，那
就是商 人投保了水渍险便以为足以保障各种损失。恐怕没有别的错误比这更为有害
于他们自己的利益。
