>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
No.6 of Ten Model Cases in Maritime Trials: Hainan Fenghai Cereals & Oils Industrial Co., Ltd. v. PICC Property & Casualty Co., Ltd. Hainan Branch (Case of Dispute over a Marine Freight Insurance Contract)
海事审判十大典型案例之六:海南丰海粮油工业有限公司与中保财产保险有限公司海南省分公司海运货物保险合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Maritime
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 07-13-2004
  • Procedural status: Other

No.6 of Ten Model Cases in Maritime Trials: Hainan Fenghai Cereals & Oils Industrial Co., Ltd. v. PICC Property & Casualty Co., Ltd. Hainan Branch (Case of Dispute over a Marine Freight Insurance Contract)
(Case of Dispute over a Marine Freight Insurance Contract)
海事审判十大典型案例之六:海南丰海粮油工业有限公司与中保财产保险有限公司海南省分公司海运货物保险合同纠纷案
No.6 of Ten Model Cases in Maritime Trials: Hainan Fenghai Cereals & Oils Industrial Co., Ltd. v. PICC Property & Casualty Co., Ltd. Hainan Branch (Case of Dispute over a Marine Freight Insurance Contract) 

海事审判十大典型案例之六:海南丰海粮油工业有限公司与中保财产保险有限公司海南省分公司海运货物保险合同纠纷案

1. Case Summary (一)案情摘要
On November 28, 1995, Hainan Fenghai Cereals & Oils Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Fenghai Company”) covered 4,999.85 tons of palm oil in barrels that were carried by “HAGAAG” at the Hainan Branch of PICC Property & Casualty Co., Ltd. Hainan Branch (hereinafter referred to as “PICCP&C Hainan Branch”) and the coverage category was all-risk insurance. According to the insurance clause, besides various liabilities of Free from Particular Average (FPA) and With Particular Average (WP), the coverage of all-risk insurance included that PICCP&C Hainan Branch “was liable for all or partial damages to the insured goods due to any external cause in transit.” Other five exclusions were also prescribed in the insurance clause. From November 23 to 29, 1995, after “HAGAAG” set sail, it suspended its voyage as agreed upon in the bill of lading and blocked its dynamic situation to outsiders because there was dispute over charter hire between the owner and the time charterer of this vessel. “HAGAAG” was not captured until it was smuggled to Shanwei, China in April 1996. According to the determination in the Written Decision of the People's Procuratorate of Guangzhou City on Exemption from Prosecution, the palm oil carried by “HAGAAG” has been stolen and sold or has been confiscated by procuratorial organs of China as smuggled goods and the proceeds were turned over into the state treasury. Fenghai Company filed a claim application with PICCP&C Hainan Branch and PICCP&C Hainan Branch expressly refused the claim. Therefore, Fenghai Company instituted a lawsuit in the Haikou Maritime Court. 1995年11月28日,海南丰海粮油工业有限公司(简称丰海公司)在中保财产保险有限公司海南省分公司(简称海南人保)投保了“哈卡”轮(HAGAAG)所运载的4999.85吨桶装棕榈油,投保险别为一切险。根据保险条款规定,一切险的承保范围除包括平安险和水渍险的各项责任外,海南人保还“负责被保险货物在运输途中由于外来原因所致的全部或部分损失”。该条款还规定了五项除外责任。1995年11月23日至29日,“哈卡”轮起航后,由于该轮的船东与期租船人之间发生船舶租金纠纷,“哈卡”轮中止了提单约定的航程并对外封锁了该轮的动态情况,直至1996年4月“哈卡”轮走私至中国汕尾被我海警查获。根据广州市人民检察院《免予起诉决定书》的认定,“哈卡”轮所载棕榈油已被盗卖或被我国检察机关作为走私货物没收上缴国库。丰海公司向海南人保提出索赔申请,海南人保明确表示拒赔,丰海公司因此向海口海事法院提起诉讼。
2. Judgment来自北大法宝 (二)裁判结果
After a first-instance hearing, the Haikou Maritime Court held that: The losses to the insured goods in this case were caused by the vessel owner's acts of stealing, selling, and smuggling, which was an external reason beyond the prediction and control of Fenghai Company and complied with the conditions of all-risk insurance covered by Fenghai Company. The Court entered a first-instance judgment that PICCP&C Hainan Branch should pay 3,593,858.75 USD for the insurance value losses of Fenghai Company. After a second-instance hearing, the Higher People's Court of Hainan Province held that: According to the insurance clause annexed to the insurance policy and the insurance trade practice, the liability scope of all-risk insurance covered listed risks, including FPA, WP, and general additional risks. The losses to the insured goods of Fenghai Company did not fall within the liability scope of all-risk insurance. In the second-instance judgment, the first-instance judgment was revoked and the claim of Fenghai Company was dismissed. Fenghai Company filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. After a retrial, the Supreme People's Court held that: The losses to the insurance subject matter in this case were not exclusions as prescribed in the insurance clause and they were caused by an external reason beyond the control of Fenghai Company, the consignee and the insured. The insurance incident in this case fell within the liability scope of all-risk insurance. On July 13, 2004, the Supreme People's Court entered a judgment to revoke the second-instance judgment as entered by the Higher People's Court of Hainan Province and sustain the first-instance judgment as entered by the Haikou Maritime Court. 海口海事法院一审认为,本案投保货物的损失是由于船东盗卖和走私行为造成的,应属于丰海公司所不能预测和控制的外来原因,符合丰海公司投保的一切险的承保条件。一审判决海南人保应赔偿丰海公司保险价值损失3593858.75美元。海南省高级人民法院二审认为,根据保险单所附的保险条款和保险行业惯例,一切险的责任范围属于列明风险,包括平安险、水渍险和普通附加险。丰海公司投保货物的损失不属于一切险的责任范围。二审判决撤销一审判决,驳回丰海公司的诉讼请求。丰海公司向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院再审认为,本案保险标的的损失不属于保险条款中规定的除外责任之列,应为收货人即被保险人丰海公司无法控制的外来原因所致,本案保险事故属一切险的责任范围。最高人民法院于2004年7月13日判决撤销海南省高级人民法院二审判决,维持海口海事法院一审判决。
3. Significance

请你喝茶

 (三)典型意义
聊五分钱的天吗
The focal dispute of this case was how to understand the liability scope of all-risk insurance in the marine freight insurance clause. There were always different viewpoints on this issue in the theoretical cycle of the marine insurance act and the judicial practice, and the first-instance court and the second-instance court have entered contrary judgments. The judgment entered upon retrial made a final conclusion on the understanding of all-risk insurance in the marine freight insurance clause, that is, all-risk insurance as prescribed in the “marine freight insurance clause” covered, besides various liabilities of FPA and WP, all or partial losses caused by any external reason in the transit of the insured goods. Where there was no intentional act or negligence of the insured, unless that the losses to the insured goods were exclusions of the insurer as prescribed in the insurance contract, the insurer should bear all losses caused by any external reason in the transit. This recognition was of great guiding significance in unifying the judicial practice of cases about marine freight insurance disputes. 本案争议焦点在于如何理解海洋运输货物保险条款中一切险的责任范围。此问题在海上保险法理论界和司法实践中一直存在不同的观点,本案一、二审法院也作出截然相反的判决结果。本案再审判决对于海洋运输货物保险条款中一切险的理解作出最终的论断,即“海洋运输货物保险条款”规定的一切险,除包括平安险和水渍险的各项责任外,还包括被保险货物在运输途中由于外来原因所致的全部或部分损失。在不存在被保险人故意或者过失的情况下,除非被保险货物的损失属于保险合同规定的保险人的除外责任,保险人应当承担运输途中外来原因所致的一切损失。这一认定,对统一海洋运输货物保险纠纷案件的审判实践具有重要的指导意义。
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese