Floating Mountain Shipping Ltd. SA, Panama v. People's Insurance Company of China, Qingdao Branch
(Dispute over a Ship Insurance Contract)@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
Where the hull insurance policy does not explain whether collision include indirect collision; nor does it exclude indirect collision from the policy coverage, if the insured claims that the insurer shall assume the insurance compensation liability for an indirect collision accident, such claim shall be held valid under the Insurance Law and Maritime Law.@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Floating Mountain Shipping Ltd. SA, Panama, with its business place at Nanjing Road, Qingdao City, Shandong Province.@#
Legal Representative: Shan Xinyou, president of the Company.@#
Defendant: People's Insurance Company of China, Qingdao Branch, domiciled at Hong Kong Middle Road, Qingdao City, Shandong Province.@#
Person-in-Charge: Wang Zhongyi, general manager of the Company.@#
Floating Mountain Shipping Ltd. SA, Panama (hereinafter referred to as FM Company), the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit with Qingdao Maritime Court of the People's Republic of China due to the dispute with People's Insurance Company of China, Qingdao Branch (hereinafter referred to as Qingdao PICC) over a ship insurance contract.@#
FM Company claimed that: its “Floating Mountain” ship was a ship for which Qingdao PICC underwrote the insurance against all risks plus the insurance against war risk, and which collided with the “Successor (M. V. SUCCESSOR)” ship of the Cyprus nationality within the duration of insurance coverage. FM Company indemnified USD 350,000 of economic losses to the owner of the “Successor” ship, and paid SGD 177,739.81 of legal expenses in addition. With respect to such an obvious insurance accident, Qingdao PICC refused to bear the liabilities for insurance indemnities on the pretexts that the two ships did not contact each other and it was not a collision. FM Company pleaded with the court to order Qingdao PICC to pay the insurance indemnities and the corresponding interest which were converted to CNY 4,060,000 to FM Company.@#
Qingdao PICC argued that: (1) the ship insurance contract in question clearly set forth that, the insurer shall underwrite the insurance against all risks plus the insurance against war risk according to the “Ship Insurance Clauses” promulgated by People's Insurance Company of China on January 1, 1986. As for the “liabilities for collision” under “insurance against all risks”, the “Ship Insurance Clauses” stipulate: “The present insurance shall be liable for the legal indemnities to be borne by the insured due to the collision of the insured ship with any other ship or the contact-based collision of the insured ship with any fixed or floating object or any other object.” In the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary, the character “碰” is interpreted as: “sudden contact of a moving object with another object”; the character “撞” is interpreted as: “abrupt bump of a moving object with another object”; and the word “碰撞” is interpreted as: “collision or bump of objects”. Obviously, without actual contact, it will be impossible to constitute “collision”, and even more impossible to constitute “contact-based collision”. Article 30 of the “Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Law) prescribes: “If the clauses of an insurance contract are in dispute among the insurer and the policy holder, the insured or the beneficiary, the people's court or arbitration organization shall make interpretations favorable to the insured or the beneficiary.” However, the provision is applicable only under the circumstance when a term in the insurance clause is vague, and may be interpreted in more than one way. While the terms “collision” and “contact-based collision” mentioned in the “Ship Insurance Clauses” have clear, definite and doubtless Chinese meaning, hence the said provision in the Insurance Law should not apply to the present case. An insurance accident should be affirmed in strict accordance with the original idea stipulated in the insurance contract. When the insurance accident mentioned by FM Company occurred, the “Floating Mountain” ship had left Qingdao Port, and did not meet with collision or contact-based collision with any ship or object, and of course no insurance liability for collision would arise. Despite that FM Company bore liabilities for the “Successor” ship's being stranded due to the “Floating Mountain” ship's leaving the port, the liabilities were not the insurance liabilities caused from the insurance accident, and should not be borne by Qingdao PICC who was the insurer. (2) Paragraph 1 of Article 165 of the “Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the Maritime Code) prescribes: “Collision of ships means an accident arising from the contact of ships at sea or in other navigable waters adjacent thereto.” The foregoing provision clearly defined the meaning of “collision of ships”, and it can be seen that collision of ships will not be constituted in the case of non-contact. Article 170 prescribes: “Where a ship has caused damage to another ship or the persons, goods or other properties thereon, either by inappropriate execution of a manoeuvre or by the non-observance of navigation regulations, even if no collision has actually occurred, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply.” That is to say, the circumstance under Article 170 is not collision of ships, but may be treated as collision of ships. It can be seen from Article 170 that wave damage, or indirect collision or the circumstance of no actual contact between any two ships, is not “collision of ships” as prescribed in the Maritime Code of China. Item (3) of Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Property Damage Indemnities for the Trial of Cases on Collision of Ships or Contacting Collision” (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions on Collision of Ships) prescribes: “The term ‘collision of ships' shall refer to an accident arising from two or more ships, which contacted or did not directly contact each other, at sea or in other navigable waters adjacent thereto, thus causing property damage.” It is the expansionary interpretation of the Maritime Code by the Supreme People's Court. Despite that “collision of ships” as prescribed in the Maritime Code includes the circumstance of no direct contact between two ships, it cannot be thus considered that the term “collision” or “contact-based collision” in insurance contract in question has the same meaning with that of “collision of ships” as prescribed in law. (3) Internationally, the concept of “collision of ships” is specific and doubtless. In ship insurance, the clause of liability for collision of ships shall be only limited to collision by way of direct contact. The insurance coverage stipulated in the contract in question concerning collision of ships is very specific and undisputed. The stipulations between both parties in the insurance contract on the insurance coverage are also clear, specific, lawful and effective. According to the principle of freedom of contract, the provisions in the Maritime Code or in the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on “collision of ships” shall not and cannot affect the stipulations in the insurance contract between both parties on the insurance liability. In conclusion, FM Company's interpretation of the term “collision or contact-based collision” in the insurance contract was a baseless and unreasonable expansionary interpretation, so its litigation claims should be rejected.@#
．．．．．．

巴拿马浮山航运公司诉中国人民保险公司青岛市分公司船舶保险合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
船舶保险合同中对船舶碰撞是否包括间接碰撞未作解释，也未将间接碰撞列入保险人免责条款，被保险人主张保险人对间接碰撞事故承担保险赔偿责任的，应认定符合保险法和海商法的规定。@#
@#
原告：巴拿马浮山航运有限公司，营业地：山东省青岛市南京路。@#
法定代表人：单新友，该公司总裁。@#
被告：中国人民保险公司青岛市分公司，住所地：山东省青岛市香港中路。@#
负责人：王忠义，该公司总经理。@#
原告巴拿马浮山航运有限公司(以下简称浮山航运公司)因与被告中国人民保险公司青岛市分公司(以下简称青岛人保公司)发生船舶保险合同纠纷，向中华人民共和国青岛海事法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称：原告所属的“浮山”轮是由被告承保一切险加战争险的船舶，保险期内与塞浦路斯籍船舶“继承者(M．V．SUC-CESSOR)”轮发生碰撞。原告为此给“继承者”轮船东赔偿经济损失35万美元，另外还支付了新加坡币177739．81元的法律费用。对这样一起明显的保险事故，被告以两船没有接触不是碰撞为由，拒绝承担保险赔偿责任。请求判令被告给付原告折合人民币406万元的保险赔偿和相应利息。@#
被告辩称：(1)本案所涉船舶保险合同明确约定，保险人根据中国人民保险公司1986年1月1日发布的《船舶保险条款》承保一切险和战争险。《船舶保险条款》对“一切险”中的“碰撞责任”，是这样规定的：“本保险负责因被保险船舶与其他船舶碰撞或触碰任何固定的、浮动的物体或其它物体而引起被保险人应负的法律赔偿责任”。《现代汉语词典》对“碰”的注释是：“运动着的物体跟别的物体突然接触”；对“撞”的注释是：“运动着的物体跟别的物体猛然碰上”；对“碰撞”的注释是：“物体相碰或相撞”。显然，没有实际接触，不可能构成“碰撞”，更不可能构成“触碰”。尽管《中华人民共和国保险法》(以下简称保险法)第三十条规定：“对于保险合同的条款，保险人与投保人、被保险人或者受益人有争议时，人民法院或者仲裁机关应当作有利于被保险人和受益人的解释。”然而这一规定只是针对保险条款本身用词含糊不清，可做多种合理解释的情况。而《船舶保险条款》里所说的“碰撞”和“触碰”，中文含义是清晰的、不含糊的和无疑义的，所以保险法这条规定对本案不适用。保险事故应当严格按照保险合同约定的本意来认定。在原告所称的保险事故发生时，其所属的“浮山”轮驶出青岛港，并未与任何船舶或物体发生碰撞或触碰，当然不产生碰撞的保险责任。原告即使因“浮山”轮出港而对“继承者”轮搁浅承担了责任，但由于这不是保险事故引起的保险责任，不能转而由作为保险人的被告来承担。(2)《中华人民共和国海商法》(以下简称海商法)第一百六十五条第一款规定：“船舶碰撞，是指船舶在海上或者与海相通的可航水域发生接触造成损害的事故。”这里明确规定了什么叫“船舶碰撞”。从这里可以看出，没有接触就不构成船舶碰撞。第一百七十条规定：“船舶因操纵不当或者不遵守航行规章，虽然实际上没有同其他船舶发生碰撞，但是使其他船舶以及船上的人员、货物或者其他财产遭受损失的，适用本章的规定。”其意是说，本条规定的情况虽然不是船舶碰撞，但可以按船舶碰撞的规定处理。从上述规定可以看出，浪损、间接碰撞以及任何两船没有实际接触的情况，都不是我国海商法规定的“船舶碰撞”。最高人民法院在《关于审理船舶碰撞和触碰案件财产损害赔偿的规定》(以下简称船舶碰撞规定)第十六条第一款第三项规定：“‘船舶碰撞'是指在海上或者与海相通的可航水域，两艘或者两艘以上的船舶之间发生接触或者没有直接接触，造成财产损害的事故”，这是最高人民法院对海商法的扩张解释。即使海商法规定的“船舶碰撞”里包括两船没有任何直接接触的情况，也不能据此认为本案保险合同条款中的“碰撞”或“触碰”与法律规定的“船舶碰撞”含义一样。(3)在国际上，“船舶碰撞”的概念本身是清楚无疑的。船舶保险中的船舶碰撞责任条款，仅限于发生直接接触的碰撞。本案合同中关于船舶碰撞的保险责任范围，是非常明确、毫无争议的。双方当事人在保险合同中对保险责任范围作出的约定，清晰明确，合法有效。根据契约自由的原则，海商法或者最高人民法院司法解释中对“船舶碰撞”所作的规定，不应该也不可能影响保险合同条款中双方当事人对保险责任的约定。原告现在对保险合同中“碰撞或触碰”一语的解释，是无基础的、不合理的扩大解释，因此其诉讼请求应当驳回。@#
青岛海事法院经审理查明：@#
1997年1月1日，原告浮山航运公司所属“浮山”轮的经营管理人青岛汇泉船务公司向被告青岛人保公司投保，青岛人保公司同日出具了编号为009970098的船舶保险单。该保险单规定的保险船舶为“浮山”轮；险别为一切险加战争险；保险期限为自1997年1月1日北京时间零时起至1997年12月31日北京时间24时止；保险条件为根据1986年1月1日中国人民保险公司发布的《船舶保险条款》承保；保险金额为100万美元，免赔金额为2500美元，保险费为按约定费率计算，付费办法为按季平均交费。@#
在《船舶保险条款》第一条“责任范围”第(二)款“一切险”中，对“碰撞责任”的规定是：@#
①本保险负责因被保险船舶与其他船舶碰撞或触碰任何固定的、浮动的物体或其他物体而引起被保险人应负的法律赔偿责任。@#
但本条对下列责任概不负责：@#
a．人身伤亡或疾病；@#
b．被保险船舶所载的货物或财物或其所承诺的责任；@#
c．清除障碍物、残骸、货物或任何其他物品；@#
d．任何财产、物体的污染或沾污(包括预防措施或清除的费用)但与被保险船舶发生碰撞的他船或其所载财产污染或沾污不在此限；@#
e．任何固定的、浮动的物体以及其他物体的延迟或丧失使用的间接费用；@#
1997年5月31日，从澳大利亚运载16．5万吨矿石的“继承者”轮到达青岛，请求入港。由于青岛港主航道在35°56′39″N120°28′27″E处有一水深16米的浅滩，故青岛海上安全监督局(以下简称青岛海监局)指示“继承者”轮应于6月3日1500时左右趁高潮过浅滩，到检疫锚地下锚。1550时，“继承者”轮刚通过浅滩，改航向283°为230°准备进入检疫锚地时，“浮山”轮由引航站以航向105°出港，距“继承者”轮3海里。1603时，“继承者”轮左舷距锚泊在检疫锚地的“加乐”轮2．8链，右舷距锚泊在检疫锚地的“易禄”轮1．5链，准备从两船之间穿过时，“浮山”轮驶到距“易禄”轮4．0链处，突然向右转向，对着“继承者”轮右舷首部开来。“继承者”轮用VHF(甚高频对讲电话)呼叫，没有回音，为避免碰撞而向左转向。此举虽避开了“浮山”轮，但“继承者”轮被水流压向左舷的浅点，1620时在检疫锚地东南0．3海里处搁浅。6月3日至6月4日，青岛港务局派拖轮试拖，未能使“继承者”轮脱浅。6月6日，“继承者”轮船东委托烟台救捞局救助。至6月12日0930时，“继承者”轮才被拖离浅滩起浮。由于搁浅地点的海底是泥沙，所以“继承者”轮的船体未损坏，只是5舱处的船底有一点轻微凹陷。青岛海监局认为：此次事故，是因为“继承者”轮避让“浮山”轮后，没有充分考虑到重载船向左转向要承受的横流作用，顾此失彼，被横流压到浅滩而搁浅。@#
．．．．．．