Wei Qinjian v. PICC Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Taishan Branch & the Agricultural Bank of China, Taishan Branch, Xiachuan Business Office Concerning the Dispute over Fishing Vessel Insurance Contract@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Wei Qinjian, male, 38 of age, is a fisherman residing at Chuandong Houlongmen Village, Xiachuan Town, Taishan City, Guangdong Province.@#
Authorized attorney: Xu Faming, attorney at law of Guangzhou Municipal Law Firm, Guangdong Province.@#
Defendant: PICC Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Taishan Branch, residing at Taicheng Town, Taishan City, Guangdong Province.@#
Person in charge: Guang Benlei, general manager.@#
Authorized attorney: Zhang Chaohui, attorney at law of Guangdong Zhonglian Law Firm.@#
Authorized attorney: Liu Shaohong, employee of the People's Insurance Company of China, Guangdong Provincial Branch.@#
Defendant: The Agricultural Bank of China, Taishan Branch, Xiachuan Business Office, residing at Xiachuan Town, Taishan City, Guangdong Province.@#
Person in charge: Tan Zhirong.@#
Authorized attorney: Liu Lei, attorney at law of Guangzhou Zhongcheng Law Firm, Guangdong Province.@#
Wei Qinjian, the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as Wei), had a dispute with PICC Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Taishan Branch (hereinafter referred to as Taishan Insurance), and The Agricultural Bank of China, Taishan Branch, Xiachuan Business Office (hereinafter referred to as Xiachuan Office), and brought a suit against the latter two at Guangzhou Maritime Court.@#
Wei claimed that: since the fishing vessel insurance contract for the previous year expired, he paid to Xiachuan Office, the agent of Taishan Insurance premiums and annual inspection fees for obtaining a vessel certificate and went through procedures for renewing insurance, which could be proved by the policy and voucher for cash payment issued by the defendant Xiachuan Office. After the insured vessel was shipwrecked on May 30, 1999, both defendants refused to compensate its losses. Therefore, Wei pleaded the court to order the defendants to be jointly and severally responsible for compensating his losses of 1,600,000 yuan.@#
The defendant Taishan Insurance argued that the insurance contract that the plaintiff mentioned for the previous year had expired on April 28, 1999 and was thus irrelevant with the present case. When Wei went to Xiachuan Office to handle insurance matters, he had been clearly notified that the seaworthiness certificate for his vessel had expired, so the insurance could not be accepted. Though Xiachuan Office accepted the premium and promised to obtain an seaworthiness certificate for him, yet the insurance contract between the plaintiff and defendants was not validly concluded. Therefore, it should not be responsible for compensating his losses.@#
Xiachuan Office argued that the insurance agency contract was entered into between Taishan Insurance and the Agricultural Bank of China, Taishan Branch (hereinafter referred to as Taishan Agricultural Bank), the superior of the defendant Xiachuan Office. Xiachuan Office was only a business office under the jurisdiction of its superior and acted upon the directions of the superior. Moreover, it had no fault in handling the insurance transaction concerned with the present case. It was not a legal person and could not be a subject of civil litigation, and so it could not be a defendant of the present case.@#
．．．．．．

卫勤俭诉中保财产保险有限公司台山市支公司、中国农业银行台山市支行下川营业所渔船保险合同纠纷案@#
@#
原告：卫勤俭，男，３８岁，广东省台山市下川镇川东后门龙村渔民。@#
委托代理人：徐发明，广东省广州市律师事务所律师。@#
被告：中保财产保险有限公司台山市支公司。住所地：广东省台山市台城镇。@#
负责人：邝本磊，总经理。@#
委托代理人：张朝辉，广东中联律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：刘韶红，中国人民保险公司广东省分公司职员。@#
被告：中国农业银行台山市支行下川营业所。住所地：广东省台山市下川镇。@#
负责人：谭知荣。@#
委托代理人：刘磊，广东省广州市中诚律师事务所律师。@#
原告卫勤俭因与被告中保财保险有限公司台山市支公司（以下简称台山保险公司）、中国农业银行台山市支行下川营业所（以下简称农行营业所）发生渔船保险合同纠纷，向广州海事法院提起诉讼。@#
原告卫勤俭诉称：原告在上一年度渔船保险合同到期的情况下，已经给被告台山保险公司的代理人被告农行营业所交纳了保险费和代办船舶证书年检费，办理了续保手续，有农行营业所出具的投保单和现金缴款单为证。原告投保的船舶于１９９９年５月３０日遇险沉没后，两被告拒绝赔偿。请求判令两被告连带给原赔偿经济损失１６０万元。@#
被告台山保险公司辩称：原告提及的上一年度保险合同已经至１９９９年４月２８日终止，因此与本案无关。原告于１９９９年５月７日到农行营业所办理保险事宜时，该所已明确告知因其船舶适航证书过期，不能承保。虽然该所收下了保险费并答应代原告办理船舶适航证书，但原告与本被告之间的保险合同没有成立。因此，本被告对原告的船舶出险不负保险责任。@#
被告农行营业所辩称：被告台山保险公司是与本所的上级中国农业银行台山市支行（以下简称台山农行）签订过保险代理合同。本所只是台山农行下属的营业所，奉上级命令履行职责，况且在办理本案所涉的保险业务中没有过失。本所不具备法人资格，不是民事诉讼主体，不应成为本案被告。@#
@#
广州海事法院经审理查明：@#
被告农行营业所是台山农行的下属机构。１９９７年１０月８日，农行营业所在台山市工商行政管理局注册，现持有经台山市工商行政管理局年检的营业执照。@#
１９９８年８月３１日，被告台山保险公司与台山农行签订了一份《代理合同意向书》，约定：台山保险公司委托台山农行在台山市范围内代理渔船、财产保险业务。台山农行应按台山保险公司的授权和中国人民银行公布的险种、条款和费率，开展代理保险业务和宣传公关工作；有关保险合同的赔偿和诉讼事项，均由台山保险公司处理。台山保险公司同意按保险业务实收保费的３％，向台山农行支付代理手续费。合同签订后，台山保险公司将一份《渔船保险业务常识》交给台山农行。该常识第一条第一款载明：“渔船参加保险的条件：参加保险的渔船必须具备适航条件，即经渔监部门检验合格且具备合格（有证）的船长、轮机长和足够的船员，不具备适航条件的渔船不予承保。保户投保时要提供渔船证书，保险公司代办人员复查看无误后再办理投保手续。”@#
被告农行营业所承认，事实上从１９８８年以来，该所就一直代被告台山保险公司办理台山市下川镇的渔船保险业务。@#
原告卫勤俭是“粤台山６２２２８”船的所有人，该船于１９９８年４月２８日曾投过保。由被告台山保险公司签发的《渔船保险单》载明：船舶保险价值２００万元，保险金额为１６０万元，保险期限从１９９８年４月２９日零时起至１９９９年４月２８日２４时止。《渔船保险单》的背面条款第一条规定：“本保险承保的渔船应当具有国家渔业船舶主管部门签发的适航证明和捕捞许可证明，并专门从事渔业生产或为渔业生产服务”；第八条规定：“保险渔船由于下列原因造成的全部或部分损失，本公司负责赔偿：一，搁浅、倾覆、沉没、碰撞、触礁；二，火灾、爆炸；三，雷击、八级以上大风、龙卷风、海啸、洪水、崖崩、破坏性地震、地陷、泥石流、冰凌、滑坡”；第九条规定：“由于下列原因所致的损失、费用或碰撞责任，本公司不负赔偿责任：一、不适航或不具备作业条件”；第二十一条规定：“被保险人应严格依照主管部门关于航行、作业、停泊的规定或惯例，按期对保险渔船进行维修、保养和检验，确保保险渔船的适航性”。台山保险公司按保险金额的２．２％收取了保险费，并向卫勤俭出具了保险费收据。@#
１９９９年５月５日，被告农行营业所的副主任杨日滚通知原告卫勤俭到该所办理船舶保险。５月７日晚，卫勤俭的弟弟卫持家将“粤台山６２２２８”船的船舶证书交给杨日滚，要求续保。杨日滚接到证书后发现《渔业船舶安全证书》等已过年检期，提出需年检后才能办理保险手续。由于“粤台山６２２２８”船即将出海，杨日滚同意帮助卫勤俭办理船舶证书年检手续后再尽快办理保险手续，并收下了卫持家交来的保险费３．７万元和代办船舶证书年检费１０００元。次日，杨日滚将３．７万元存入该所保险费专户，由农行营业所给卫勤俭出具了现金缴款单，并代卫勤俭填写了《渔船险投保单》。投保单载明：投保渔船现值２００万元，保险金额为１６０万元，保险期限从１９９９年５月８日零时起至２０００年５月７日２４时止。@#
１９９９年５月１０日，杨日滚等将“粤台山６２２２８”船的船舶证书及年检费用１０００元交给下川渔监站职员蔡永强，要求其尽快办理年检手续。５月１９日，江门渔船检验局在“粤台山６２２２８”船的《渔业船舶安全证书》等船舶证书上盖了年检章。５月３０日１４００时，沙堤渔监中队将办理好的船舶证书交给杨日滚；同日１５００时，杨日滚将“粤台山６２２２８”船的船舶证书及《渔船险投保单》传真给被告台山保险公司。５月３１日，台山保险公司书面答复农行营业所称：经调查核实，“粤台山６２２２８”船于５月３０日０２００时遇暴风雨严重损坏，不予承保。@#
１９９９年５月１０日，“粤台山６２２２８”船从川东出发出海捕鱼，５月１４日到达南沙永暑礁水域作业。５月３０日晚锚泊在永暑礁北纬９°３５'８″，东经１１２°５５'６″。约０２００时，“粤台山６２２２８”船突然遭遇龙卷风袭击触礁翻沉，全部船员被他船救起。@#
认定上述事实的证据有：@#
１、由台山市工商行政管理局核发的农行营业所《营业执照》，注册日期为１９９７年１０月８日。@#
２、农行营业所出具的《关于卫勤俭渔船保险的投保经过》证明一份，陈述农行营业所作为台山农业银行的下设机构，自１９８８年开始存在，但一直未办理工商注册登记，直到１９９７年１０月８日才正式进行工商注册登记。该所自１９８８年以来，一直代台山保险公司办理台山市下川镇渔船保险业务。１９９７年以前，可直接签发保险单。１９９８年８月３１日，台山保险公司与该所上级台山农行签订了一份《代理合同意向书》，约定台山保险公司委托台山农行在台山市范围内代理渔船、财产保险业务。此后，台山保险公司将保险单签发权收回，其他保险代理业务范围不变。１９９９年５月７日，该所副主任杨日滚、工作人员欧景泉收取了卫勤俭之弟卫持家交来的现金３．８万元，其中３．７万元用于交纳保险费，１０００元用于委托办理渔船适航证书年检费。@#
３、“粤台山６２２２８”船船舶登记证书。@#
４、台山上４月２８日签发的编号为台渔９８－２５、保险期限为１９９８年４月２９日零时起至１９９９年４月２８日２４时止的《中国人民保险公司渔船保险单》。@#
５、农行营业所１９９８年４月２８日向卫勤俭出具的３．７万元存款凭条，上面注明该项收费存入保费专户。@#
６、农行营业所副主任杨日滚１９９９年８月３０日出具的书面证言一份，证实自己收取卫勤俭３．７万元保费及答应代办船舶适航证书的事实和经过。@#
７、农行营业所１９９９年５月８日向卫勤俭开出的金额为３．７万元的《现金缴款单》，其中“款项来源”一栏为“卫勤俭保费”，“款项全称”一栏填写为“保费专户”；@#
．．．．．．