ICC(A)2009条款与1982条款比较

INSTITUTECARGOCLAUSES2009AComparisonofthe1982and2009Clauseswithadditionalcommentary.1INTRODUCTION1.Theintroductionofthe1982ClauseswasaradicalstepthatfinallyliberatedcargopoliciesfromtheoldS.G.Policy(thesecondscheduletotheMarineInsuranceAct1906)whichhadbeendescribedinvariousjudgementsasaverystrangeinstrumentandabsurdandincoherent.Thischangehadbeenresistedformanyyearsbecauseitwasfeltthatitmightleadtouncertainty;theS.G.PolicyhadbeenconsideredbytheCourtsonmanyoccasionssothattheeffectofthewords,howeverarchaic,wasfelttobewellunderstood.Theclearandaccuratedraftingofthe1982Clausesputthesefearstorestandtherehasbeenremarkablylittlelitigationregardingcoverageintheinterveningyears.However,nothingstaysperfectforeverandtheJointCargoCommittee(madeupofmembersoftheInternationalUnderwritingAssociationandtheLloydsMarketAssociation)istobecommendedfortakingonthetaskofreviewingandupdatingtheseclauseswhicharesoimportanttotheInternationalCommercialCommunity.2.TheprocessofrevisionwasstartedinFebruary2006whentheLMAsentoutaquestionnairetointerestedpartiesandtheJointCargoCommitteesetupaWorkingPartychairedbyNicholasGooding.AfteranalysingtheresponsestothequestionnairetheWorkingPartyproducedadetailedconsultationdocument(withGuidanceNotespreparedbyClyde&Co.)whichwasdistributedtotheworldwidecargomarketsinMay2008.ReviseddraftswerecirculatedinOctober2008beforethefinalversionwasagreedreadyforimplementationon1January2009.ThenewclausescanbefoundontheLMAwebsiteat(A)GeneralTherehasbeensomeupdatingofthelanguageusedintheclauses.Inparticular:-Theterms‘goods’and‘cargo’havebeenreplacedby‘subjectmatterinsured’.-Theterm‘underwriters’hasbeenreplacedby‘insurers’.-Themarginalsideheadingsinthe1982Clauseshavebeenreplacedbysub-headings.----1982RISKSCOVERED1.Thisinsurancecoversallrisksoflossofordamagetothesubject-matterinsuredexceptasprovidedinClauses4,56and7below.RisksClause2009RISKSCOVEREDRisks1.Thisinsurancecoversallrisksoflossofordamagetothesubject-matterinsuredexceptasexcludedbytheprovisionsofClauses4,56and7below.“Exceptasprovided”isreplacedby“exceptasexcluded”whichgivesaclearerindicationthattheclausesreferredtoareexclusions.Otherwise,thewelltriedandtestedformulasettingoutcoverageremainsintact.TheclassicexpositionofhowthistypeofpolicyworksremainstheHouseofLordsjudgmentinBritishandForeignMarineInsuranceCo.Ltd.v.Gaunt,[1912]2A.C.41.ThecaseconcernedbalesofwoolinsuredagainstallrisksintransitfromsheepbackinPatagoniatoPuntaArenasenroutetoEurope.Somebalesweredamagedbywaterpriortoloadingontheoceanvesselandthequestionaroseastowhethertheinsuredcouldshowthattherehadbeenalossbyacasualty.Therewaslittleevidenceofthemannerinwhichwettinghadoccurred,butthatdidnotpreventtheinsuredfromsucceeding.LordBirkenheadconcluded…”Thedamageprovedwassuchasdidnotoccurandcouldnotbeexpectedtooccurinthecourseofanormaltransit.Theinferenceremains,thatitwasduetosomeabnormalcircumstance,someaccidentorcasualty.Weare,ofcourse,togiveeffecttotherulethattheplaintiffmustestablishhiscasethathemustshowthatthelosscomeswithinthetermsofhispolicies;butwhereallrisksarecoveredbythepolicyandnotmerelyrisksofaspecifiedclassorclasses,theplaintiffdischargeshisspecialonuswhenhehasprovedthatthelosswascausedbysomeeventcoveredbythegeneralexpressionandheisnotboundtogofurtherandprovetheexactnatureoftheaccidentorcasualtywhich,infact,occasionedhisloss.”Althoughthestandard‘A’Clausescoverisverywide,certaintradesmayrequireadditionalwordingtosuittheparticularcircumstancesorthenatureofthecargo.Anysuchadditional3wordingneedstobecarefullyphrasedifitistoachievethedesiredresult.InCovenSPAvHongKongChineseInsuranceCo.theCourtofAppealdealtwithacargoofbeansinsuredfromChinatoItalyunderInstituteCommodityTradesClauses(A),whichhavethesame‘AllRisks’wordingasICC(A)butincludingtheadditionalwords“shortageinweightbutsubjecttoanexcessof1%inthewholeshipment”.Itwasagreedthattherewasnophysicallossonthevoyagebuttherewasnonethelessashortdeliveryofsome14%foroneparcelofthecargo.Itwasacceptedthatthedifferencewasduetoawarehousemeasurementerrorandthatthelosswouldnotberecoverableunderthestandard‘A’Clauseswording.However,cargointerestsarguedthattheshortageinexcessof1%wasrecoverableasa“shortageinweight”mentionedinthespecialadditionalwording.IntheCourtofAppeal,LordJusticeClarkerejectedthisargument,supportingthelowerCourt.Asamatterofconstruction,heconsideredthattherelevantinsuringwordsmeanttheremustbelossofordamagetothegoods.Onbroaderterms,hefailedtoseethatthepartiescouldhaveintendedtoinsureg