2002年国际船舶保险条款
THE INTERNATIONAL HULL CLAUSES 01/11/02
郭国汀
【关键词】hull insurance clause/latent defect
【全文】
Julian Hill translated by Thomas Guo
A new set of Hull Clauses has been issued in London, whilst at the same time the existing Institute Time Clauses – Hulls remain available and in use in the market. The purpose behind the introduction of these new Clauses is unclear from the nature of the changes that have been made. There are however a number of these which have raised serious issues as to their meaning and effect. I have considered these in a number of articles. This one deals with the changes to the main named perils coverage clause, and in particular latent defect.
Introduction and Background.
The new International Hull Clauses (01/11/02) have retained the named perils format of the Institute Time Clauses Hulls (1983 and 1995). They are however considerably lengthened and by including clauses which may or may not be agreed as part of the policy cumbersome to use.
In terms of coverage what was Clause 6 of the Institute Time Clauses is now Clause 2 of the new Clauses. Apart from some minor changes the main differences between the sets of Clauses in respect of this coverage clause is in the treatment of bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts and latent defect. In regard to the 1995 Clauses there is one additional difference. This is a change in the due diligence proviso to Clause 6.2 which reads “provided that such loss or damage has not resulted from want of due diligence by the Assured, Owners, Managers or Superintendants or any of their onshore management.” In Clause 2.2 of the International Hull Clauses this proviso is now the same as the 1983 wording, namely “provided that such loss or damage has not resulted from want of due diligence by the Assured, Owners or Managers.” Reference to Superintendants and onshore management has been deleted. Wider duties are however placed on Assured, Owners and Managers under Clause 14 of the International Hull Clauses so that there is not likely to be much additional coverage, if any, under the International Hull Clauses over the 1995 Institute Time Clauses as a result of the change in the proviso wording. Indeed Owners may in certain factual circumstances be in a worse position because Clause 14 applies in respect of casualties resulting from any of the perils set out in Clause 2 and not merely those in Clause 2.2 to which the proviso is limited.
