(1809) 11 East 428.
Nicholas Legh-Jones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p157.
(1840) 6 M.&W. 224.
Michelle Taylor, “Is the requirement of an insurable interest in the Marine Insurance Act still valid?”Insurance Law Journal, 2000-99, 1999, vol.11, P157-158。
(1840) 6 M.&W. 224.
Materials provided by Associated Marine insurance Agents Pty Ltd: Consultation Melbourne 7 April 2000.
Materials provided by Associated Marine insurance Agents Pty Ltd: Consultation Melbourne 7 April 2000.
Materials provided by Associated Marine insurance Agents Pty Ltd: Consultation Melbourne 7 April 2000.
Mcgee, The Modern Law of Insurance, Butterworths,2001,p52.
Ray Hodgin, Insurance Law-text and materials (2nd), Cavendish publishing Ltd,2002.
(1876) 1 App. Cas. 713.
Malcolm A. Clarke, Julian M. Burling, Robert L. Purves, The law of insurance contract (4th), LLp, 2002，p137.
英国1745年法没有规定它无效。Nicholas Legh-Jones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p143.
Irving v. Manning (1847) 1 HL Cas. 287; Marine Insurance Act 1906,s.27. Nicholas Legh-Jones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002,p143.
The Maira (No.2) 1 Lloyd’s Rep.660,667; 1 Lloyd’s Rep.300; 2 Lloyd’s Rep.12. Arnould认为，MIA 1906第4（2）没有穷尽，据此建议认定严重超额保险合同属于MIA 1906第4（1）范围的赌博保险而无效。但是，权威判例否定了这一观点。Law of Marine Insurance (16th edn.,1981) Vol.1 paras 385 and 427。
8 & 9 Vict. C. 109.
在具有可保利益的人进行超额保险情形，保险人在适当情况下可以依据1906年法第55（2）规定的被保险人故意不当行为，或者，在被保险人不知情形，保险人依赖被保险人没有披露暗示着adventure本质上是赌博这一重大事实的抗辩（Ionides v. Pender (1874) LR 9 QB 531），或者，依赖被保险人有意欺诈保险人故意超额保险的抗辩（Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v. Gunford Ship Co. AC 529,542. Nicholas Legh-Jones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002,p144.）
任家鑫: “保险利益研究”,上海海运学院
海商法研究中心网,作者引用Wilson v. Jones,(1867) LR2,Ex 139案。
Lonsdale & Thompson Ltd. V. Black Arrow Group plc 3 All ER 648,653 per Jonathon Sumption QC. See also Moran. Galloway & Co. v. Uzielli 2 KB 555,563.
Rhidian Thomas, Perspectives on the Contract of Marine Insurance, D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol.1), LLP, 1996,p18.
Malcolm A. Clarke, Julian M. Burling, Robert L. Purves, The law of insurance contract (4th), LLp, 2002，p138.
即对于外国船舶和货物的赌博保险合同；对于仅仅用来劫掳国王的敌人的英国海盗的赌博保险合同；对于从西班牙或葡萄牙运出的货物的赌博保险合同。Nicholas Legh-Jones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p138-139.
Malcolm A. Clarke, Julian M. Burling, Robert L. Purves, The law of insurance contract (4th), LLp, 2002, p140-141.
(1946) 79 Ll. L. Rep.410.
Nicholas Legh-Jones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p156.
Nicholas Legh-Jones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p147.
