Reinsurance - M97（Dip级30学分，选修）-《再保险》
往期精选：
（前述章节【Dip系列课程】M97-第八章-再保险相关的法律问题C1D-C2上）
C2 Incorporation clauses（合并条款）
Vesta v. Butcher (1989) concerned a facultative reinsurance of a Norwegian fish farm and contained the words: ‘being a reinsurance of and warranted same gross rate and terms and conditions and to follow the settlements of’ the insurer. A storm in the fjord resulted in thousands of fish escaping into the open sea and, in breach of a 24-hour watch warranty, there was no night watchman. The evidence was that, even if there had been, the watchman could have done little to prevent the loss of the fish.
Vesta v. Butcher (1989) 涉及挪威一家养鱼场的临时再保险，其中包含以下措辞：“作为保险人的再保险，并保证相同的总费率、条款和条件，并遵循保险人的和解”。 峡湾的一场风暴导致数千条鱼逃入公海，而且没有值班人员，违反了 24 小时值班保证。 证据表明，即使有，看守人也无法采取什么措施来防止鱼的丢失。
Under Norwegian law, a breach of warranty only operated to void the contract if it caused the loss. Accordingly, the insurers were liable to the owners of the fish farm. Prior to the Insurance Act 2015, English law (which governed the reinsurance contract) deemed it irrelevant that the breach was not causative of the loss and so the reinsurers denied the claim on the basis of the breach of warranty.
根据挪威法律，违反保证仅在造成损失时才会使合同无效。 因此，保险公司对养鱼场的所有者负有责任。 在《2015 年保险法》颁布之前，英国法律（管辖再保险合同）认为违约行为并非造成损失的原因是无关紧要的，因此再保险公司以违反保证为由拒绝索赔。
The House of Lords treated the contracts as back-to-back, enabling the reinsured to recover from the reinsurer. Lord Templeman said: in the absence of any express declaration to the contrary in the reinsurance policy, a warranty must produce the same effect in each policy. The effect of a warranty in the reinsurance policy is governed by the effect of the warranty in the insurance policy because the reinsurance policy is a contract by the underwriter to indemnify Vesta against liability under the insurance policy.
上议院将这些合同视为背对背合同，使再保险人能够从再保险公司那里获得赔偿。 坦普尔曼勋爵表示：在再保险保单中没有任何相反的明确声明的情况下，保证必须在每份保单中产生相同的效果。 再保险单中保证的效力受保险单中保证的效力管辖，因为再保险单是保险人就保险单项下的责任赔偿 Vesta 的合同。
Neither the insurance nor the reinsurance contract contained an express choice of law clause. Thus this case may be considered authority for the proposition that general words of incorporation need not bind reinsurers to the governing law of the underlying cover which, in this case, had been implied.
保险合同和再保险合同中都没有明确的法律选择条款。因此，本案可被视为权威性的主张，即合并成立的一般措辞不必使再保险人受相关保险的管辖法律约束，而在本案中，再保险人受相关保险的管辖法律约束是默示的。
The House of Lords also pointed out the absurdity of trying to construe and apply terms in the reinsurance contract which served no useful purpose and were appropriate only to the original policy of insurance. One provision, for example, allowed the insurer to re-stock the fish farm with fish rather than pay money to the insured. If incorporated into the reinsurance cover, it would have allowed the reinsurer to pay its claim in fish itself.
上议院还指出，试图解释和适用再保险合同中的条款是荒谬的，因为这些条款没有任何用处，只适用于原保险单。例如，有一条规定允许保险人向养鱼场重新投放鱼类，而不是向被保险人支付保险金。如果将这一条款纳入再保险条款，再保险人就可以用鱼本身来支付索赔。
The presumption remains that certain insurance and reinsurance contracts should be construed as being back-to-back so that their terms are interpreted consistently. However, the House of Lords, in WASA v. Lexington (2009), were not prepared to ignore the proper – English law – effect of a fundamental term of a reinsurance contract governed by English law, which was construed in a radically different way in accordance with the proper law of the underlying insurance contract.
某些保险合同和再保险合同应解释为背对背合同，以便对其条款的解释保持一致，这一推定仍然存在。然而，在 WASA 诉 Lexington（2009 年）一案中，上议院并不准备忽视受英国法律管辖的再保险合同中一项基本条款的适当效力（英国法律），而根据相关保险合同的适当法律，对该条款的解释却截然不同。
In this case, Alcoa had been ordered by the US Environmental Protection Agency to clean up pollution occurring between 1942 and 1986 at a number of its manufacturing sites in the USA. Alcoa sought to recover its clean-up costs from its insurers, including Lexington, which had insured Alcoa for a three-year period from 1 July 1977 to 1 July 1980 for physical loss and damage to Alcoa’s property worldwide. Following a Washington Supreme Court ruling in 2000, Lexington was held to be jointly and severally liable under Pennsylvanian law for the whole of Alcoa’s clean-up costs notwithstanding that it was on risk for only the three-year period of the insurance policy, as opposed to the 44 years during which pollution had taken place. Lexington accordingly settled Alcoa’s claims and sought an indemnity from its reinsurers.
在该案中，美国环境保护局命令Alcoa公司清理 1942 年至 1986 年期间在其位于美国的一些生产场所发生的污染。Alcoa公司寻求从包括列克星敦公司在内的保险人那里收回清理费用，列克星敦公司曾为Alcoa公司在 1977 年 7 月 1 日至 1980 年 7 月 1 日的三年期间在全球范围内的财产损失和损坏投保。2000 年华盛顿最高法院作出裁决后，根据宾夕法尼亚州法律，莱克星顿公司对Alcoa公 司的全部清理费用承担连带责任，尽管该公司只在保险单规定的三年期内承担风险，而不是在发生污染的 44 年期间承担风险。因此，莱克星顿公司解决了 Alcoa 公司的索赔，并要求其再保险人赔偿。
The reinsurance was governed by English law and covered an identical period and subject matter to the underlying insurance, as well as containing a ‘follow the settlements’ provision. The House of Lords held that the period clause in the reinsurance contract had to be given its ordinary meaning under English law, such that only loss and damage actually occurring during the specified three-year period could be recovered. Accordingly, any claim paid on the basis of loss or damage spanning a period of 44 years, could not be recovered under the reinsurance.
再保险受英国法律管辖，承保期和承保标的与相关保险相同，并包含 “遵循理赔 “条款。上议院认为，根据英国法律，再保险合同中的期限条款必须具有普通含义，即只有在规定的三年期限内实际发生的损失和损害才能获得赔偿。因此，任何根据 44 年期间的损失或损害支付的索赔都不能根据再保险予以追偿。
感谢阅读，欢迎打赏。
记得分享朋友圈打卡哦！
关注本sir，向更优秀的自己前进！
