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C4下）
D Implied terms（默示条款）
Contract terms may be implied by:
• common law; For the courts to imply a term by law, a party must show that such a term is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, is consistent with the express terms of the contract and would have been agreed by the parties.
• statute law;
• previous dealings between the parties; or
• trade custom or usage.
合同条款可能由以下法律默示：
• 普通法；法院若要通过法律默示条款，一方必须证明该条款对于合同的商业效力是必要的，与合同的明示条款一致，并且双方会同意。
• 成文法；
• 双方之前的交易；或
• 贸易习惯或惯例。
The requirements for a term to be implied by trade custom or usage are that the custom or usage must be notorious, certain and reasonable, universal in the context of the particular trade, business or market, and consistent with the express terms of the contract.
通过贸易习惯或惯例默示条款的要求是，该习惯或惯例必须是众所周知的、确定的和合理的，在特定贸易、业务或市场的背景下具有普遍性，并且与合同的明示条款一致。
D1 Inspection（检查权）
In Phoenix General Ins. Co. v. Halvanon Ins. Co. (1985), Hobhouse, J, implied a right of inspection into a facultative obligatory reinsurance treaty where no wording had been agreed. However, in the absence of special circumstances, it may be that there is no general implied right of inspection.
在 Phoenix General Ins.Co.诉 Halvanon Ins.Co.（1985 年）一案中，Hobhouse 法官在没有商定任何措辞的情况下，将检查权默示在一份临时义务再保险条约中。然而，在没有特殊情况下，可能不存在一般默示的检查权。
In a case where the wording had been agreed, Hoffmann, LJ said: reinsurers are free to stipulate for whatever rights of inspection they please. This is a matter of commercial negotiation between the parties. If they are not entitled to inspection as a matter of contractual right and a dispute arises, English law gives them no procedural means of inspection unless….
在措辞已达成一致的案件中，Hoffmann 法官表示：再保险公司可以自由规定他们想要的任何检查权。这是双方之间的商业谈判问题。如果他们无权根据合同权利进行检查，并且发生纠纷，英国法律不会赋予他们任何程序性检查手段，除非……
This may mean that reinsurers are unable to uncover defences that greater rights of inspection would have revealed. This is a commercial risk that they accept at the time when the contract is made (Sail v. Farex (1995)). In short, the wording reflected the parties’ bargain and, if required, could have included an inspection clause and a price set for the right.
这可能意味着再保险人无法发现更多检查权本可发现的抗辩。这是他们在订立合同时接受的商业风险（Sail 诉 Farex 案（1995 年））。总之，措辞反映了双方的讨价还价，如果需要，本可以包括检查条款和为这一权利设定的价格。
D2 Costs and expenses（成本和费用）
In Colin Baker v. Black Sea & Baltic Insurance (1996), the courts were asked to consider whether, in relation to a proportional reinsurance, there existed an implied obligation on reinsurers to indemnify the reinsured for its proportion of the reinsured’s own costs and expenses. In addition to original indemnity costs and expenses, the costs and expenses at issue had been incurred investigating, settling and defending claims.
在 Colin Baker 诉 Black Sea & Baltic Insurance（1996 年）一案中，法院被要求考虑，就比例再保险而言，再保险人是否有默示义务赔偿分保人自己的成本和费用。除了原始赔偿成本和费用外，有争议的成本和费用是在调查、解决索赔和抗辩时发生的。
According to Millett, LJ: what was needed was evidence of a universal and acknowledged practice of the market for reinsurers to pay such costs whether this is expressly provided for in the treaty or not; or (to put it another way) that it is well understood by underwriters that if it is not intended that the indemnity should extend to the legal costs and expenses of the reinsured, these need to be expressly excluded. There is no such evidence.
根据 Millett 法官的说法：需要有证据表明，再保险人支付此类费用是市场普遍认可的做法，无论合同中是否明确规定；或者（换句话说）承保人充分理解，如果赔偿不打算扩展到被保险人的法律成本和费用，则需要明确排除这些费用。（而事实上）没有这样的证据。
Noted: Later, the House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision but said that it was not clear that no such evidence of a universal practice was available.
请注意：后来，上议院维持了上诉法院的判决，但表示不清楚是否存在普遍做法的证据。
D3 Arbitration（仲裁）
Arbitration agreements are self-contained and ancillary to the commercial contracts to which they relate. An express provision is required. Similarly, it is not possible to use general words of incorporation to incorporate the arbitration agreement in an underlying contract into the overlying contract (see Pine Top v. Unione Italiana Anglo-Saxon Re (1987)).
仲裁协议是独立的，附属于与其相关的商业合同。需要有明确规定。同样，不可能使用一般的纳入措辞将基础合同中的仲裁协议纳入上层合同（参见 Pine Top 诉 Unione Italiana Anglo-Saxon Re (1987)一案）。
D4 Irrelevant terms（无关条款）
Section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015 provides an example of a term implied by statute law. The Act prohibits reinsurers from relying on a breach of a term that is entirely unconnected to the loss that actually occurred in order to exclude, limit or otherwise avoid liability for that loss. For example, a facultative reinsurer of an ‘all risks’ property policy may not use a breach of a burglar alarm warranty to disclaim liability for a loss caused by a fire. This is because the breach was not, on the facts, relevant to the loss.
2015 年《保险法》第 11 条提供了成文法默示条款的一个例子。该法案禁止再保险人依赖与实际发生的损失完全无关的条款的违反来排除、限制或以其他方式避免对该损失承担责任。例如，‘一切险’财产保险的临时再保险人不得以违反防盗报警保证为由，拒绝承担火灾损失的责任。这是因为，事实上，违反该保证与损失无关。
This ruling applies to any express or implied term which, if complied with, would tend to reduce the risk of a loss:
• of a particular kind;
• at a particular location; or
• at a particular time.
该裁决适用于任何明示或暗示的条款，即如果遵守该条款，则有助于降低以下损失的风险：
• 特定类型的损失；
• 在特定地点的损失；或
• 在特定时间的损失。
It does not, however, apply to any term which defines the ‘risk as a whole’. The Law Commissions have suggested that this may include terms which define the geographical area in which a loss must occur, or the age, identity, qualifications or experience of the operator of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft. It remains to be seen quite how this phrase will be interpreted by the courts.
但是，它不适用于定义“整体风险”的任何术语。法律委员会建议，这可能包括定义损失发生的地理区域或车辆、船舶或飞机操作员的年龄、身份、资格或经验的术语。法院将如何解释这一短语还有待观察。
Importantly, the reinsured who uses this defence must be able to demonstrate ‘that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.’
重要的是，使用这一辩护的分保人必须能够证明“不遵守条款不会在实际发生损失的情况下增加实际发生的损失的风险。”
Therefore, in the case of a theft where a burglar alarm has not sounded because it was in need of repair, but the warranty states that it must sound and be in full working order, the reinsured would not be able to satisfy this requirement. This is because the breach obviously caused the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.
因此，在发生盗窃的情况下，如果防盗警报器因需要维修而未响起，但保修规定必须响起并处于完全正常工作状态，则分保人将无法满足这一要求。这是因为违反条款显然导致了在实际发生损失的情况下（增加）实际发生的损失。
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！
