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C-C1C）
C1D Innominate terms（非主要条款）
An innominate term is another contractual promise where the remedy for a breach depends on its seriousness (Phoenix General Ins. Co. v. Halvanon Ins. Co. (1985)). Where the breach is serious, a reinsurer may be entitled to repudiate the contract (that is, treat the contract as terminated). Where it is minor, the remedy would be in damages only.
非主要条款是另一种合同承诺，对违约的补救取决于其严重程度（Phoenix General Ins. Co. v. Halvanon Ins. Co. (1985)）。如果违约情况严重，再保险人可能有权废除合同（即把合同视为终止）。如果违约情节较轻，则只能采取损害赔偿的补救措施。
In Alfred McAlpine v. BAI (2000), an insurer denied liability to its insured when the latter failed to comply with a condition requiring written notification of a claim as soon as possible. The Court of Appeal found that the notice clause was an innominate term, a breach of which was unlikely to amount to repudiation of the contract as a whole, although according to Waller, LJ in Friends Provident Life & Pensions Ltd v. Sirius International Insurance & Ors (2005) ‘it is not impossible that it could in extreme circumstances of consistent breach over a number of claims’. This view does not, however, represent the current state of the law as agreed by the remaining Court of Appeal judges in Friends Provident, which renders any remedy other than damages for breach of such a condition unlikely. It was considered important that the parties could have agreed otherwise if they had so wished.
在 Alfred McAlpine 诉 BAI 案（2000 年）中，一家保险公司拒绝对其被保险人承担赔偿责任，因为后者没有遵守一项要求尽快书面通知索赔的条件。上诉法院认为，通知条款是一个非主要条款，违反该条款不大可能构成对整个合同的否定，尽管根据 Waller 大法官在 Friends Provident Life & Pensions Ltd 诉 Sirius International Insurance & Ors（2005 年）一案中的观点，”在多次索赔中持续违反该条款的极端情况下，也并非不可能”。但这一观点并不代表 Friends Provident 案中其余上诉法院法官所认同的法律现状，即违反该条件除损害赔偿外不可能有任何补救措施。重要的是，如果当事人愿意，他们本可以达成其他协议。
C2 Incorporation clauses（合并条款）
The parties may use incorporation clauses to import the terms of the original insurance contract into the reinsurance contract. Such practice remains a common way of avoiding the preparation of full wordings for facultative reinsurances where cover is agreed ‘back-to-back’ with the original policy.
当事人可以使用合并条款将原始保险合同的条款引入再保险合同。这种做法仍然是避免为临时再保险准备完整措辞的常见方法，其中承保范围与原始保单“背靠背”达成一致。
Examples of these clauses include:
• ‘as original’;
• ‘subject to the same terms and conditions as the original policy’; and
• ‘being a reinsurance of and warranted same gross rate and terms and conditions’.
这些条款的例子包括
• ‘与原保单相同’；
• 与原保单的条款和条件相同”；以及
• 作为再保险，保证总费率、条款和条件相同”。
These clauses can, however, raise a number of issues. The words of incorporation may be ambiguous, for instance, what is meant by ‘as original’ in the context of multiple tiers of reinsurance? In addition, the underlying terms and conditions may be inconsistent with the other terms of the reinsurance contract or inappropriate because they belong in a contract of insurance rather than one of reinsurance. Do the words of incorporation bind reinsurers to not only terms defining the risk, but also terms prescribing the formal and procedural basis of the insurance contract, such as arbitration clauses, choice of law clauses and terms relating to claims procedure? Further, is the effect of the clause to amend the reinsurance cover to mirror all subsequent amendments to the contract of insurance? As a result, the courts have been forced to rely on rules of construction and general common sense to give commercial meaning to otherwise nonsensical situations.
然而，这些条款可能会引起一些问题。纳入条款的措辞可能含糊不清，例如，在多层再保险的情况下，”与原保单相同 “的含义是什么？此外，基本条款和条件可能与再保险合同的其他条款不一致，或者不合适，因为它们属于保险合同而非再保险合同。合并条款是否不仅对再保险人有约束力，而且对规定保险合同的形式和程序基础的条款，如仲裁条款、法律选择条款和索赔程序条款也有约束力？此外，修改再保险条款的效果是否反映了随后对保险合同的所有修改？因此，法院不得不依靠解释规则和一般常识来赋予原本毫无意义的情况以商业意义。
In short, general words of incorporation are considered effective only to incorporate those terms and conditions of the original insurance cover that do not contradict or conflict with any express term of the reinsurance contract (e.g. an exclusion clause) and that are not clearly inappropriate in the reinsurance context.
简而言之，一般合并条款被认为仅对纳入原保险的条款和条件有效，这些条款和条件不得与再保险合同的任何明确条款（如免责条款）相抵触或冲突，并且在再保险背景下也不得明显不当。
In Pine Top v. Unione Italiana Anglo-Saxon Re (1987), it was held that the incorporation of the ‘terms, clauses and conditions as original’ was ineffective to incorporate an arbitration clause into a reinsurance contract. Gatehouse, J, decided that the purpose of the incorporation clause was to ensure that the terms defining the risk underwritten matched in both the original cover and the reinsurance and, as this had been accomplished elsewhere, the incorporation clause was unnecessary. Subsequent attempts by reinsurers to incorporate arbitration agreements and also exclusive jurisdiction clauses in this way into reinsurance contracts from an underlying policy have also failed.
在 Pine Top 诉 Unione Italiana Anglo-Saxon Re（1987 年）一案中，法院认为，将 “原条款、规定和条件 “并入再保险合同中的仲裁条款是无效的。Gatehouse法官裁定，纳入条款的目的是确保界定承保风险的条款与原保险和再保险中的条款一致，由于这一点已在其他地方实现，因此纳入条款没有必要。后来，再保险人试图以这种方式将仲裁协议和排他性管辖权条款纳入基础保单的再保险合同，但也都失败了。
In ARIG v. SASA (1998), Tuckey, J, said in relation to a reinsurance contract containing the words ‘policy wording as original’: A degree of transposition is permissible where the terms from one contract are expressly incorporated into another. But I find it difficult…to accept that reinsurers writing a reinsurance on the London Market should be taken to have intended to agree that the courts of the underlying insured’s domicile should have exclusive jurisdiction over the contract of reinsurance.
在 ARIG 诉 SASA（1998 年）一案中，Tuckey 法官在谈到一份载有 “保单措辞与原件相同 “字样的再保险合同时说： 当一份合同的条款被明确纳入另一份合同时，一定程度的移用是允许的。但我认为很难……接受这样的观点，即在伦敦市场上承保再保险的再保险人应被视为有意同意相关被保险人所在地的法院对再保险合同拥有专属管辖权。
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！
