聽力每日練習(xí) listen 2094 Disputes?over?Insurance

1-- As you may recall.the June consignment arrived at India seriously damaged.The loss through breakage was over 30% of the consignment. We've presented a claim to the underwriters through your firm,but the insurance company refused to admit liability.as there was no insurance on breakage. We naturally were not satisfied with such a reply. l'd like to hear what Mr. Li has to say about it.
 
2-- You know,the loss in question was beyond the coverage granted by us.According to your instructions.we made out an insurance certificate covering WAP and the risk of breakage wasn't mentioned in it.
 
3-- In the letter of credit only coverage for all marine risks was requested. l'd like to point out that our prices were calculated without insurance for any special risk. So we applied for the usual WAP coverage and let our customers deal with the matter of breakage.
 
1-- Mr. King. we presume that the wording of our UC implies covering the risk of breakage. Besides.when I take a WAP insu-rance which is with particular average.l should think the risk of breakage is a particular average.isn't it?
 
3-- Not every breakage is a particular average. It is a particular average when the breakage results from natural calamities or maritime accidents.lf none of these conditions occur,breakage is often considered as an ordinary loss,which is outside the scope of the coverage.
 
1-- But the risk of breakage is covered by marine insurance,isn't it'?
 
2-- Of course,but it is a usual practice to make specific mention in the insurance policy or certificate that the risk of breakage is included.The inclusion of this special risk will be subject to an additional premium that will normally be higher than the basic insurance for the ordinary marine risks.
 
1-- I see. Another thing I don't understand now is the advantage of WAP coverage.l thought that the WAP insurance should cover all principle risks while,according to what you say.it means very little.
 
2-- Neither the WAP nor the FPA mention the risks covered or excl- uded. Look at the insurance certificates and you will find that the risks of theft and pilferage, freshwater, oil, grease. hooks, breakage.leakage, contamination. deterioration. etc. are specifically mentioned and must be specifically applied for. These are special risks.
 
1-- It seems that the error was on both sides and I think the loss should be shared by both parties.
 
2-- Our price calculation could hardly admit that. Besides,we acted upon your instructions, so it is not our fault. But in view of our good partnership,we'll supply you with a favorite offer to compensate some of your losses.
 
===================================
注解：
 
1.insurance保險  
2.calculated計算
3.particular average單獨海損
===================================
譯文：
 
1-- 你也許記得，6月份發(fā)運到印度的那批貨破損嚴重。破碎損失超過這批貨的30%。我們已經(jīng)通過你們公司向保險公司提出了索賠，但保 險公司以沒有投保破碎險為由，拒絕承擔(dān)責(zé)任。我們當然對這種答復(fù)不滿意。我想聽聽李先生對此的看法。
2-- 你說的損失并不包括在我們承保的責(zé)任范圍內(nèi)。根據(jù)你們的要求，我們出具了投保水漬險 的保險憑證，但沒提及到破碎險。
3--信用證只要求投保“綜合海運險”。我想要指出的是，我們的價格沒把任何特殊險計算在內(nèi)，所以我們只投保了通常的水漬險，而讓我 們的客戶自相辦理破碎險事宜。
1-- 金先生，我認為信用證的措辭包含了投保破碎險。此外，我投保水漬險時．那就是對單獨海損要負責(zé)賠償，我想破碎險是屬于一種單獨海損對不對？
3-- 并不是所有破碎險都屬于單獨海損。只有由于自然災(zāi)害或意外事故造成的破碎才屬于單． 獨海損。如果沒有發(fā)生上述事故，破碎險常被 認為是一種普通損失，不屬于承保范圍之內(nèi) 。
1--但破碎險是包括在海洋運輸貨物險之內(nèi)，對不對？
2--當然，但按照慣例要在保險單或保險憑證上特。別注明破碎險包括在內(nèi)。包括這種特別險就必須附加保險費。這種保險費一般比通常的海洋運輸貨物險高。
1--我懂了。另外一件事我現(xiàn)在還不明白，保水漬 險有什么好處。我原以為水漬險包括全部主要風(fēng)險，而根據(jù)你說的，它承保責(zé)任卻很少.
2-- 無論水漬險還是平安險都不注明包括哪些險別或不包括哪些險別。保險范嗣是寫在基本保險單內(nèi)和各種險別條款里。你看保險憑證就會發(fā)現(xiàn)偷竊險，淡水險，油漬險，油污險，鉤損險，滲漏險，玷污險，變質(zhì)險等都特加注明，并且必須特別申保。這些就是特別險.
1-- 看來雙方都有錯誤，我認為損失應(yīng)由雙方承擔(dān)。
2-- 我們的計價不容許這么做。此外，我們是按你們的要求辦理的，所以這不是我們的過錯。但鑒于我們良好的伙伴關(guān)系，我們準備給你們提供優(yōu)惠的報盤，借以補償貴方的一些損失。