| 關 鍵 詞： |
海上保險；英國 1906 年海上保險法；共同海損；救助費用；單獨費用；損害防阻費用 |
| 中文摘要： |
由於海上風險較高之故，海事法領域發展出若干針對受難人員及財物進行救助之鼓勵制度，共同海損及海難救助即為其中典型二例。此情況亦發生於海上保險，於發生事故或不幸時，保險人亦期待被保險人及其受雇人或代理人能採取任何能避免或減輕事故損失之作為。
全球海上保險所繼受之英國 1906 年海上保險法將救助作業所生費用趨分四類型：亦即第 65 條救助費用（salvage charges）、第 66 條共同海損（general average）、第 64 條第 2 項單獨費用（particular charges）及第 78 條損害防阻費用（suing and labouring expenses）。發生此四類費用或損失之行為學理上稱為「救助行為或施救行為saving acts」。此四類費用施救本質雖然類似，然彼此間原本法律性質不同，適用要件及效力亦互異，而 20 世紀許多不同費用型態之發生及實務條款之使用，進ㄧ步複雜化四類費用間彼此之適用爭議。例如非屬「不成功無報酬」之海難救助費用（含特別補償金 special compensation）究應屬哪項費用名下為保險請求？即有爭議。更甚之，原本擁有相當明確法律地位的「單獨費用」，多年來因為英國學術普遍主張該費用得於「損害防阻條款」下獲償，而隱蓋了「單獨費用」之真正意涵。
本文針對英國 1906 年海上保險法前述四項費用之相關規定及其 1906 年立法之初所參考之各項判決為分析，藉以釐清各項費用之本質及其間差異。本文最後以救助費用各類型為範例，以說明四類費用間之正確適用。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Marine Insurance；1906 Marine Insurance Act；Salvage Charges；General Average；Particular Charges；Suing and Labouring Charges |
| 英文摘要： |
Maritime hazard, as well-known, are far higher than on land. Some regimes were therefore developed to encourage efforts to save life and property being endangered at sea. General average and salvage are the two typical examples. In addition and under marine insurance, the assureds and its agents or servants, in case of any loss or misfortune, are expected to take any measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss covered by the policy. English law on marine insurance, as codified by the Marine Insurance Act 1906, classifies the costs of rescuing operations in a complicated way under four headings: salvage charges (section 65), general average (section 66), particular charges (section 65.1) and suing and labouring expenses (section 78). The acts for incurring those expenses/charges are collectively called “saving acts”. Furthermore, the practical Institute clauses give a different application on the costs of rescuing operation from the statute - Marine Insurance Act 1906, while the York-Antwerp Rules is also applied. These different situations and their inter-relationship are not only complex but also exist lots of disputes. For instance, what are the real legal status of the Lloyd‘s Open Form or other salvage contracts under the Marine Insurance Act 1906? “Particular charges” stands its legal status on the Marine Insurance Act 1906. However, almost all marine insurance textbooks state that particular charges can only be recovered under the suing and labouring clause. Is this viewpoint critical? This paper, by referring all the cases cited by drafting the 1906 Marine insurance Act, analyses the nature and differences among these four kinds of saving acts/expenses and finally to explain their applications by various kinds of salvaged.
|
| 目 次： |
I、Introduction
（I）Framework and regulation under the 1906 M.I.A for various saving acts
（II）Research purpose and restriction of this paper
II、Salvage charges
（I）Phraseology
（II）Definition and classification
（III）The features of “Salvage Charges”on M.I.A s.65
III、General Average
（I）General
（II）Statutory definition and essential factors of general average
（III）General average and salvage charges
IV、Suing and Labouring Clauses
（I） The history and origin of the suing and labouring clauses
（II）The “duty”clause
（III）The indemnity clause
（IV）Suing and labouring expenses, salvage charges and general average in comparison
V、Particular Charges
（I）Custom of Lioyd’s and legal status of particular charges
（II）Definition, ingredients and in comparison with the suing and labouring expenses
（III）Application between “Particular charges” and “Sue and Labouring”
VI、Conclusion - Four Acts in Comparison and Example by applying various kinds of salvages
（I)Particular charges, suing and labouring expenses, salvage charges and general average in comparison
(II) Example by Applying various kinds of salvages
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|