第5章管辖权与适用法

1、第五章 适用法与管辖权1 适用法概述由于历史的传承与发展，英国的保险业在世界都处于领先地位。伦敦保险业界拟定的保险标准条文是在世界范围内都被跟从与借用，另与之相配合的英国保险法的优越性也是显著。根据联合国贸易发展委员会（UNCTAD）于1975年的报告，世界范围内大约有三分之二是用英国的保单与相关条款，这样一来，用英国的保险法来配合解释相应的保险合约也更准确，能够找出拟定合约条文的订约意图。英国法院一贯以来也是这样的看法，特别海上保险（船舶与海上货物运输）两百多年来以劳合社标准S.G.保单作为保险合约。The “Al Wahab” (1983) 2 Lloyds Rep. 365先例就显示了这

2、一点，贵族院是一致支持上诉庭的多数意见，就是英国法适用，因为有关的保险合约是劳合社S.G.保单（只有英国法律才对S.G保单有全面的解释）。其中Bingham大法官的一审提出这一个因素的重要性，如下：“The use of a English standard form may be powerful, even a conclusive, indication that the parties intended to contract with reference to English law. See, for example, The Industries (1894) P. 58. Bu

3、t there is, in my judgment, a factor which cannot be ignored in assessing whether and, if so, how strongly, that inference should be drawn. The evidence in this case plainly establishes that this form of marine policy, produced and developed in the London insurance market, has achieved a world-wide

4、currency. Partly this is due to the long history, the great experience, the professional expertise and the high standing of that market, combined with the traditional dominance of London as a commercial centre. Partly it is due to the process of imperial fertilisation which has led to reproduction o

5、f the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, in far corners of the globe. The result is that in Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, North Yemen, Israel, various parts of black Africa, Indonesia, China, and elsewhere, the standard form of English marine policy is in regular use.

6、In Kuwait (该先例涉及科威特) itself the form has been used since insurance companies were first set up 20 years ago. Similar use is made in other parts of the Gulf and the Middle East. Sometimes there is an express choice of jurisdiction. Often the reference to Lombard Street, the Royal Exchange, or elsewhe

7、re in London, is deleted. But frequently there is no express choice of jurisdiction and subject to that deletion the policy wording substantially remains as in the Schedule to the Act, often with the Institute clauses added. Sometimes the text is translated (as it is into Chinese) sometimes, as here

8、, it is not. But it seems fair to conclude on the evidence that this form is part of the lingua franca of international marine insurance.”。但在上诉庭属于少数意见的Goff大法官是强烈支持科威特法律适用，因为与该先例有关的所有事情都是在科威特而与英国无关，说：“the policy was issued in Kuwait, by a Kuwait insurance company carrying on business in Kuwait, and i

9、t provided for performance in Kuwait.”。但要注意的是科威特根本是没有一套完整的保险法。这一个先例也不再管用，因为在1983年劳合社标准S.G.保单已经被MAR Form (Lloyds Marine Policy)所替代。此外，英国针对适用法的法律也有了改变，主要就是因为加入了欧共体而导致了普通法在这一方面已经不再重要。而欧共体的法律，也就是英国的法律，适用在海上货物运输保险的有两个立法，一个就是2000年Financial Services and Markets Act与根据该立法制定的法例2001年Insurance Law Regulations，

10、另一个就是根据Rome Convention而立法的1990年Contracts (Applicable Law) Act。前一个立法或法例是适用在承保风险是在EEA国家（这包括了欧共体的所有国家与冰岛、挪威与列支敦士登的所谓EFTA或欧洲自由贸易区European Free Trade Association或简称EFTA国家）。后一个立法是适用在承保风险是在EEA国家以外的所有其他国家，这显然是包括了中国。而“承保风险所在地”（risk is situated）通常就是指受保人的所在地。针对海上货物运输保险，这两个不同的立法都允许保险合约的订约双方去选择明示适用法条文，只要它是“合理的肯定

11、”（with reasonable certainty）。针对海上货物运输保险中会需要在岸上储存货物，而且是适用Insurance Law Regulations，情况有一点复杂。这是由于欧共体法律为了保护保险合约下的消费者，就强制规定受保人所在地的法律是唯一适用的法律。除非受保人是一家很大的机构（substantial concern），才会有订约自由可以去选择明示适用法条文。再进一步去探讨，可以去一提的是适用法就是解释保险合约的实体法。这显然是至关重要，因为在出现争议决定谁是谁非的时候，这是有决定性的因素。很不幸但也是可以理解的就是，世界上不同国家由于历史、文化、国情等原因导致法律针对同一

12、个问题可能会有不同的规定，甚至有时候规定是完全相反。例如说普通法系与大陆法系就有很多不同的地方，其中一个就是在本书第二章探讨在保险合约的绝对善意要求。就算是大陆法系，不同的国家也可能就同一个问题有非常不一样的规定。西方国家普遍有一个说法，就是法律是“有组织的常识”（organised common sense），这样看来国与国之间的常识也应该有很大的不同。2 不同国家法律作为保险合约适用法会带来的后果不同国家的法律所带来的差异有时候会有天渊之别，随便挑几个有关保险合约的案例，可介绍如下：2.1 Ace Insce v. Zurich (2000) 2 Lloyds Rep. 423这一个先例涉

13、及了一家瑞士的再保险公司，也就是本案的被告。而作为受保人是美国德州的一家保险公司，它作为第一线的保险人承保了一些油井的风险。在有关的保险合约中，有一个承诺性保证名为“blowout preventer warranty”，条文部分内容如下：“A blowout preventer of standard make will be set on the surface casing per usual industrypractice same to be installed and tested in accordance with the usual practices.”。这是一个防止油井

14、喷气（blowout）的很重要的设施，喷气就是原油或天然气从地底喷涌而出，如果这种喷涌不能够被马上控制是会带来极大的危险，其中包括了爆炸与火灾。如果这发生在海上的钻油台，一个活生生的例子就是2010年4月20日发生在美国墨西哥湾“深水地平线”（Deepwater Horizon）钻井平台的严重事故。可以说每一个在生产石油的油井都会有喷气的危险，特别是在钻探与开采的早期。为了去防止油井喷气，就有了这一个所谓“blowout preventer”的设施，它是在发生油井喷气的时候能够在很短的时间（如30秒内）把油井喷气的管道封死。操作可以是自动，也可以是人手。在“深水地平线”钻井平台的事故中，据说就

15、是因为这一个“blowout preventer”失灵，而失灵的原因至今也没弄明白。加上这是发生在深达5,000米的海底，由于很高的水压蛙人是无法潜到，只能靠一种无人的潜水艇与机器人（名为remotely-operated vehicle）去操作。所以“blowout preventer”失灵，去另外采取措施将油井封死是很难做到，以至于给美国墨西哥湾带来了空前的环境灾难。据说，该“blowout preventer”的生产商Cameron会面对BP以及其他的产品责任控诉与索赔，它虽然投保了5亿美元的责任保险，估计对这种事故的最后赔偿也仅仅是杯水车薪。现在再回来谈本案例就可以明白为什么保险合约中

16、要摆一条“blowout preventer warranty”的条文，因为对承保油井损失的保险人实在是太重要。在本案例，承保的沙特阿拉伯的一个岸上油井最终是发生了无法控制的喷气并造成了损失，但保险人是拒绝赔付。发生事故的时候“blowout preventer”装置还没有安装妥，而“blowout preventer warranty”的条文只是要求它将会被安装。本来它的安装与这一个事故是没有关系，但再保险人找出蛛丝马迹证明该“blowout preventer”装置并没有根据业内习惯做法去安装，所以是违反“blowout preventer warranty”。这里根据1906年英国海上保

17、险法Section 33(3)，对保险合约的承诺性保证是非常严格。只要承诺性保证没有被严格遵守，不论违约与之后发生的事故是否有关系，都可以让再保险人有权去否认所有的赔付责任。但在另外一个有关国家的法律，也就是美国的德州，法律显然对再保险人不利。美国德州的法律认为破坏保险合约的承诺性保证/先决条件还是必须要与后来发生的损失有关系，换言之是再保险人因为受保人（第一线的保险人）违反承诺性保证而受到损害。这方面在本书第四章第3.5段有详论。这导致了双方的争议重点是到底英国法还是美国德州的法律才是适用法。Longmore大法官认为德州法律才是适用法，说：“(3) the proper law of th

18、e reinsurance policy was that of Texas, since it was the law of the underlying policy; or, if pursuant to Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v. Bucher (1989) 1 Lloyds Rep. 331; 1989 A.C. 852, it was preferable to say that the reinsurance policy had to be interpreted so as to give indemnity for risks fo

19、r which Zurich were liable under Texan law, Texan law was critical for the claim. This was important because the law of Texas did not allow an insurer or reinsurer to rely on a failure to comply with a condition precedent, unless they were prejudiced by such failure;(4) Texas was more appropriate on

20、 the facts since (a) Texas was the place where the claim was settled and paid; (b) the evidence whether such settlement was reasonable, or (in the absence of any follow settlement provision) whether Zurich were in fact liable, was all or mostly in Texas or Saudi Arabia and not in London; (c) the evi

21、dence about breach of the obligation to notify was mainly in the hands of the brokers whose chain of communication started in Texas; (d) witnesses of fact in relation to the blowout preventer and standard Industry practice in relation to its installation were not in London.”。2.2 The “Mount I” (2000)

22、 2 Lloyds Rep. 684这一个先例涉及了保险合约的转让（assignment），但针对转让不同国家的法律有不同的说法。在该先例涉及的是法国与英国的法律，在英国法律保险合约可以自由转让是已经在1906年英国海上保险法Section 50被确认。但根据法国法律，保险合约的转让通知是必须要通过法国法院的执达吏（bailiff）去送达才是有效。所以在该先例去决定英国法还是法国法才是适用法又是一个至关重要的例子。Longmore大法官判英国法律才是适用法，说：“The insurer and the insured have agreed that the law of the contra

23、ct of insurance is English law and English law is thus the law which is to determine whether RZB, as assignee, has a good claim against the insurers.Under English law there is no doubt that RZB do have a good claim. By s. 50(2) of the Marine Insurance Act, 1906 a policy of marine insurance is freely

24、 assignable. Even if (as in this case) the policy is assigned by way of security rather than absolutely and even if notice of assignment has to be given to the insurers because, for thatreason, the assignment is to be treated as an assignment in equity rather than an assignment at law (see The Evelp

25、idis Era 1981 1 Lloyds Rep. 54) English law does not require that notice to be given in any formal manner. Any notice required by English law was, in fact, given to the insurers.”2.3 CGU International v. AstraZeneca Ins (2007) 1 Lloyds Rep. 142在这一个先例涉及了是再保险合约（reinsurance contract），投保的风险是一家跨国生物科技（bio

26、science）集团的人命伤亡与财产损失（property damage）。但第一线的保险人（也就是受保人）与再保险人对财产损失的定义或解释有了争议，就是包不包括该集团旗下的一家美国Iowa公司（Garst）所做出的赔偿损失。Garst生产与销售一种基因改造的农产品，带来了来自农民、食物生产商、消费者、出口商等等人士大量的索赔，总金额高达20亿美元。到了2003年一月，Garst向部分索赔人士赔付了8,000万美元，并向保险人（实际上是集团下的一家保险公司）索赔并获得赔付。而该保险人再向再保险人要求赔付的时候就产生了这个争议，因为再保险人指这些损失并非是财产损失。这就带来一个重要之处，就是再保

27、险合约到底适用什么法？如果根据英国法，对财产的定义是比较狭窄。但根据Iowa的法律，对财产的定义是比较宽松。显然，再保险合约是没有一条明示的适用法条文，但由于针对美国的受保人，有一条名为“接受美国诉讼条文”（USA Service of Suit clause），所以会带来争议，因为如果在Iowa法院审理是不会去考虑英国法。结果在仲裁中（再保险合约是有一条仲裁条文），是以2 :1的多数意见判是适用Iowa法律，而有关的案例是根据1996年英国仲裁法的Section 69的上诉法律观点条文。以下可去简单节录仲裁员之间的不同看法：“As regards the ELP（再保险合约的excess l

28、oss policy）it was common ground that the original law applicable to the ELP was English law. The majority ruled that it was not the intention from inception that the ELP was to be subject to the law of Iowa, but that Garsts interest was insured separately and the Exercise of Suit clause showed that

29、it was contemplated that any claim by Garst would be governed by US law. The dissenting arbitrator, Mr. Rokison QC, held that there was no intention that the ELP should, in respect of Garst, be governed by the law of Iowa. While it was the case that, had Garst brought proceedings against AZICL (保险人)

30、 in Iowa it was likely that the Iowa court would have applied the law of Iowa to the ELP, that was not a sufficient ground to conclude that the question of AZICLs liability to Garst should be determined by Iowa law.”。3 保险合约内的明示适用法条文在本章第1段有提到在2001年Insurance Law Regulations与1990年Contracts (Applicable

31、Law) Act，针对海上货物运输保险，这两个立法都允许保险合约的订约双方去选择明示适用法条文，只要它是合理的肯定。以下去探讨怎么样才算是合理肯定的明示适用法条文，毕竟在协会货物条文（Institute Cargo Clause）的第19条就是这样的条文。3.1 合理肯定的明示适用法条文会受到尊重在英国法律下，如果是有一条合理肯定的明示适用法条文，是肯定会受到尊重。即使是明示适用法与保险合约没有实际的关系，也一样受到尊重：Anderson v. Equitable Assurance Co. of the United States (1926) All ER 93。这也可以随手去节录先例Ak

32、ai v. Peoples Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 1 Lloyds Rep. 90，Thomas大法官是这样说：“It is clear that the parties to the insurance policy bargained for English law. This Court should therefore give effect to that intention, unless it would be contrary to English public policy (which includes international public

33、 policy) to give effect to the enforcement of the jurisdiction clause which is otherwise validIn this case, however, the Court is concerned with the enforceability of the parties freely chosen choice of law and jurisdiction in a credit insurance policy. In contracts of this kind betweencommercial en

34、terprises, there is no equivalent restriction in English law or Community law on the partys choice of law. Nor, in my judgment, are the provisions of Australian law which operated to restrict the parties choice of law and jurisdiction within the type of stipulation referred to by Lord Halsbury in Re

35、 Missouri Steamship Co. (1889) 42 Ch. D 321. It cannot be said that they are of a character that is anywhere near the ambit of the type of stipulation to which he referred.In my judgement therefore this Court should give effect to the bargain of the parties and their freely negotiated choice of law

36、and jurisdiction. It should not, as a matter of comity, give effect to the decision of the High Court that overrode that bargain and that choice.”。在协会货物条文（Institute Cargo Clause A/B/C），不论是1982年版本还是2009年版本都有了一条英国法律作为适用法的明示条文。在2009年版本，它是在第19条：“ This insurance is subject to English law and practice.”。如

37、果保险合约的MAR 91（它只有一条英国法院管辖权条文）去合并协会货物条文（包括适用法条文），这在英国法院是足够明确与肯定的条文去说明英国法与做法适用。在The “Prestrioka” (2003) 2 Lloyds Rep. 327，法院是支持协会货物条文这一条适用法条文，虽然它在保单中也去加了一条：“Notwithstanding anything contained herein or attached hereto to the country, it is understood and agreed that this insurance is subject to English

38、 law and practice only as to all questions of liability for and settlement of any and all claims arising under this Policy.”。另在美国的先例Javed v. British Airways plc (1993) 980 F.2d 1407，美国上诉庭也认为协会货物条文的适用法条文是不含糊与可以执行。在日本的海上货物运输保险合约，通常去合并协会货物条文，其中有适用法条文“subject to English law and usage as to liability for

39、 the adjustment and settlement of all and any claims”。在日本的先例Connor v. Nippon Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Ltd., Tokyo High Court Judgment of 9 February 2000，判去解释协会货物条文是要根据英国法。所以在船舶保险，由于投保的有关条文是协会船壳条文（Institute Hull Clause），有了类似的适用法条文，船壳保险人与船东有了争议，通常没什么好讲的，适用法就是英国法。但针对海上货物运输的保险，就比较复杂。首先是在订约自由下，双方当事人

40、即使是使用协会货物条文，也可以对适用法条文作出改变，例如把英国法改为中国法。虽然，这在现实中很少会出现。但另一个现实中的变数就是今天的海上货物保险往往不会是一个单独航次的保险（facultative insurance），而经常是通过开口/预约保单为每次付运的货物单独签发一张保险证明（certificate of insurance），这一来，协会货物条文充其量只是被合并去解释有关保险合约的承保范围等方面，较难去解释被合并的协会货物条文中的适用法条文适用在开口/预约保单与所有在开口保单下签发的保险证明。接下去的段节就去看看这方面的复杂情况。3.2 含糊不清与浮动适用法条文不被承认适用法条文只有

41、在非常罕见的情况下才会被否定，例如是写的含糊不清。在先例Cie. Tunisienne de Nav. v. Cie dArmement Maritime (1970) 2 Lloyds Rep. 99，有关的明示条文是：“This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the Flag of the Vessel carrying the goods”（船旗国家的法律是适用法）。但有关的合约关于争议的解决另有一条伦敦仲裁条文。合约实际上是一个COA，以多个航次运输35万吨的原油。由于承租人是法国公司，所以计划中是想去使用悬挂法国旗的船舶。但可以想

42、的到，如果该COA要去租用其他的船舶运输，例如是希腊旗与利比里亚旗，这适用法就会是更加混乱了。反正在该先例所争议的就是有关合约的适用法到底是英国法还是法国法。结果在该先例中，贵族院虽然最终是判法国法律是适用法，但有两位贵族院大法官认为该明示适用法条文因为太含糊而无效，同意法国法律默示适用是因为它是与该合约有最密切的关系。除了明示条文含糊不清之外，也会因其他原因被否定，例如是一条浮动适用法条文（floating proper law clause）。这就是一条约定了不止一个国家的法律适用的条文，而最终哪一个适用会是根据事后的变化或是其中一个当事人的选择。这会导致一个合约在履行开始时说不清楚到底是

43、哪个国家的法律适用，这种情况在英国法律下是不被接受，认为一个合约必须从头到尾有明示或者默示的稳定法律去适用而不能停留在真空内。在先例The “Iran Vojdan” (1984) 2 Lloyds Rep. 380，相关的条文是规定承运人可以去选择伊朗的法律与伊朗自己版本的海牙规则或者是德国法律与它自己版本的海牙规则，并且是选了哪个国家的法律就等于是选了哪个国家的管辖权。Bingham大法官描述该条文是“非常令人不满意”（extremely unattractive），说：“The proper law is something so fundamental to questions rel

44、ating to the formation, validity, interpretation and performance of a contract that it must in my judgment, be built into the fabric of the contract from the start and cannot float in an indeterminate way until finally determined at the option of one party. As I say, it is, as I understand, common g

45、round that as a matter of English law effect cannot be given to that part of this clause.”。在保险合约也有这种浮动适用法条文并且不被接受。例如在先例Heath Lambert v. Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros (2004) 1 Lloyds Rep. 495，案情是涉及了第一线保险人通过伦敦保险经纪人去向伦敦劳合社与保险公司投保再保险。这通常被视为是适用英国法律，也等同适用1906年英国海上保险法。但它有一条明示条文说是“Subject to Venezuelan L

46、aw and/or Venezuelan Jurisdiction if required.”。表面看来，如果有一方事后提出要求，就会令适用法从英国法律变为委内瑞拉的法律。这条文被Hirst大法官否定，认为是一条浮动适用法条文令合约的适用法无法肯定，说：“I consider that it is an unnatural construction of the policy to confine the effect of if required as he suggested. In my judgment, the clause gave the Venezuelan principal

47、 the option to demand Venezuelan law and/or jurisdiction. It was a so-called floating choice of law clause: see Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws (13th ed) at 32-084. I do not accept that just because the underlying insurance policy contained a Venezuelan arbitration clause or was, implicitly,

48、governed by Venezuelan law (if it was), that meant that Venezuelan law and/or jurisdiction had been required. It by no means follows, for instance, that Banesco as reassured would prefer to have the case decided by a Venezuelan judge, rather than by the Commercial Court in London, or that it would p

49、refer Venezuelan law to English law. This was an option to be exercised by Banesco. No such option was exercised during the currency of the policy or afterwards. Mr. Millett (委内瑞拉被告的代表大律师) contended that, if necessary, he could exercise it in argument before me. I am very doubtful whether this optio

50、n is still open so many years after the policy has expired, but if it were, the election would have to be communicated to underwriters. They were not before the Court.”。这方面的先例另有King v. Brandywine Reinsurance Co. (UK) Ltd. (2004) Lloyds Rep. IR 554与Craft Enterprises (International) v. Axa Insurance C

51、o. (2005) Lloyds Rep. IR 14。最后是一条明示适用法条文也会有受阻的争议，例如在双方约定之后有关的法律作出重大与根本性的改变。这种争议在先例Perry v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (1929) 45 TLR 468也曾经出现过。至于一条适用法条文由于公共政策的原因而被否定的话，这也仅仅是停留在理论的层面，英国至今也没有针对这方面的先例。3.3 合并另一个合约通常不包括该合约的适用法条文一个合约去合并另一个合约，在商业中是经常见的情况，这包括在海上货物保险。正如在第一章详细介绍过有关的做

52、法，就是通常在一个开口/预约保单中，去为个别的付运签发一份保险证明（certificate of insurance）。在保险证明中会提到开口/预约保单，甚至会去合并部分条文。关于条文去合并其他合约的法律/理论及具体情况的应用，在笔者所著装卸时间与滞期费第二章与提单及其付运单证第四章等都有介绍，其中一条重要原则就是泛泛的合并是不包括被合并合约中的附属性条文（ancillary clause）。能够合并的必须是直接有关联的内容或是属于主要内容（subject-matter）的部分。例如租约提单经常会去合并租约，泛泛的一条合并条文就把整份租约引进来适用在提单。可以说看到这份提单的人通常不会知道合并

53、进来的租约内容是什么，所以有必要去对合并条文作出比较局限的解释，否则会对提单的持有人或买方来说很不公道。所以，合并条文只能去引进提单合约主体或主要内容的事项，例如涉及货物运输、装卸与交付。因为如果不去引进来，提单合约由于欠缺这方面的条文也没有办法顺利履行，例如船东还是货方负责装卸？但租约内的仲裁条文、管辖权条文、时效条文等并非是必要而且是被视为附属性的条文就不包括在合并的范围内。合约的适用法条文也是属于附属性条文，不会给一条泛泛的合并条文去引进来。有关的保险案例有GAN Insurance Co. v. Tai Ping Insurance Co. (1999) Lloyds Rep. IR

54、472与Burrows v. Jamaica Private Power Co. Ltd. (2002) Lloyds Rep. IR 466。另是被合并进来的条文是不能与该合约的明示条文有冲突，否则以后者优先。上述所讲对海上货物保险的关系可以协会货物条文有一条明示的英国法适用条文（第19条）为例，它是不会因为开口/预约保单去合并了协会货物条文而去一并把英国法适用条文也引进。毕竟，开口/预约保单会是好像Evialis v. S.I.A.T (2003) 2 Lloyds Rep. 377先例一样，所有有关人士都是意大利公司，开口保单是意大利文（是一份名为Polizza Italiana的意大利

55、标准格式），保险合约的履行也主要是在意大利，等。可以说整个保险合约的重心（centre of gravity）全都是在意大利，只是去合并了协会货物条文。如果这样去合并就可以引进英国法适用条文，导致开口保单也等于有一条合理肯定的明示适用法条文，这恐怕不会是有关人士订约的意愿。事实上在该开口/预约保单，它本身就有一条意大利适用法条文（在Article 1的General Condition），令这一方面的问题更加是明确。但问题是在该开口保单所签发的一份保险证明，它并没有明示适用法条文，只去合并了协会货物条文。这一来在英国法院，原告的法国受保人（他是该批损坏货物的CIF买方，也是保险证明的持有人）争

56、议说是英国法适用，但意大利的保险人说是意大利法适用。而适用英国法或意大利发会对索赔时效有很大关系，因为受保人的索赔如果根据意大利航海法之Article 1457只有一年时效，而该时效已过。他们之间的争议可去节录该先例判决的有关部分：“Mr Morris (受保人代表大律师) seeks to establish the position under English law because he submits that English law is the governing law of the contract (and, no doubt, because he would say th

57、at, if the contract is governed by Italian law, English law should be applied in the absence of satisfactory evidence that Italian law differs from it). I shall have to consider in due course whether Mr Morris is correct in his submission as to the proper law. However, the insurers dispute the posit

58、ion under English law, arguing that the proper approach is to look at the open cover and the certificate together, both being contractual documents between the insurers and their insured, Ametra (意大利CIF卖方).”。在该先例，Smith大法官针对这一点是说：“However, this argument assumes that the clauses in type of the certifi

59、cate (as well as those in print) are governed by the words integrated as follows, and are not governed directly by the words, the following conditions, known to the parties. Mr. Morris (受保人代表大律师) disputes this, and so does not accept that insurers contention that the Institute Clauses (协会货物条文) are introduced into the cert