Thomas
Miller P&I Ltd
Managers of the UK P&I Club
Each week the major P&I clubs face situations where the arrest of a ship for a P&I claim is threatened, or a ship is actually arrested. The shipowner members of the Club expect help, and don’t wish to see vessel trading schedules disrupted. Fortunately, clubs routinely arrange security to lift or avoid arrests for P&I liabilities. Likewise, there is wide acceptance of club letters of undertaking (Club LOU’s) sometimes called Club Letters of Guarantees (Club LOG) to lift or avert arrests.
A club’s perspective on arrest is perhaps simplistic: clubs don’t like arrests, particularly surprise arrests, because arrests create inconvenience for the mutual members; nonetheless, helping Members avoid arrest-related delays is an important service of P&I Clubs. The service is highly valued by club members.
This paper will focus on the day-to-day mechanics of how and when a P&I club guarantee is issued. The insight into club operations should benefit;
(i) shipowners who need to understand the services and limitations of their clubs, and
(ii) potential claimants who should understand how clubs make decisions regarding security.
All clubs have individual guidelines for claims staff detailing the club’s procedures for posting security. The practices have developed over time, and have often received the explicit or tacit approval of the shipowner boards that actually control the P&I clubs. Leading clubs are today ISO certified in these procedures, particularly in light of the large amounts often involved.
The first core point
all parties should understand is that P&I clubs have no obligation to post
security to avoid to lift arrests, even where the club insured the liability for
which a ship is arrested. Providing
security is an optional service to insured shipowners.
As noted, though, P&I
clubs routinely provide security. While
there is no such thing as a universal ISO procedure for providing security, a
generic set of considerations answer the following questions:
The
ship concerned in the alleged incident must have been;
·
Entered
for the type of risk alleged, and
·
Entered
at the time the incident giving rise to the claim alleged.
As
discussed further below, P&I clubs do not expose mutual funds to financial
risks outside the scope of P&I insurance, such as overdue hire, unpaid ship
supplies, demurrage and similar commercial obligations of shipowners.
Likewise, P&I clubs do not secure the liabilities of other
underwriters, such as Hull & Machinery or Loss of Hire underwriters (subject
to counter-security practices noted below).
In
most events, determining whether a P&I club insured an owner at the point in
time when a liability allegedly arose is straightforward.
When a ship renews the P&I policy for a full year commencing 20th
February 2002 and cargo is allegedly damaged by seawater leaking through a hatch
cover on 20th March 2002, the
ship was clearly on risk. Security
may be provided.
At
times, however, questions arise. For
example, containerized cargo damage is often not discovered until the container
is opened. The container may have
had a 60-day voyage involving sea, rail and lorry carriage. If during the 60-day transit the owner moved the ship
to another P&I club actually covering the loss might not be readily
apparent.
Further,
it is important to separate the issues whether;
·
Whether
the ship was on risk? and
·
Whether
the claim has merit?
As
an example, a ship might be arrested for alleged dock damage in a port where the
vessel had never called. The
claim clearly has no merit. However,
if the ship was covered for FFO (Fixed and Floating Object) cover at the time,
actual dock damage liability would be covered.
In these circumstances, the P&I would usually help lift the arrest by
posting a Club LOU, and then help the owner aggressively defeat the allegations.
The
maintenance of Class and proper ISM Code compliance are fundamental requirements
of insurance in all P&I Clubs. Following a casualty, a club may seek confirmation these
requirements have been satisfied. There
are rarely delays while clubs seek this background information, and in practice
many LOU’s are issued without detailed review of the cause of an alleged loss.
Guarantees
are not given in anticipation of a claim. Such
“anticipatory guarantees” are not the club practice.
For example, if a cargo shipper asks for a guarantee prior to carriage in
hypothetical event of cargo damage, no club LOU will be forthcoming.
However,
there are a limited number of anticipatory guarantees the clubs offer in support
of international conventions, such as the Blue Card or certificate evidencing
insurance under the CLC oil pollution convention.
If
there is no real likelihood of an arrest of an asset, clubs will not generally
offer security. For example, after
a ship has been scrapped and no longer exits, clubs are unlikely to issue
security for claims aboard the vessel.
In such circumstances, there is no likelihood of an in rem action
against property.
This
does not mean the club will decline to indemnify the owner when the owner pays
any eventual claim flowing from a scrapped vessel. The validity of the P&I contract exists beyond the
physical life of the ship. The
possibility of arrest, however, may not survive the life of the ship.
That
said, there are circumstances in which claimants may seek security against other
assets belonging to the Member, e.g. insurance proceeds, or bunkers on board a
ship belonging to a time charter Member. Guarantees
may be issued following attachments of such assets.
The
Member's permission to provide security is needed as the Member may have good
commercial reasons for declining to provide security. Usually, the Members are
desperate to have the arrest lifted as soon as possible, so the agreement is
obvious. In other circumstances,
there may be no immediate time pressure for a vessel to depart, and both the
club and owner may have tactical or legal reasons to issue security at another
time.
Also,
the Rules of most clubs provide the Member must indemnify the club for losses
the club may incur by posting security. Hence,
if a Club LOU is issued for a liability not covered (for example because of a
misunderstanding early in the claim) an owner is obliged to indemnify the club
if it must pay out under the Club LOU.
Certainly
one of the first steps towards issuing security in any club is for the claims
executive to check for outstanding debts to the club. The debts might be deductibles, fees advanced, supplemental
calls or advance premiums. There
is a misconception in some quarters that clubs only pay attention to outstanding
premium calls. However, debts
of any type are of equal importance to a club prior to posting a Club LOU.
If
a Member has overdue payments, the Club will not provide security.
In terms of fairness to the overall membership, most owners would find it
unreasonable that an owner who fails to pay his obligations should benefit from
the exposure of club funds by way of an LOU.
Thus, insurance managers can avoid embarrassing delays to ships by making
sure payments due the P&I club are up to date.
If
the Member has a broker, and money is due the club, clubs generally will speak
to the Member's broker in order to check whether they have received the funds.
If funds are with the broker the club must receive them before security is
issued.
The
claimant will in most circumstances request a particular form of security.
Provided the club is in a position to give security, a Club LOU is
usually offered.
If
a Club LOU is not acceptable security for any particular reason, security may be
provided in one of the following ways:
·
directly
by a Club correspondent (counter-secured by the club);
·
indirectly
through a bank;
·
indirectly
by way of a bail bond;
·
indirectly
by way of another insurance company's bond;
·
directly
by way of a cash deposit or payment into court.
The
last category – cash deposit – is uncommon and generally avoided.
In some jurisdictions, a cash deposit is little more than an intermediate
step in transferring the cash to a claimant.
Clubs would often rather challenge the amount of the arrest in court.
The
most common circumstance where a cash deposit is made involve establishing
limitation funds. Establishing a
shipowner’s limitation fund can occur under, for example, the CLC oil
pollution convention or under general limitation of liability provisions such as
the 1997 (LLMC) Convention on Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims.
The
issue of acceptable security may be decided by a court ordering an arrest, or
may be negotiated with a claimant. Local
law may play a decisive role.
Claimants
often demand by way of security, highly inflated amounts in comparison with the
actual alleged loss or damage. If
the demand is unacceptably excessive it may be necessary to apply to the local
or other competent court to assess the proper amount of security to be provided.
Limitation of the member’s liability may be an issue, as well as the value of the ship. If the security demand exceeds the value of the ship it may be preferable not to provide the Guarantee, or to challenge in court the amount demanded.
The
Guarantee should be addressed to the party who has the right to make the claim
(title to sue).
Where
a solicitor is making the demand, the identity of his or her client must
ascertained and the security addressed to the client, care of, the solicitor.
If it is not possible to name the party who has title to sue, in cargo
claims, security may be provided to:
"The
owners of the cargo lately laden on board the mv [name of ship] and/or their
subrogated underwriters c/o [name of solicitors]".
Ship
Agents may demand security for a cargo claim, this is usually a demand for
counter-security or indemnity in respect of their own potential exposure to
cargo claimants or local authorities in accordance with the local law.
Again, security may be given if necessary, provided, the wording makes it
clear that the Member's and Club's liability to the agent, mirrors that which
the Member would have had to the original claimant.
The
contractual conditions of any security receive careful consideration,
particularly when security is being given through a correspondent or a bank, in
order to ensure that they are satisfactory.
As a general rule, the precise wording must be established before the
Guarantee is finally authorized.
In
particular, the following points receive attention:
The
security should always be limited to the Member's legal liability established by
agreement or, in case of disagreement, in accordance with the relevant law.
Club LOU wordings should limit payment to “final and unappealable”
determinations of courts.
The
issues of jurisdiction and applicable law are critical. It does not necessarily follow that the place of arrest or
threatened arrest should determine these points.
At the outset, a club would find posting security attractive where legal rights are properly tested and a liability established. There are jurisdictions where the amount of a guarantee or other security always equates to the final judgement. A guarantee, it must be remembered, is provided to test legal rights and as often seen from the shipowner’s perspective, to defeat a claim entirely.
Similarly both owners and
clubs may decline to provide security; on the basis it is better to immediately
settle an alleged claim, or to immediately test an issue in court.
Wherever
possible security should be given for a fixed amount that includes interest and
costs. An identified amount offers
certainty for the club issuing the security.
In
some circumstances the claimed amount may exceed the ship's limit of liability.
In that case, security restricting the Club's liability to the limitation
fund is given.
If,
however, this proves unacceptable to the claimants, security in excess of the
ship's limit of liability may be given, provided that specific reference
to the right of the Member to plead limitation, is reserved.
A typical form of words which is acceptable is:
"...
our liability under this Guarantee shall be limited to $ [amount] or to such sum
as the owners may be found to be entitled to limit their liability under [insert
the applicable law e.g. English] law whichever is the lesser".
Many
clubs are legally based in Bermuda, and will have enforcement clauses there.
Other clubs will have the site of their base, and in limited
circumstances other jurisdictions may be agreed.
Some
Guarantees include undertakings or warranties on such points as instructing
solicitors to enter an appearance, or confirmation that the ship was not demise
chartered at any material time.
For
example, some draft letters of undertaking include wording to the effect that:
"... we warrant that the ship was not demise chartered at any
material time...". As
clubs don’t own the ships, they can at best state:
"...we warrant that WE ARE INFORMED BY THE OWNERS THAT the ship was
not demise chartered at any material time..."
Clubs
will not agree to include undertakings or warranties that are not within their
direct knowledge or control.
There
are many different variations in wording dependent upon the nature of the claim,
the jurisdiction in which the arrest is threatened and the identity of the
claimant.
When
issuing a Guarantee there may well be a necessity to obtain counter security
from the member or other third parties. This
will be in respect of the uninsured element of the claim e.g. deductible, three
fourths of the collision risk or non-Club bail.
In most circumstances, a club letter of undertaking (Club LOU) is the fastest means for claimants to receive security, and the fastest means for an owner to have a ship released. Amongst professional cargo recovery agencies, a club’s word that it will post security still is enough. Thus, a club LOU often facilitates a same-day release of a ship, but more often permits both parties to avoid an actual arrest, and thus save costs.
Claimants accepting a club LOU can avoid the legal costs of an arrest, and avoid delays waiting for banks and courts to process matters. From the P&I clubs’ point of view, a bank guarantee often bears a commission rate of 0.25% – 1.0 % annually on the assured amount. Additionally many banks have a minimum commission charge and various fees such as amendment fees, set-up fees, administrative charges and so on.
Such fees can be
relatively significant in all claims, particularly large claims lasting many
years to resolve.
P&I clubs cannot use their funds to pay claims outside the scope of cover, so as noted above, they do not post security for un-insured claims. For example, if an insured excluded crew claims from the P&I policy, the club could not pay a crew claim. Likewise, the club cannot pay lost hire if a ship is unable to operate.
However, each Club may define circumstances when it can issue letters of undertaking for liabilities outside the scope of P&I insurance cover against adequate counter-security. When it will do so, and what constitutes adequate counter-security are often the key questions. However, the effect of a club receiving adequate counter-security is that club funds are not exposed.
For example, a shipowner may have 1/4 of his collision liability covered by the P&I club, and the remaining 3/4 covered by a commercial hull and machinery underwriter (often several). Because Club LOU’s can be rapidly issued and are widely accepted, a P&I club with only ¼ of the risk will frequently post security for 4/4 collision liability, against ¾ counter-security from the hull underwriter(s). Assuming the counter-security is adequate, the club is still only at risk for its ¼ of the liability.
As another example, a ship may be arrested for a disputed commercial debt, such as disputed hire or demurrage payments. An owner may seek P&I Club assistance, if the arrest occurs before a banking weekend or holiday. The club could post a Club LOU, against counter-security from the owner, such as a bank guarantee or often a cash deposit. However, owners almost always have some advance warning of arrest during commercial disputes. Hence, owners are most frequently and are advised to arrange security directly with claimants.
Sometimes ships are arrested by claimants who ultimately fail to prove a claim. Owners suffer delay and may face consequential commercial losses, such as missing a cancellation date for a future charterparty. Owners generally have no insurance covering commercial losses, and often wish to pursue the party making the wrongful arrest.
Whether an arrest is “wrongful” depends on local law. An arrest can be proper even where no claim is later proven. In most circumstances, a arrest is proper where it is authorised by a judge and based on factually correct information provided to a local court. Where the issue of wrongful arrest arises, the critical issue is whether the judge permitting the arrest was misled factually. If so, in some jurisdictions there may be recourse.
Defence cover – or legal costs insurance – may assist an owner by covering some of the legal costs in pursing such a claim.
One should not be misled by what may seem like the dry mechanics of posting a Club LOU. There is often true drama when a ship is arrested. Suddenly owners face loss of future fixtures, additional expenses in port, berth occupancy fees, extra pilot expenses, tides are missed, and so on. However, during the commotion, clubs run through the type of checklist stated above, and owners and claimants must be aware of this.
End
Thomas Miller Co., Ltd.
引言
海事担保是国内专业信用担保新兴的发展领域之一。海事担保不但包括海事诉讼担保，还包括海商领域涉及的各类海事债权担保，例如共同海损担保、船舶扣押担保等等。
传统的海事担保通常采取的形式是银行担保、或是保险公司/保赔协会出具的担保。这主要是由于海事纠纷具有涉案主体多而复杂、标的金额大、涉外性强等特点。因此为了保证海事担保的充分与可靠，海事担保的请求人通常要求被请求人提供资信良好的银行、保险公司/保赔协会方面出具的担保，这样的担保也比较容易为海事法院所接受。
然而，从实践来看，单纯依赖银行和保险公司的担保形式并不能完全满足海事担保实践对信用担保的需求。这一方面是由于商业化银行为企业提供担保往往是基于一种非常谨慎的原则，一旦当事人被要求比较严格的反担保或银行资金冻结时，对于惜时如金的航运业来说，银行担保的时效性就很值得怀疑；另一方面，对于保险人来说，除非明确担保的责任属于保险责任，否则保险人是不情愿，也没有义务为当事人提供担保的。对于那些境外银行、保险公司/保赔协会提供的担保，往往还面临担保人不履行保证义务时，担保申请人需要在担保签发地提起担保履约诉讼的问题。这也是很多当事人甚至海事法院不愿接受境外担保的原因。
在海事担保中引入专业信用担保可以充分发挥该形式担保控制、防范、分散风险能力强，操作模式灵活、服务对象广泛等特有优势，为海事纠纷中不能自己提供现金/实物担保、或者担保形式不能为境内担保申请方接受的当事人提供信用担保服务。
当然，专业信用担保服务进入海事领域还要特别关注风险防范问题。由于海运业本身是一个高风险的行业，担保机构进入这一领域务必在担保产品的设计过程中，充分考虑海运风险的特殊性，必要时引入专业的第三方海事咨询机构，通盘了解担保事件的背景和担保申请人的业务规模、市场信誉、履约能力等情况，为是否签发担保做决策参考。
中投保公司在近年的业务实践中，为跨入海事担保领域做了大量探索性的工作。其中与英国DEX保险公司、北京中英衡达海事顾问有限公司的合作，为国内专业信用担保在海事领域的应用迈出了成功的一步。
籍召开《2004中国担保论坛》的机会，我们邀请到UK保赔协会的Christopher
Brown先生提供了一篇关于保赔协会如何在船舶扣押时提供放船担保，保证其协会的会员船舶得以正常贸易的文章。正如上文所述，尽管绝大多数保赔协会均有雄厚的资金实力、非常好的偿付记录和信用等级，但由于所有国际保赔协会成员均在境外注册，其担保在中国境内的受接受程度一直存在疑问。这就为专业信用担保机构在海事领域的发展提供了一定的契机。
国际上主要的保赔协会每周都会面临针对保赔协会的扣船索赔风险。保赔协会的会员们（船东）希望得到帮助，不愿看到船期被打乱。幸运的是，保赔协会有一些固定的做法可以帮助解除扣船，比如保赔协会的放船担保就被业界广泛的接受。
保赔协会对扣船一事态度明确：扣船会导致不便，影响会员利益，毋庸直言，帮助会员避免扣船导致的船期延误，是保赔协会提供的重要服务内容，对于会员能够带来很好的效益。
本文着眼于保赔协会签发放船担保的时间和做法，了解这些会对以下各方有利：
(i)
需要了解保赔协会服务和权限的船东；
(ii)
潜在的索赔人也可以了解保赔协会的相关工作机制。
所有的保赔协会都有单独的提供担保的索赔操作手册。
这样的操作手册经过多年的修订，在实践中都会得到保赔协会董事会的明确认可或者默许。主要的保赔协会目前都对这些操作程序进行了ISO认证，特别是针对大金额索赔时。
尽管如此，保赔协会通常还是提供放船担保.。由于没有一个普遍适用的标准程序来 提供放船担保，下面的问题需要考虑：
在宣称事故中的当事轮必须：
·
投保了相应的险种
·
在宣称事故相应的保险期间内
如下所述， 保赔协会对于协会承保的范围外的财务风险，如：迟付租金、未付船舶供应款、滞期费和类似的船东的商业义务等，并无相应基金来承担。同样地，
保赔协会不承担其他保险人的责任。如船壳险、租金损失险（视下面所说的反担保实践）
大多数情况下，当责任产生时，确定船东是否是在保赔协会承保的时间内是很容易的，比如船东更新年度保单，从
2002年2月20号开始，
而货损宣称发生在2002年3月20号，很明显，船舶是在承保期内的。此时保赔协会可能会提供担保。
不过有些时候，也会产生一些问题。例如，集装箱货物的损坏直到开箱才会被发现。 集装箱货物有可能经历60天的海上、火车、拖车的运输，
如果在这60天中，船东把船舶转到了另一个保赔协会，此时如发生集装箱货物损失，责任归属就不太容易确定。
还有，以下也是决定提供担保与否的重点：
·
船舶是否处于风险中？
·
索赔是否真实？
比如，船舶可能会因碰撞码头而被扣船，尽管他可能根本没去过该港口，这种索赔完全不真实。但是，船舶在FFO条款下（碰撞固定与漂浮物），真实发生的码头碰撞，造成损失的，协会肯定是要赔的。而在错误扣船的情况下，
保赔协会通常也会及时提供协会担保放船
，并随后帮助船东抗辩索赔。
保持船级和ISM规章的符合，是各个保赔协会对投保船舶的基本要求。事故发生以后，保赔协会会再次确认这些要求有没有达到。在有这些背景资料的情况下，通常协会不会拖延。通常协会在签发保函时，对于宣称损失的实际原因，暂时不做详细的调查。
"可能发生的索赔”将不会得到担保。货物的运输人如果要对有可能发生的货物损失要求担保，没有一个保赔协会会同意签发保函。
也有例外，对于“可能发生的索赔”，保赔协会会应国际公约的要求签发保险证书。如CLC责任公约要求下的油污保险证书。
如果不存在真实的资产被扣押的可能性，通常协会是不会提供担保的。比如，如果船舶已经拆解，不复存在，在这种情况下，财产没有被留置的风险。
这并不意味着协会就会拒绝赔偿那些已拆船舶的船东真正支付了的赔款。 保险合约有效期长于船舶物理存在的日期是很正常的。然而，扣船却不应该在船舶已经拆解后发生
。
有时，尽管船东会员的船舶已经不复存在，但是索赔人会就会员的其他财产索要担保，比如，会员在期租合约下的船舶燃油、物料等。这时，协会有可能会签发担保函。
协会在船东会员要求时，才会安排担保。因为有时候，会员或许会因为商业原因不要求协会提供担保。通常，会员急于尽快放船，请协会出担保的要求是很显然的。在另外一些时候，或许船舶并没有开航的时间压力，
协会和会员出于战术和其他原因，会在另外的时间签发担保。
同样地，各个协会的规则都规定会员要为协会因为担保而受到的损失负责。比如，在会员面临索赔的早期，由于误解，导致协会签发了并非承保范围内的保函，而协会必须支付，那么，这个损失就要由会员承担。
所有的协会签发担保之前都要核实会员有无欠帐，欠帐有可能是欠缴保险费、预支费用、额外保险费等等。有人误解协会只对欠缴保险费感兴趣。实际上，各种未交费用对协会来讲都一样重要。
如果会员有欠帐，协会不会提供保函。对大家公平的是，会员不应该没有尽付款的义务而享受了协会的担保。
因此，随时检查会员的欠帐可以很好的避免在会员需要协会提供担保时，由于欠帐的原因导致放船被延误。
如果会员和协会的联系是通过一个中介，且欠帐款已打道中介帐户，协会应核实，在收到款之前不签发担保。
索赔人常常都要求一个特殊格式的担保，但是，只要是协会担保，基本都是采用固定的协会保函格式。
如果因为某些原因，协会的保函没有被接受，那么可以有以下选择:
·
协会的通代出具保函（协会出反担保函）;
·
不直接地通过银行;
·
不直接地保证书;
·
不直接地通过另外的保险公司;
·
现金预存或直接汇到帐户上。.
最后的“现金存入”十分罕见，也应该极力避免。在某些判决中，现金预存就好比是直接把钱汇给了索赔人，协会通常会对现金数目寸土必争。
“现金预存”发生的情况通常是由于责任限制。船东责任限制会发生在CLC 责任公约
或
1997 LLMC 公约对于海运索赔的相关条款项下。
接受协会担保的决定可能由法院做出，也有可能是和索赔人协商来决定其接受与否。当地的法律会对此有规定。
索赔人通常都会要求数额大于其实际损失的担保。如果要求太过分，寻求当地和他地的有经验的法院来决定担保数额是必要的。
会员的责任限额有可能是船舶本身的价值。如果索赔数额超出船价，担保将不会被提供，或者需要法院来裁决担保数额。
担保应开给有权索赔的对象。要写详细名称。
当律师提出担保要求时，他的客户应该明确，担保函的对象应开给明确的人。如果在开保函时无法确定对方名字，在货损情况下，协会通常会写保函开给：
"某船（船名）装运货物之货主
和/或
其专署律师（名字）".
船舶代理有时会要求担保，以保证其在当地法律下避免由于货主索赔而带来的损失。如果需要，协会会同意出具此种担保，措辞会明确会员和协会对代理的责任，相当于会员对索赔人的责任。
担保函的条款应仔细考虑，特别是当担保函是通过通代或银行签发的时候，总的来说，在授权签发担保函之前，精确的措辞就应该准备好。
特别需要注意的几点是：
担保函的担保内容必须限定在会员的合同义务（双方同意时）或法定义务（双方不同意时）中。协会的担保函中的措辞应指明：担保函下的支付只在法院的最终判决生效时实现。
管辖权与适用法律是严格的义务.
并非一定由扣船或存在扣船风险的地方管辖。
开始，协会会认为在法律体系比较完善的地方提供担保是很吸引人的。可是，很多判决都出现同一种情况：提供的担保或其他保证的金额，最后都和法院判决的数字一致。我们应该明白，从船东的立场出发，提供担保是为了完全地击败索赔方，而并非是为了赔付。
在船东和协会能够迅速地和索赔方达成和解或法院可以迅速判决的情况下，协会都不愿意提供担保。
担保数额包括利息和费用应予以确定，以便协会安排担保。
有时索赔数额会高于会员的责任限制，此时，协会的担保函应明确协会责任限于会员责任限制的数额。
不过，如果这样不被索赔人接受的话，超过会员责任限制的担保函也可以签发，但是必须注明：会员保留申请责任限制的权利。文字可以这样写：:
"... 我们在此担保函下的责任限制于……美金 [数额] 或责任为……，同时船东在适用的法律下（如英国法），有权利申请责任限制。或者二者之间少的那个数额。”
许多协会法律基础在百募大，并有相关的执行条款于当地。
其他的协会也有类似做法，只有在有限的条件下，其他地域的管辖权可以被接受。
一些担保函包括了担保或保证：指定律师出庭、确定船舶在重要的时间内没有停租等。
例如，一些担保函的措辞写明“我们担保船舶在重要的时间内没有停租”，由于协会并不拥有船舶，所以最好写“我们保证：我们得到船东通知，船舶在重要的时间内没有停租”
。
对于其不了解和不能控制的事情，协会不会同意签发担保函。
由于索赔种类不同、管辖权不同、以及索赔人认知水平的不同，担保的格式和措辞会多种多样。
当协会签发担保时，最好从会员或第三方那里获得反担保。用于当索赔中出现不属于协会责任部分而导致协会赔付后的追偿，比如免赔额、3/4的碰撞责任、或非协会的保释金。
大多时候,
协会的保函是索赔人能拿到的最快的担保，船舶也能最快地解除扣押。对于大多数专业的收货人来说，协会提供的担保也就足够了。
因此，协会的保函通常能够作到当天放船，更多的是避免实际发生的扣船，
故能更好地节省费用。
索赔人接受协会的担保函可以避免扣船的法律费用，并避免等待银行和法院处理的时间延误的损失。在协会看来，银行通常收取年度担保金额的0.25% – 1.0 % 作为手续费，而且很多银行会有最低佣金、各种杂费，如附加费、管理费等。
这些费用在很多案子中占很大比例，特别是在大的索赔、拖得时间很长的索赔中。
协会不能对保险范围以外的索赔进行赔付，就象上面所说的，不能对未保险的部分签发保函。例如，如果船东会员没有投保船员索赔损失险，那么协会不会接受由船员而产生的索赔。同样地，协会不会对会员不再控制的船舶赔付租金损失。
不过，每一个协会都会承诺：在收到了令人满意的反担保的情况下，可以签发超过协会承保范围以外的担保。这时候，令人满意的反担保就是一个关键。就是说，令人满意的意思是协会的赔付基金无须动用。
比如，船东有1/4的碰撞责任由协会承保，剩下的3/4
由船壳险保险人承担。因为协会的保函会被快速的接受，通常协会会开出100%的保函，在得到了船壳险保险就3/4碰撞责任出具的令人满意的反担保的情况下。假设反担保确实令人满意，那么协会实际上还是只承担了1/4的原有责任。
另一个例子，船舶会被起诉关于商业债务或滞期费，如果扣船发生在银行休息日或假日，船东会来寻求协会的帮助。协会在收到船东的反担保后（如银行担保或现金担保），可以签发担保函。不过，船东总是面对商业纠纷、扣船风险，所以，船东更多的还是被要求直接和索赔人安排担保。
一些时候，索赔人申请扣船，最终被证明是完全错误的。船东会遭受延期的损失，以及随后的商业损失，比如错过了下一个租约的受载期。船东通常没有对商业损失投保，所以希望由造成损失的一方对于“错误扣船”负责。
究竟是否是
“错误扣船”，要看当地的法律。即使没有一个索赔最终被法院支持，一个扣船也有可能是正确的。因为大多时候，法官是基于提供给法院的事实信息做出的是否扣船的决定。即使有“错误扣船”发生，只要证明扣船是被提供的事实误导就没有问题。当然，这种情况下，会有追偿。
抗辩保险
– 或法律费用保险 – 会帮助船东来负担进行这种法律行动的费用。
人们不应把协会签发保函看作一件简单的事。当扣船发生时，一出大戏上演了。突然间船东面对未来的合约损失、港口的额外费用、额外的引水费、错过潮水等等问题。在这种混乱的时刻，协会还是要遵照上面的步骤来考虑保函的签发，船东和索赔人都应该对此有所了解。
结束
Return to
index page
Return to home page