On The Establishment Of The Right Of Subrogation In Marine Cargo Transportation Insurance Under The CIF Term

In China’s foreign trade, large quantities of contracts for sale of goods are under the CIF price. Meanwhile, the disputes concerning insurance subrogation under the CIF term are of common occurrence, and in such cases the main issue is often about the existence of the right of subrogation.Through the case about cargo losses in the contract for carriage of goods by sea between the claimant the Guangdong Branch Company of People’s Insurance Company of China and the respondent Guangzhou Branch Company of Zhongcheng International Carriage Limited and others (hereinafter "the case"), this essay expounds the acquirement of right of subrogation in marine insurance under the CIF term.This essay consists of the preface, main text and the epilogue, and the main text can be further divided into five sections:Section I BasicsThis section provides some general knowledge about right of subrogation in the marine insurance, like the concept and legal rules of such right, the purpose and significance of subrogation system in marine insurance and constitutive requirements of the subrogation right.Section II Facts of the CaseIn this section, based on the facts of the case, the author puts forward that the core issue in the case is whether the insurer had acquired the right of subrogation. Specifically, the core issue can be divided into three propositions.Section III First Proposition:the relationship between the risks and the insurable interest.In this section, based on different arguments in academic field and the judicial practice over this topic, together with relevant documents, the author maintains that the existence of the insurable interest should be determined according to the actual loss. On this ground, the author further presents and comments the opinions on this problem by the initial trial court and the appellate court in the case. Section IV Second Proposition:whether the consignor suffering the actual loss enjoys the right of claim to the carrier.In this section, based on different arguments in academic field and the judicial practice over this topic, together with relevant documents, the author maintains that the consignor suffering the aetual loss enjoys the right of claim for damage compensation to the carrier. On this ground, the author further presents and comments the opinions on this problem by the initial trial court and the appellate court in the case.Section V Third Proposition:whether the insurance contract should be examined substantively.In this section, based on different arguments in academic field and the judicial practice over this topic, together with relevant judicial interpretations, the author maintains that in a case concerning the dispute of insurance subrogation, the contract for marine insurance should not be examined. On this ground, the author further presents and comments the opinions on this problem by the initial trial court and the appellate court in the case.