• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Ship Management International >To be joint assured or not to be - that is the question
【24h】

To be joint assured or not to be - that is the question

机译：是共同保证还是不共同保证-这就是问题所在

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

It is a condition of ITIC's insurance for ship managers that they are named as a joint assured on all insurances taken out in respect of any ship under their management. Why is this? Not naming a third-party ship manager as a joint assured on the vessel's insurances is, according to BIMCO, 'A highly dangerous practice that may leave ship managers exposed to large claims ... for which they may be uninsured." It is therefore surprising that some insurers (particularly in the Japanese insurance and superyacht markets) continue to refuse to the name the manager as a joint assured. A manager should never agree to this. When you are the manager, you effectively become the operator of the vessel under the ISM Code and so you are exposed to the same risks as if you were the owner. It is vital, therefore, to have the same protection as the owner. Third-party managers could feasibly take out their own insurance covering the operational exposure of the vessel, but the cost would be disproportionate compared to the management fees earned.
机译：ITIC为船舶管理人提供的保险的条件是，他们必须被指定为在其所管理的任何船舶上购买的所有保险的共同保险人。为什么是这样？根据BIMCO的说法，没有将第三方船舶管理人指定为船舶保险的共同保险人，“这是一种非常危险的做法，可能使船舶管理人面临大额索赔……他们可能未投保。”令人惊讶的是，一些保险公司（尤其是在日本的保险和超级游艇市场）继续拒绝将经理人称为共同保险人。经理人绝对不能同意这一点。当您是经理人时，您实际上就成为了该船的经营者ISM规则，因此您面临与拥有人相同的风险。因此，拥有与拥有人相同的保护至关重要。第三方经理可以切实地购买自己的保险，以承担船舶，但与赚取的管理费相比，成本会不成比例。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号