W: That interests me very much. I must confess that I was under the impression that W.P.A. insurance was quite sufficient and that losses due to breakage were covered. I know that F.P.A. insur- ance does not cover losses on consumer goods, but I did think that the W.P.A. in sur ance covered more risks than the F.P.A.

J: Actually it is like this. There is some difference between W.P.A. and F.P.A. The F.P.A. clause does not cover par tial loss of the nature of particular average, whereas the W.P.A. claus es cover such losses when they exceed a prearranged percentage. This is the only dif fer ence between W.P.A. and F.P.A. Otherwise, the protection under the F.P.A. clause will be al most identical with that of fered by the W.P.A. clause, because in the event of mari- time ac ci dents en coun tered in transit, such as stranding, fire, explosion or collision, both clauses will cov er particular average losses in full.

-- 王小姐，这是一个经常被人忽略的问题。这是个很普通却又是个 很错误的想法，那就是商人投保了“水渍险”，便以为足以保障其 利益不受损失。恐怕没别的错误比这个更有损他自己的利益的了。

-- 很有意思。我得承认，以往我总认为投保了“水渍险”就够了； 而且以为破碎引起的种种损失也包括在内。我知道“平安险”并 不包括消费品的种种损失，但我确实以 为“水渍险”比“平安 险”承保的范围更大。

-- 确实是这样。“水渍险”与“平安险”是有些不同。“平安险”条款 不包括单独海损性质的部分损失，而“水渍险”条款当超过事先 商定的百分比时，则包括此类损失。这是“水渍险”与“平安险”唯一不同之处。除此之外，“平安险”条款所承保的责任与 “水渍险”条款所承保的责任差不多相同。因为万一在运输途中遭遇海上意外事故，诸如搁浅、着火、爆炸或碰撞，这两种条款都全部赔偿单独海损的损失。

 

W: I don’t mean to annoy you, Mr. Jordan, but I don’t quite grasp this. Couldn’t you say it in simpler terms?

J: I’ll try. Neither the W.P.A. nor the F.P.A. mentions the risks covered or the risks excluded. The extent of in sur ance is stipulated in the basic policy form and in the various risks clauses. Look at the in sur ance certificates and you will find that the risks of theft and pilferage, freshwater, oil, grease, hooks, breakage, leakage, contamination, deterioration, etc. are specifically mentioned and must be specifically applied for. These are special risks. F.P.A. stands for free of Particular Average?while W. P. A. or W.A. stands for With Particular Average?