From 65438 to 0997, China's WK foreign trade company exported a batch of 500 boxes of canned goods to Hong Kong, and insured the insurance company against all risks according to CIF Hong Kong. However, because the bill of lading only indicates the name of the importer, but does not specify its address in detail, after the goods arrive in Hong Kong, the shipping company can't inform the importer to pick up the goods at the arrival site, nor contact the freight forwarder of WK Company, so it is decided to transport the goods back to Tianjin Xingang, the port of departure. On the way back, 229 boxes of cans were soaked in seawater because of water seepage on the ship. After the goods were shipped back to Xingang, WHHK did not unload the goods, but wrote down the detailed address of the importer on the ocean bill of lading and shipped them back to Hong Kong. After taking delivery, the importer found that the cans were rusted, so only 27 1 carton of rusted cans were extracted and the rest were shipped back to Xingang. WK foreign trade company found that the goods were rusty and filed a claim with the insurance company for compensation for the rust damage of 229 cases of goods. After investigation, the insurance company found that rust occurred on the second voyage, not on the first voyage. The insured did not insure the second voyage, which was not covered, and the insurance company refused to pay compensation.
Analysis:
It is justified for insurance companies to refuse to accompany them. The reason for this is the following：
(1) The insured accident is not covered by the insurance policy. In this case, the insured only insured the goods on the first voyage, but the goods suffered a risk loss on the second voyage from Hong Kong to Xingang. Even if it is insured against all risks, the insurance company is not responsible for compensation.
(2) The insured obviously violated the "principle of good faith" when making insurance claims. The insured claims from the insurer knowing that the loss caused by the voyage is not covered by insurance, with the purpose of transferring the loss of the goods to the insurer by taking advantage of the insurer's fault. Is this a violation? Quot "Good faith" principle, the insurer has the right to refuse the attached payment.