《保赔协会内部土产格式协议》(Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement，以下简称ICA)1970年首次制定和生效。在定期租船的情况下，由于船东的责任范围难以明确界定，ICA起草的初衷就是为了能够在货主和船东之间建立起一个在NYPE和ASBATIME等格式合同下，能迅速公平地分配责任比例的便捷货物索赔机制。ICA自1970年推出以后，共经历了两次修改。1984年第一次修改的主要目的是为了弥补ICA中提出索赔时时间限制的条款漏洞； 1996第二次修改的主要目是为了使ICA适应集装箱货物的运输，这次修改通过以下三点理顺了ICA条款之间的逻辑。
- 扩大ICA下货物索赔定义
- 适用于多式联运提单
- 修正诉讼时效，以适应汉堡规则的介入
1996年修改的ICA又被重新命名为保陪协会内部土产格式协议1996协议（Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996）（以下简称《1996协议》）。此后，ICA和《1996协议》都被广泛应用于海运市场中，达到其设计之初的简化索赔机制的目的。
然而，国际保陪协会集团的一些成员协会对使用《1996协议》而可能在获取担保问题上花费大量的时间和法律成本的问题发表了意见，他们认为，根据《1996协议》订立的精神，即协会间在更大程度的共同合作精神的基础上，花费是可以实质性减少的。
《1996协议》第四条规定：本协议下的责任分摊仅适用于下列货物索赔案：
(c)货物索赔已经妥善解决或和解，并且已经已经完成赔付
保赔协会集团（下称集团）的这一观点已经得到律师的确认，即完成赔付（根据《1996协议》第三款规定）成为保赔协会能否获得补偿的先决条件。也就是说，在没有实际完成赔付之前，任何一方没有权利起诉租船合同另一方，要求ICA合同相对方就货物索赔提供担保（例如，扣押船舶或者威胁扣押船舶或其它财产）。集团认为，这种状况是不令人满意的，并且导致了成员间不必要的，浪费的和高代价的争端。
因此，集团决定在《1996协议》中增加一个新担保条款，即：如果租船合同一方在《1996协议》第六条规定的时限内以书面形式要求另一方向货物索赔人提供担保，被请求提供担保的一方在提供担保的同时有权要求对方提供相应数额的反担保，无论双方是否根据本协议享有责任分配的权利。新的担保条款将成为《2011协议》中的第九条，其他的条款也略有修改，但是较《1996协议》没有实质性的更改。附件可以看到《2011协议》和《2011协议》较上一版本的更改内容（红色标注）。
《2011协议》自2011年9月1日起生效。
租船合同双方可以约定何种情况下并入《2011协议》：
- 除C款以外，不适用于2011年9月1日以前订立的租船合同，也不适用于前述租船合同引起的索赔，不管该索赔发生在2011年9月1日之前或之后。
- 适用于2011年9月1日及之后订立的租船合同，以及上述租船合同下产生的索赔，如果《2011协议》以以下任何一种方式并入租船合同：
- 具体参考《1996协议》(2011年9月修改版) 或
- 租船合同包含”参考ICA 1996’或者任何修改版本'”，或者类似 的文字
- 如果租船合同下的各方同意，通过比如追加的方式，《2011协议》可以并入2011年9月1日前订立的租船合同，并适用前述租船合同下引起的索赔。
尽管租船合同可以由双方约定并入《2011协议》，但是协会根据《2011协议》第二段，建议会员无论何种情况都要在所有的NYPE/ASBATIME格式租船合同中，适用《2011协议》。
而对于2011年9月1日以后订立的NYPE和ASBATIME格式的租船合同，协会建议会员明示并入《2011协议》。
所有的集团成员（十三大协会）已经签署了类似的声明。
如您有任何相关咨询，请跟我们联系！
详细信息请参阅附件。
Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 (as amended September 2011)
The Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement, which was first formulated and entered into by Clubs in 1970 (the ICA), provides a relatively simple mechanism whereby liability for cargo claims arising under New York Produce Exchange Form (NYPE) or Asbatime charterparties and / or contracts of carriage authorised under such charterparties, can be swiftly and fairly apportioned between Owners and Charterers. The purpose behind the development of the ICA was to avoid costly and protracted litigation.
The ICA, since its inception, has been amended on two occasions. The first in 1984 was to meet one particular shortcoming relating to the time limit for making claims. The second in 1996, whilst not deviating from the fundamental nature of the ICA, was more substantial and was introduced in particular to meet the needs of the container trade. It took the form of re-arranging the text in a more logical way and:
- broadened the definition of what constituted a Cargo Claim under the ICA
- included claims arising under through or combined transport bills of lading in certain defined circumstances
- amended the time bar provision to cater for the possibility that the Hamburg Rules might apply to a Cargo Claim
Following the 1996 amendment, the ICA was renamed the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 (the 1996 Agreement).
Both the ICA and the 1996 Agreement have worked well, been widely adopted by the maritime industry and have achieved their purpose.
However, Clubs, members of the International Group of P&I Clubs (the Group), have recently expressed concern about the time and costs associated with dealing with issues of and demands for security as between Owners and Charterers under the 1996 Agreement and felt that a greater degree of co-operation between Clubs (in the spirit of the 1996 Agreement), could substantially reduce such costs.
Clause (4) (c) of the 1996 Agreement provides: “(4) Apportionment under this Agreement shall only be applied to Cargo Claims where … (c) the claim has been properly settled or compromised and paid.”
The Group has taken the view, which Counsel has confirmed, that this provision makes payment of a Cargo Claim (as defined under clause (3) of the 1996 Agreement) a condition precedent to a right to indemnity. Accordingly in the absence of payment, no accrued cause of action crystallises and there is therefore no right, prior to payment, for the party sued in respect of a Cargo Claim to require that the other party to the charterparty, provide security (which could be sought, by for example, arresting or threatening to arrest a vessel or other property).The Group believes that this situation is unsatisfactory and has led to unnecessary, wasteful and costly disputes between Clubs.
The Group has therefore taken a decision to incorporate a new provision into the 1996 Agreement, which creates an entitlement to security on the basis of reciprocity, once one of the parties to a charterparty has put up security in respect of a Cargo Claim, provided that the time limits set out in clause 6 of the 1996 Agreement have been complied with (the Security Provision).
The amended 1996 Agreement, which has been named “Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 (as amended September 2011)” (the 2011 Agreement) is attached in non-track change and track change versions. The track changes record the amendments that have been made to the 1996 Agreement. The Security Provision has been incorporated into the 2011 Agreement as clause 9. As will be seen it has also been necessary to make a number of additional consequential but not substantive amendments to the 1996 Agreement.
The 2011 Agreement will take effect from 1st September 2011.
Contractually the 2011 Agreement:
- will not, subject to (c) below, apply to charterparties entered into prior to 1/9/11 or to claims arising under such charterparties whether such claims arise before or after 1/9/11.
- will apply to charterparties entered into on or after 1/9/11 and to claims arising under such charterparties if the 2011 Agreement is incorporated into such charterparties either by way of:
- a specific reference to the “ICA 1996 (as amended September 2011)”; or
- if the charterparty contains a reference to the ICA 1996 „or any amendments thereto‟ or similar wording
- can be incorporated into charterparties entered into before 1/9/11 and to claims arising under such charterparties if the parties to such charterparties agree that it should e.g. by way of an addendum to the charterparty.
Notwithstanding the contractual application of the 2011 Agreement, as set out in the preceeding paragraph, Clubs will nevertheless, in accordance with the second paragraph of the preamble to the 2011 Agreement, recommend to their members that they apply the 2011 Agreement to all NYPE / Asbatime charterparties and claims arising under such charterparties whenever entered into and whether or not they incorporate the 1996 Agreement or the 2011 Agreement.
The Club recommends that members specifically incorporate the 2011 Agreement into NYPE and Asbatime charterparties entered into on or after 1/9/11.
All Group Clubs have issued a similar Circular.
Should you have any enquiry, please feel free to contact with us. Thanks.
See attached file : West of England – Notice to Members No. 19 2011-2012.pdf
