In the Hong Kong case of Kam Hing Trading v PICC & MST(HK), Kam Hing acting through its broker MST(HK) purchased an open cargo insurance cover from PICC which included the Institute Classification Clause (ICC /01).
The cargo was lost during the voyage and PICC repudiated liability on the grounds the vessel was not an approved vessel within the Institute Classification Clause. Kam Hing argued that MST was under a duty to ensure that they understood all the insurance terms and that had they known of the implications of the Institute Classification Clause, they would not have arranged for shipment of the cargo on such a non approved vessel.
It was held that as the insurance brokers were not asked by Kam Hing to advise further on the terms of the Institute Classification Clause (which was a customary standard clause) and the insurance brokers could not be expected to know which terms of the quote their client did not understand, the insurance brokers were held not liable.
It is therefore important for insurance brokers to highlight any special terms of the quote and to ensure the client understands such terms. Further it is important for the client/assured to ensure he reads the terms of the quote and seeks clarification from the broker if necessary.
In another case William Jackson & Sons v Oughtred & Harrison, it was held the broker’s duty to advise was lower where the assured / client had attained a higher level of sophistication.
保险经纪人的法律责任
在 Kam Hing Trading v PICC & MST(HK) 这个案子里，Kam Hing 通过他的保险经纪人 MST（HK）向PICC 购买了货物预约保险，其中包含了伦敦保险协会的船级条款（ICC/01）。货物在航行过程中灭失，但是PICC认为承运该货物的船舶不属于伦敦保险协会的船级条款下被认可的船舶，因而拒绝赔付。Kam Hing方面认为保险经纪人MST（HK）有义务确保Kam Hing (被保险人) 理解所有保险条款的内容，如果他们事先知道伦敦保险协会的船级条款的含义，就不会安排一艘未经认可的船舶来承运该货物。法院认为，保险经纪人没有责任。因为 Kam Hing 没有要求保险经纪人对该条款（作为国际通用的标准条款）的具体内容进行解释，保险经纪人不可能知道客户（被保险人）不了解哪一项条款。
因此保险经纪人需要特别注意，向客户说明报价中可能包含的一些特殊的条款，并确保客户理解这些条款的内容。同时，客户（被保险人）也需要确保自己理解报价中各个条款的内容，如有不确定的地方，应及时咨询保险经纪人。
在另外一个案子 William Jackson & Sons v Oughtred & Harrison 中，虽然被保险人方面提供了非常丰富的论据，但是法院认定经纪人所应承担的说明义务的程度更低。
