1.3 加保可能会发生的风险的做法
或是针对一些会产生自然损耗造成货物重量减少，在保险合约中加入“短缺超过1%就要赔付”（“Covering All Risks, War Risks including shortage in weight but subject to an excess of one per cent of the whole shipment.”）：Coven SpA v Hong Kong Chinese Insurance Co (1999) Lloyd‘s Rep IR 565 (CA)。这是去假设1%损耗以下是肯定的损失，但超过1%的损耗就可能是由于一些难以说明/证明的外来因素所导致。
又或是在保险合约中加入―…against all risks of whatsoever nature and/or kind. Average irrespective of percentage. Including blowing of tins. Including inherent vice and hidden defect。‖：Biddle Sawyer & Co v Walter Peters (1957) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 339。
但保险人愿意接受承保货物的内在缺陷还是不代表他们愿意承保一个肯定会发生的损失（不论是受保人的货方知道与否），否则保费就与货物价值看齐，保险也就没有任何意义。所以这两者间的分水线在哪里还是经常会带来争议。这带来不少的案例如Dowell & Co Ltd v British Dominions General Insurance Co Ltd (1955) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 391与Soya G.m.b.H. v. White，等。会在本章的3段继续分析这些案例。
另外一种一切险不承保的是受保人的货方自己导致的损失，一方面这是一般的合约法的默示地位，另一方面是受保人的货方自己导致的损失例如是包装不足也是肯定会在运输途中产生的损失。
这些普通法的默示地位在1906年的《英国保险法》中已经有规定，这是在Section 55：
―55. Included and excluded losses
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and unless the policy otherwise provides, the insurer is liable for any loss proximately caused by a peril insured against, but, subject as aforesaid, he is not liable for any loss which is not proximately caused by a peril insured against.
(2) In particular -
(a) The insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to the wilful misconduct of the assured, but, unless the policy otherwise provides, he is liable for any loss proximately caused by a peril insured against, even though the loss would not have happened but for the misconduct or negligence of the master or crew;
(b) Unless the policy otherwise provides, the insurer on ship or goods is not liable for any loss proximately caused by delay, although the delay be caused by a peril insured against;
(c) Unless the policy otherwise provides, the insurer is not liable for ordinary wear and tear, ordinary leakage and breakage, inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured, or for any loss proximately caused by rats or vermin, or for any injury to machinery not proximately caused by maritime perils.。‖
这样看，根据贵族院的先例British & Foreign Marine Insurance Company Limited v Gaunt (1921) 2 AC 41，保险合约中的用词“一切险”是不足以超越1906年《英国海上保险法》Section 55(b)&(c)中的不承保风险，如内在缺陷，虽然立法条文是允许订约自由去把该默示地位超越。
2 一切险的举证责任
一切险是最普遍被使用的货物保险条文，对货方的好处是不需要去证明损失是由于什么列名的承保风险所导致，这是与船舶保险（通常只是承保列名风险，特别是伦敦保险市场）最不一样的地方。货方由于不控制运输，只是把货物交给承运人或船东，所以要他们举证的话的确是十分困难或者是不可能的。对保险人而言，由于货方不控制运输，所以也不需要担心他们会搞破坏，因此也会愿意承保一切险，不需要受保人的货方在要求赔付的时候有太多举证的责任。
2.1 列名风险的受保人举证责任先例：The “Popi M”
针对一切险，货方的举证责任很轻微。不像列名风险下受保人有责任去根据平衡可能性的原则去证明是哪一个列名风险所导致的损失，如果受保人无法做到，例如是没办法解释的原因（unexplained cause）, 索赔就不会成功：The ―Popi M‖(1985) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 1 (HL)。相比之下，一切险的保险合约下发生无法解释原因所造成的损失，只要根据平衡可能性的原则应该是意外造成的，但什么原因就不知道，就已经足够去要求赔付：Theodorou v Chester (1951) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep 204。这里可以去简单介绍The ―Popi M‖的贵族院先例，说明举证责任的不同分配会带来的不同后果，虽然该先例是船舶保险而不是货物保险。在1978年
8月5日，Popi M轮在地中海非常深水的地方沉没，当时天气良好与海上没有风浪。沉没的原因是突然之间有大量海水从船底进入机舱，而最终导致沉没。船东向保险人提出索赔，指称该船舶是由于海上风险或船员疏忽所导致。保险人抗拒的理由就是说船舶的沉没是由于船舶的内在缺陷（例如是钢板腐烂导致，因为它是一艘老龄船），而针对船员疏忽保险人指船东没有说到底是什么疏忽导致船舶沉没。因为船东有举证责任说明到底是什么列名明显导致，所以船东依赖专家意见证据，说第一个可能的海上风险就去说明海上风险会是与没有在海图上标明的水底礁石碰撞，但这很快就连船东自己都接受是站不住脚，因为出事的水域是很多船只航行的惯常通道并且海水是很深。船东第二个可能的海上风险就是船舶碰上了水中的浮木或者是半浮沉的集装箱，但这种可能性也很快被排除，因为船舶在前行的过程中只会用船头把浮木或其他物体向两边推开，顶多也就是船头受损而不会是机舱部位受损。这一来，船东只剩下了第三个可能的海上风险，就是船底的机舱部位是被上浮的潜水艇撞到。这也是可能，船东提供证据给英国法院的证据就是在过去的10年此类的事故是发生了6宗。因为苏联海军会有海军在这海域活动，船东为此还曾经写信去苏联的海军询问―你们是否有潜艇撞到我的船‖之类，当然苏联对这种军事机密是不会理睬他。这表示在一审的时候Bingham大法官就要根据双方提供的证据（主要是专家意见证据）取决定到底是由于保险人所说的钢板腐烂导致（等于是自然损耗）或是船舶碰上了潜水艇。Bingham大法官在听取了双方的专家意见后，最终判定不可能是由于钢板腐烂导致。原因包括是金属疲劳导致裂缝是需要长时间造成，事前不应该没有任何征兆；上一个航次遇到很坏的天气都没有出问题，在本航次天气状况良好的情况下是不应该出这种问题；而这种大面积的突然进水很快导致船舶沉没应该是由外来的撞击造成，等等。结果Bingham大法官认为是双方提出的两种解释，还是船舶与不知名的潜水艇相撞比较可以接受，说：―although the submission by the plaintiff‘s that the cause of water entering the vessel was contact by the vessel with a moving submerged object, i.e., a submarine, was inherently improbable, on the balance of probabilities that explanation would be accepted and since such a collision with a submarine fell within the policy cover against perils of the sea, the plaintiffs succeeded against each defendant for his proportionate share of the insured value of the vessel.‖
但这案件去了贵族院后被推翻，认为Bingham大法官错误以为他只有两种选择，要么是保险人的解释，要么是船东给的解释。而实际上应该还有第三种选择，也就是正确的选择。这就是在双方都没有办法给出令人满意的解释时，就判是谁有举证责任谁就败诉。Brandon大法官说：―That third possible solution would have been to say that he was left in doubt as to the proximate cause of the ship‘s loss, and that, in those circumstances, the shipowners‘ action should be dismissed on the simple ground that they had not discharged the burden of proof
which lay upon them.‖
从上述先例就可以看出举证责任的重要性，可以说如果同样的情况在投保一切险的海上货物运输保险，货方只需要证明货物是意外造成了损失或损坏。这应该是很明显，总不能是说船舶突然沉没了还不是意外（accidental）。这一来保险人不想赔，就有举证责任去证明该损失是由保险合约内的除外风险（例如是协会货物条文[一切险]的第6条的战争险）导致。
2.2一切险货物保险举证先例：British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co Ltd. v. Gaunt
有关受保人货方的举证责任，可以介绍著名的先例是贵族院的British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co Ltd. v. Gaunt (1912) 2 AC 41。案情是有关一批羊毛货物，投保的是一切险从Patagonia到Punta Arenas，再直航去欧洲。有一些羊毛在装船之前已经浸水，但浸水的原因根本没有人知道。诉讼中的争议是到底是不是一个事故引致该损失的，这就涉及“意外”（accident/fortuity）的问题，因为没有任何意外性的话就不属于保险的范围。贵族院判货方胜诉，理由是浸水本身就不是一个在通常运输中可以预见会发生的事情，所以可以去推断是由于一些事故与不正常的情况所导致。其中Birkenhead勋爵说：
―The damage proved was such as did not occur and could not be expected to occur in the course of a normal transit. The inference remains, that it was due to some abnormal circumstance, some accident or casualty. We are, of course, to give effect to the rule that the plaintiff must establish his case that he must show that the loss comes within the terms of his policies; but where all risks are covered by the policy and not merely risks of a specified class or classes. The plaintiff discharges his special onus when he has proved that the loss was caused by some event covered by the general expression and he is not bound to go further to prove the exact nature of the accident or casualty which, in fact, occasioned his loss.‖
2.3 以往运输没有发生同类损坏作为证明是意外造成的先例：Noten B.V. v Harding
有些情况比方说是水湿(特别是海水)、火烧等，就其损坏的性质而言可以肯定或很可能是意外造成。但有些情况比方说发热、出汗等的内在缺陷，就比较难去界定是否意外造成。然而其中的一种界定办法就是看同样的一种货物在相似的情况下付运是否曾经发生类似的损坏。在Noten B.V. v Harding (1990) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 283，涉及的货物是牛皮工业手套，从印度运往荷兰，在卸货的时
候该票手套受潮、变色与发霉。有关的保险合约是一切险，但货方向保险人提出索赔时受到抗拒，说损坏是内在缺陷导致，并非在运输途中遇到意外所造成。货方以同样货物的以往运输并没有或很少发生类似的损坏作为证据，但不被法院所接受，因为没有提供其他航次的资料与证据，所以不知道是否可以作出比较。这表示货方如果以这种办法去举证的话一定要提供更全面的证据，才会有机会成功。上诉庭的Bingham大法官是这样说：
―I accept that if a number of consignments are made in closely comparable conditions, and goods suffer damage on one occasion or a minority of occasions only, it may be possible and right to infer that some fortuitous event has affected the goods on that occasion or those occasions. But it will only be safe to draw that inference if the conditions affecting each consignment are established to be comparable save in respect of the allegedly fortuitous event. In the present case—for reasons entirely understandable, having regard to the way the case developed—the evidential foundation of the argument was never laid. Only containers of gloves shipped during the monsoon season would appear to me to be relevant and in fact it seems that some other shipments—those made during the monsoon season of 1981—did suffer damage. But there was no evidence before the Court to establish the conditions in which either they or any other consignments were shipped and one cannot begin to assess whether the conditions were comparable or not.‖。
2.4 保险人以除外风险为由拒赔有举证责任
至于在一切险的保险中，如果保险人拒绝赔偿，认为是保险合约中其中的一项或多项列名除外风险适用，这一个举证责任是在保险人的头上。这里可以去节录Spinney‘s v. Royal Insurance (1980) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep.406先例中Mustill大法官所说的如下：
―In my judgment, the insurers cannot bring the clause into play simply by asserting that the loss was excluded by a particular exception, and challenging the insured to prove the contrary. They must produce evidence from which it can reasonably be argued that – (a) a state of affairs existed or an event occurred falling which an exception, and (b) the excepted peril directly or indirectly caused the loss. It is only when an arguable case of this nature is made out that the insured is required to disprove it.‖
3 无可避免损失之短缺