这一个课题在本章第1段有提到过，在这里会进一步解释。经常发生的一些货物短缺，很多时候只是属于一种纸面上的损失（paper loss）。换言之，由于不少货物例如原油或大宗货，都会有测量的困难与不准确。这经常导致装港与卸港的测量结果显示货物有短缺，但实际上航次中什么事都没发生过。在一般的货物保险，这种损失是不在承保范围内。除了1906年《英国海上保险法》之Section 55(2)(c)说明这种类似损失是不承保之外，普通法也有不少有关的案例。正如Atkins勋爵在De Monchy v. Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford & Another (1929) 34 Ll. L. Rep. 201 (HL) 中所说：―underwriters were insuring against casualties but not of arithmetic”（保险人承保的是意外损失而不是测算不准确）。
保险市场可以去专门加保这种属于无可避免的损失,例如是正常的泄漏（ordinary leakage）或正常的短量（ordinary loss in weight or volume），但这样加保也不是万无一失，以下可去介绍一些相关的案例。
3.1货物短缺案例之一：Dodwell & Co Limited v. British Dominions General Insurance Company Limited
在Dodwell & Co Limited v. British Dominions General Insurance Company Limited (1955) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 391 (该先例是在1918年4月9日宣判)先例，涉及了两批桶装油，从中国运去英国，分别是两艘不同的船舶，而途中都发生了泄漏。但这两票货的保险条文在加保部分都不是完全一样，第一票加保的是泄漏的风险（risk of leakage），但第二批加保在字面上就广泛了很多,措辞为“including risk of leakage from any cause whatever”。结果的判决是在前一票的货物，法院认为承保的只是因为海上运输带来的额外泄漏的风险。根据证据，法院认为是5%属于正常泄漏，但该票货最后泄漏是达到12%。所以保险人只负责5%到12%的差额。但第二票货，由于用字广泛，所以Bailhache 大法官判保险人都需要赔付（包括5%），说：“clearly includes all leakage to which these barrels of oil were subjected”所以万变不离其宗，都是应用合约的解释原理来解释保险条文。
3.2 货物短缺案例之二：Maigen & Co v. National Benefit Assurance Company
在Maigen & Co v. National Benefit Assurance Company (1922) 10 LL. L. Rep. 30 先例中 ，涉及了将大桶的红葡萄酒从Beaune运到伦敦，而保险合约有加保用字广泛的“leakage and breakage however caused irrespective of percentage”。保险人的争议是大桶不足够坚固，与红葡萄酒的泄漏是无可避免。但Grear大法官不同意，认为这些大桶是足够坚固而泄漏是由于航次中的其他事故。但最后的判决中还是减除了一些他视为是正常的损失（normal loss）。这样看来，Grear大法官本质还是支持无可避免的损失还是不需赔付，虽然加保的用词是很广泛。
3.3 货物短缺案例之三：Monchy v. Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford & Another
在Monchy v. Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford & Another (1929) 34 Ll. L. Rep. 201(HL)先例，案情是有关一票松节油（turpentine）从美国佛罗里达去荷兰鹿特丹，保险是加保了超过1%的泄漏“leakage from any cause in excess of 1%”。证据显示松节油很容易蒸发，可以在没有任何表面现象下大量泄漏。受保的货方认为把装货的重量与卸货的重量去比较后，然后重量的差额超出１％保险人就要赔。但保险人抗拒认为实质上没有真正的泄漏，完全是重量计算上的问题。贵族院判是应该有泄漏，而双方如果同意了一个百分比为正常的损失，这是有约束力的。Viscount Sumner是这样说：“when a percentage of normal waste is agreed to, it binds”。
另外Atkin勋爵也说：―… it appears to me that much physical loss is on a proper construction of the policy to be taken to be the result of leakage; and for any amount over 1% the assured will recover…There was therefore proved an actual physical loss, and the plaintiffs in the action are entitled to recover the excess over 1% of that actual physical loss.”
3.4 货物短缺案例之四：Coven SPA v. Hong Kong Chinese Insurance Co.
在Coven SPA v. Hong Kong Chinese Insurance Co. (1998) EWCA Civ 1573先例，涉及一船的大豆，投保的是一切险条文，但它另加上了一条条文说超过1%的短缺才被承保（Shortage in weight but subject to an excess of 1% in the whole shipment）。结果在航次中，有一批货物的短缺大概有14%，双方接受这个短缺是由于测量上的错误所导致。作为受保人的货方要求保险人赔偿超过了1%的短缺，所依据的就是被加上去的条文。去了上诉庭，判决结果是货方的要求不被接受。Clarke大法官认为即使是加上了该条文，它本质上还是要求货物有损失或损坏。Clarke大法官认为无法接受双方约定保险合约的时候会有任何意图去承保一些从来不存在的货物（因为纸面损失就表示这部分货物根本没有装上船），而且货方也无法证明他对这部分货物有保险利益。上诉庭也没有说死对这种纸面损失肯定不能去投保，但若投保，显然双方所约定的承保风险恐怕要比现在使用的文字更加清楚才有希望成功。其中，Clarke大法官所讲可去节录如
下：
―I accept that it would be possible to insure against a measurement error and that there may indeed be commercial reasons why a receiver might want such cover, but it would be a most unusual type of marine cargo cover and clear terms would be required to effect it. This was essentially a marine cargo policy against loss of and damage to cargo. Moreover it provided cover in respect of beans which existed and not in respect of beans which did not exist. The insured would have no insurable interest in such goods as required by clause 11.1 of the Institute Clauses and the insurance attached from the time the goods left the warehouse or place of storage as provided by clause 8.1 of those clauses.‖
3.5 货物发热案例：Soya G..m.b.H. v. White
另一个贵族院先例也显示了货物的损失或损坏必须是可能会在运输途中发生的，包括很大的可能性。反之，如果是一定会发生，就根本不是保险了。这一个精神也完全适用在协会货物条文一切险。该先例就是Soya G.m.b.H. v. White (1983) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep 122，案情是有关大豆从印尼以CIF价格运去安特卫普与鹿特丹。在第一艘船舶―Teviotbank‖，船上运载的2,000吨大豆发热并造成损坏。这导致了被受保人对接下去的货物运输不敢怠慢，马上去保险市场加保了一种叫―Heating, Sweating and Spontaneous Combustion‖或简称HSSC险，所针对的就是货物发热、出汗与自燃的风险。由于1906年《英国海上保险法》第55 (2)(c)条规定除非保险合约另有规定，否则保险人不承保内在缺陷（也有译为―固有缺陷‖）或货物的本身属性造成的损失：―Unless the policy otherwise provides, the insurer is not liable for…inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured.‖。这表示即使是保一切险，如货物有发热、出汗与自燃的风险也要加保HSSC险。但即使加保了HSSC险，还是要求它带来的损失或损坏并不是一定会发生的。在Soya G..m.b.H. v. White案中，继―Teviotbank‖后的2个航次，第一批是5,500吨的大豆，船舶是―Corfu Island‖；第二批是3,200吨大豆，船舶是―Welsh City‖。但两批货物都有损坏，原因是货物发热。第一批所带来货物的损坏是12.5%，第二批是45%，总共损失金额高达73万美元。但保险人拒赔，其中一个最主要的理由就是这些货物在运输过程中一定会有这种损坏。根据双方专家证据，如果运输时的大豆水分含量低于某一个百分比的话，就不会发生这些发热的情况；但超出14%的话，并且针对有关的航次是45天与装货时的温度是摄氏30度，就一定会在航次中发热。在第一审，Lloyd大法官接受货方/受保人的专家证人所说的，就是水分含量在12%～14%的话，就是介于灰色地带，即在运输途中可能会发热也可能不会发热。而Lloyd大法官也根据证据（主要是根据一个在装货时的样品证明）判―Corfu Island‖与―Welsh City‖在装货的时候大豆水分含量是低
于13%，显示运输途中的发热并不是一定会发生，所以判保险人败诉。第一审的判决受到上诉庭与贵族院的支持。在贵族院Diplock勋爵并没有说死装货时的大豆水分高到发热现象一定会发生的时候可否获得赔付，但答案显然是明确的，Diplock勋爵说：
―In conclusion I should make it clear that since in your Lordship‘s House the concurrent findings of fact that the moisture content of the soya beans fell within a grey area was accepted so that deterioration from heat and sweat in the course of the voyage was not inevitable, it has not been necessary for your Lordships to consider whether the insurers would have been liable under HSSC policy if, unknown to the assured, the moisture content of the beans on shipment had been so high as to make such deterioration inevitable. On that question, on which we have heard no argument, I express no opinion.‖
这一个先例在上诉庭的时候，Donaldson大法官认为―无可避免的损失‖更准确地应被称为―预先知道肯定会发生的损失‖，反正在保险的范围外，除非写得十分清楚与文字上根本不可能有另一种解释，否则保险人极不可能愿意承保这些损失。他说：
―Inevitability of loss is not mentioned in s. 55 of the Marine Insurance Act, because it operates at a much more fundamental level than the rule that underwriters are only liable for losses proximately caused by perils insured against. Underwriters can rely upon inevitability of loss, because the whole concept of insurance is about risks, not certainties. In a sense the use of the term ?inevitability‘ misleads. In practical terms there is as much a risk if the inevitability of a loss is not known as if the loss itself may or may not occur. Overdue ships and cargo can be insured, notwithstanding that the whole basis of the insurance is that their loss may not only be inevitable, but already have occurred. I would therefore prefer to use the term ?known certainty‘ instead of ?inevitability‘. This has to be conjoined with the words ?of the loss or of the particular extent of the loss‘ to take account of the fact that in some cases the whole loss may be certain, but in others only part.
I regard this defence as stemming from the nature of a contract of insurance, although if the certainty of the loss is known to the assured and not to the underwriter, other defences will be open, e.g. fraud, non-disclosure or, possibly, loss by the act of the assured in knowingly exposing the subject matter to certain loss. However where the certainty of loss is known to both assured and underwriter, as for example is the case with cargoes which always lose some weight or volume in transit, other than that
insurance is about risks and not known certainties, it is difficult to see any basis for exemption from liability. This is not to say that known certain losses cannot be the subject matter of a contract of indemnity; merely that very clear words will be required since it is highly improbable contract for someone to make in the course of his business as an insurance underwriter.‖（加黑的是笔者的强调）
笔者估计通过十分清楚的文字来说明是承保即使是预先知道肯定会发生的损失，保险合约就会是在HSSC条文后多加一句说明：即使是预先知道肯定会发生的货物有发热、出汗与自燃，这也是被承保。
4 近因（proximate cause）
近因是保险法（甚至是社会上任何事情）一个非常重要的原则，因为事故导致的损失往往是有一连串的原因所造成，而这些不同的原因往往不是同时发生，而都是有先有后；而不同的原因对造成的损失所起的作用也会是很不同：有的原因可能直接导致了损失的发生，而有的原因只是导致了损失的扩大，有的原因可能只是对整个事故起到了很小的作用，等。而所有这些原因会是部分属于受保的列名风险(named risks)，部分原因则没有说明，有的原因甚至是被明确排除在承保的范围的―除外风险‖（excluded risks）。而在1906年《英国海上保险法》，在Section 55(1)是规定：―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.‖
要找出损失的近因，还不只是上述所介绍的到底近因是承保的的列名风险或者是除外风险，还涉及了近因到底是哪一个保险合约应该去赔付，例如是水险合约或者是战争险合约，因为它们是分开向不同的保险人投保的。而即使货物投保的是一切险（all risks），也存在这一个问题，因为一切险还是有一连串的除外风险，不论是在1906年《英国海上保险法》中默示的还是在保险合约中明示的（这是在第4条至第7条，在本书第四章详论）。这可以节录Potter大法官在The ―Aliza Glacial‖ (2002) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 421中所说的一段话：―Whenever an argument as to causation arises in respect of rival causes contended for under a policy of insurance, the first task of the Court is to look to see whether one of the causes is plainly the proximate cause of the loss.‖
要去找出近因是并不容易。例如，一个人的死亡，曾经在一个工业伤亡的案件中把他的出生也作为是一个原因：Coxe v. Employers Liability Assurance (1916.) 2 KB 629。显然，没有一个人的出生就不会有他的死亡，但显然将出生作为死亡