馬來西亞吉隆坡——在不到五個月的時間裡，馬來西亞航空公司(Malaysia Airlines)遭遇了兩起飛機墜毀事件，這在航空保險市場引發震動——尤其是因為該公司保額高達22.5億美元（約合140億元人民幣）的全面責任保單中，不可思議地缺少了一項常規條款。這一條款通常會規定保險公司對搜救費用的賠償上限。
除了這些賠償之外，各保險公司目前還面臨著其他索賠，包括利比亞的主要機場遭到炮擊，20架飛機受損，以及
塔利班對巴基斯坦卡拉奇的機場發動的兩場致命性攻擊。
在過去五個月中，僅航空保險中的戰爭險這一險種，索賠金額就達到了大約6億美元，而這個險種每年的保費收入只有6500萬美元。
航空公司會購買多種保險。但主要的就是「全險」，這種保單涵蓋大多數與事故相關的開支，其中包括通常最大的開支：支付乘客近親索取的補償金。
以行業標準來看，馬航全面保單的賠償上限金額較高——每起事故最高賠償22.5億美元。因為馬航運營的飛機包括空中客車(Airbus)的A380機型，這種大型飛機能夠運載494名乘客，馬航希望保險可以充分覆蓋各種費用。
但三名了解保單的人表示，這份保單與常規的保單不同，它沒有單獨為搜救費用設定賠償上限——只設定了22.5億美元的總體上限。他們表示，並不清楚這一條款為何會缺失。
沒有單獨設定搜救費用的賠償上限意味着，如果馬來西亞和澳大利亞政府決定讓馬航承擔搜尋費用，哪怕只是一部分搜尋費用，馬航都可以索要數千萬美元，乃至高達數億美元的賠償。兩國政府為搜尋於3月8日消失的MH370航班花費了巨額資金。
知情人士表示，澳大利亞已經派代表團前往馬來西亞，討論分攤MH370搜尋費用的問題，並尋求保險公司賠付。這名知情人士要求匿名。
按照傳統，政府不會要求航空公司支付搜救費用。因此，航空公司一般不會要求保險公司承擔此類開支。保險公司只賠付所謂的商業費用，但合同中的確允許政府尋求賠償。
就MH370航班而言，澳大利亞政府向商業承包商支付了800萬澳元（約合4600萬元人民幣）對印度洋海底進行測繪，並還預留出6000萬澳元，用於僱傭承包商利用深海潛水器，在海底六萬平方公里的區域搜尋失蹤的飛機。
澳大利亞官員、馬來西亞官員，以及全面責任險的牽頭承保人德國安聯保險(Allianz)都拒絕置評。代表馬航就保單開展談判的保險經紀公司，總部位於倫敦的韋萊集團(Willis Group Holdings)也拒絕發表評論。
MH17墜機事件似乎讓戰爭險市場措手不及。保險公司通常禁止航空公司飛越危險區域，否則就取消保單，但大多數航空公司在此次墜機事件發生前，仍在飛越烏克蘭上空。事件發生前的一個月，飛越該區域的航班只減少了12%。
倫敦航空諮詢企業航升諮詢(Ascend)的事故與保險負責人保羅·海斯(Paul Hayes)說，「人們會認為，如果承保戰爭險的保險公司感覺存在風險，就會禁止航空公司飛越該區域，或者取消保單。」
與涵蓋搜救費用的整體保單相比，馬航的戰爭險保單有一個單獨的、金額更低的限額。與大多數航空保險的合同一樣，其中一個條款把關於這些開銷的索賠，限制到了保費總額的一小部分。
馬航戰爭險的牽頭承保人Atrium保險集團(The Atrium Underwriting Group)在聲明中稱，它在第一時間批准對MH17進行補償。世界最大的保險經紀公司之一，位於倫敦的怡安集團(Aon)周末表示，這架飛機的投保金額為9730萬美元，但是Atrium沒有核實這個金額。
根據戰爭險保單，Atrium為MH370的墜毀支付了一半的賠償金，因為理算員認定，雖然證據仍不確鑿，但有大量資料表明MH370的墜毀可能與飛行員的自殺或其他犯罪行為有關。戰爭險的賠付範圍也包括蓄意的惡意行為。
保險業高管透露，由安聯牽頭的保單支付了飛機成本的餘款，那架飛機的投保金額為1.002億美元。安聯只需承擔保單中9%的風險，其餘費用由其他保險公司分擔。
保險理算員同意了馬來西亞政府的意見，認為雖然沒有強有力的證據給予充分證明，但是MH370的消失有可能是故意所為。這是因為飛機在一小時的行程中，曾至少四次在受到良好操控的情況下改變航向，後來才向南飛越印度洋，直到最後耗盡燃油。最後的妥協是遵循其他先例達成的。在過去的事故中，也有過懷疑飛行員自殺，但最後未經證實的情況。
勞合社市場協會(Lloyd』s Market Association)保險負責人尼爾·史密斯(Neil Smith)說，「基本上由兩份保單承擔。」勞合社市場協會是一個包括勞合社(Lloyd』s of London)旗下保險公司的行業團體。
每年，航空公司的保費都會通過專門的過程來確定，保險公司會參與競標，以最低的保費提供最好的條款。目前已經更新保單的航空公司極少，馬航的也沒有。直到今年，馬航所支付的保險費還處在國際航空保險市場的最低水平，這是因為它旗下由波音和空客飛機組成的機群還相對年輕。
怡安集團的亞洲航空險經紀業務負責人加里·莫蘭(Gary Moran)說，「原本資金就不多的保費池已經完全用光了，人們預期當前針對機體的戰爭險費率很快就會重新評定，MH17事件，以及最近巴基斯坦和的黎波里發生的事件，很可能會結束航空險保費收入下降的現象，促使保險費用再度提高。」
航空業的許多租約和其他合同都要求對飛機投保。雖然最近發生了事故，但史密斯表示，航空公司仍然能買到保險，不過他不願意估測保費提高的可能性。
「如果沒有保險，」他說，「飛機就沒辦法飛了。」
Nicola Clark自巴黎對本文有報道貢獻。
翻譯：許欣、陳柳
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Malaysia Airlines’ two crashes in less than five months are sending tremors through the aviation insurance market — not least because the carrier’s $2.25 billion overall liability policy is mysteriously missing a standard phrase that usually limits insurers’ payments for search-and-rescue costs.
For just one category of aviation insurance — war risk insurance on the planes — estimated claims for incidents in the last five months now total up to $600 million for a sector that collects $65 million a year in premiums.
Airlines have many insurance policies. But the main one is an “all risk” policy that covers most crash-related expenses, including what is usually the biggest: paying for settlements with passengers’ next of kin.
Malaysia Airlines’ broader policy has a high cap by industry standards — $2.25 billion for each crash — because the carrier operates big Airbus A380s, each configured for 494 passengers, and it wanted ample coverage.
But the policy is unusual in that it does not have a separate sublimit for search-and-rescue costs — it is limited only by the overall $2.25 billion cap for the policy, three people with knowledge of the policy said. It is unclear why the clause was omitted, they said.
The absence of a sublimit for search-and-rescue costs means that Malaysia Airlines could seek reimbursement for tens of millions — and potentially hundreds of millions — of dollars in search costs if the Malaysian and Australian governments decide to bill the airline for even part of their considerable expenses in
looking for Flight 370, which vanished on March 8.
An Australian delegation has been sent to Malaysia to broach the question of sharing costs for the Flight 370 investigation and seeking insurance reimbursement, said people with knowledge of the visit and the insurance policy, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
By tradition, governments do not seek reimbursement from an airline for search-and-rescue costs. As a result, the airlines do not typically need to ask their insurers to cover these costs; the insurers cover only so-called commercial costs, though their contracts do allow governments to seek reimbursement.
In the case of Flight 370, the Australian government is paying 8 million Australian dollars, or $7.5 million, to commercial contractors for a survey of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and has set aside another 60 million Australian dollars to hire a contractor to tow deep-sea submersibles across 60,000 square kilometers of the ocean floor to look for the missing plane.
Australian officials, Malaysian officials and the lead underwriter of the broad liability policy, Allianz of Germany, all declined to comment, as did the broker who negotiated the insurance policy on Malaysia Airlines’ behalf, the London-based Willis Group Holdings.
The crash of Flight 17 appears to have caught the war risk insurance market particularly by surprise. Insurers often prohibit airlines from flying across dangerous areas, or cancel their policies, but most carriers kept flying over Ukraine until the crash. The number of flights there dropped only 12 percent in the month leading up to it.
“One assumes that if the war risk underwriters thought there was any risk, they would have prohibited airlines from flying or canceled their policies,” said Paul Hayes, head of accidents and insurance at Ascend, an aviation consulting firm in London.
Malaysia Airlines’ war risk policy has a separate, much lower limit than the overall policy for claims for search-and-rescue costs. As in most aviation insurance contracts, a provision caps claims for these costs to a small percentage of the overall value of the policy.
The Atrium Underwriting Group, the lead underwriter for Malaysia Airlines’ war risk insurance, said in a statement that it had immediately approved payment for the loss of the aircraft in Flight 17. Aon, a London-based company that is one of the world’s largest insurance brokers, said over the weekend that the plane had been insured for $97.3 million, but Atrium did not confirm the value.
The crash of Flight 370 triggered a half-payment from Atrium under the war risk policy after adjusters concluded that there was a substantial but not ironclad case that the crash may have involved pilot suicide or other criminal action. War risk policies also cover deliberate, malicious acts.
The Allianz-led policy — Allianz itself has only 9 percent of the exposure, having shared the rest with other underwriters — paid the balance of the cost of that aircraft, which had been insured for $100.2 million, insurance executives said.
Insurance adjusters agreed with the Malaysian government there was a strong but not fully proved possibility that Flight 370 was lost because of deliberate action, given that the plane made a series of at least four well-executed turns over the course of an hour before heading south across the Indian Ocean until it apparently ran out of fuel. The final compromise followed a precedent in other cases in which pilot suicide was suspected but not proved.
“It was basically split between the two policies,” said Neil Smith, the head of underwriting at the Lloyd’s Market Association, a trade group composed of Lloyd’s of London insurance underwriters.
Airline insurance premiums are set through an annual process in which underwriters bid for which provider will offer the lowest premiums at the best terms. Few airlines’ policies have been renewed yet; Malaysia Airlines’ has not. Until this year, Malaysia Airlines paid some of the lowest insurance premiums in the global aviation market, because it had a fairly young fleet of Boeing and Airbus planes.
“With a shallow premium pool fully exhausted and an expectation of an immediate review of the current hull war premium rating, MH17 and incidents recently in Pakistan and Tripoli look likely to be the events that may halt the decline in aviation premium income and usher in the reintroduction of increases once again,” said Gary Moran, the head of Asia aviation brokerage for Aon.
Many leases and other contracts in the airline industry require carriers to be insured. Despite recent losses, Mr. Smith said, airlines were still able to obtain insurance, though he declined to speculate on the likelihood of increases in premiums.
“If it wasn’t available,” he said, “the airlines wouldn’t be able to fly.”
Nicola Clark contributed reporting from Paris.
沒有留言:
張貼留言