在颱風“巨爵”於2009年9月14 日侵襲香港後，社會上討論得最多的並不是食品的價格上升，而是究竟的士應否在9號颱風訊號掛起時向乘客加收額外費用。

9號颱風訊號掛出後，的士司機通常都會加收額外費用。這額外的費用，據說是用以補償的士車主及司機在惡劣天氣下提供服務所承受的額外風險。乘客可能都覺得這額外費用是公平的，及會當這費用是小費，因為在這惡劣天氣下大多數人都會停留家中，而的士司機卻仍然願意向乘客提供服務。但是，颱風“巨爵”過後，討論的話題似乎轉到究竟在颱風期間營運的的士，有沒有保險的保障。有些評論員及的士團體甚至猜測這額外費用是用來補償遇到颱風時可能會遭受的損失，因為據說在例如9號颱風訊號的惡劣天氣情況下，保險是無效的。

這是關於保險的一個有趣現象。當意外或災難發生後，保險經常成為舞台上的中心角色。相關的討論，例如什麼保險會被涉及，和有多少損失會由保險作出賠償等會此起彼落。從保險的公眾教育這角度看，這些討論都是好的。但是，這些討論亦讓我們看到公眾對保險存在著多少的誤解。

雖然，失去保險保障可以是加收額外費用的一個理據，但我會認為這額外費用是因為的士司機在惡劣天氣下仍然願意為有需要的乘客提供服務而支付的。我們多付一點，這並非不常見，例如在農曆新年假期時外出用膳。

回到保險保障這話題。當9號颱風訊號掛出後，是否保險保障就沒有了呢？快捷的回覆是:“不一定”，雖然很多的士司機會回答“是”。無論是私家車還是商用車例如的士，當9號颱風訊號掛起時，車輛如仍在路上行走汽車保險（第三者風險）條例所規定的第三者保險保障仍然有效。當的士在黑暗的角落轉彎時，有途人衝出過馬路因的士收掣不及而被撞倒，的士司機仍可能需為該途人的受傷負責。第三者人身受傷的保障是肯定有效的，如果司機需負上意外的責任，保險公司最終是要按單支付賠償的。這類意外時有發生，無論天氣是好是劣。

有問題的地方，可能在於的士的第三者財物損失保障這部份，或自車財物損失這部份，看的士是買了“三保”抑或“全保”而定。保戶應小心查閱，以確定是否有任何關於在惡劣天氣例如9號颱風時所引致的損失或損毀的特定的“除外責任”(exclusion) 。

如果的士在路上行走等候接載乘客時，被跌下的樹擊中而致的士受損，有關損毀在自車保障部份(Own Damage Section)是否可獲賠償？我個人的看法是:如果就惡劣天氣這方面保單沒有任何明述的“除外責任”，有關損失在扣除墊底費後應可獲得賠償。

保單條款中，唯一可能引起顧慮的是保戶需如同沒有保險保障般行事，一般保單都有此條款要求；換句話說，保險公司要求保戶要小心合理行事，不應因為買了保險而將自己置於危險的處境。如保戶被証實違反了此條保單條款，因意外而引致的損失／損毀不會得到保單的保障，保險公司甚至可根據“若干條款的廢止及追討權”(Avoidance of Certain Terms and Rights of Recovery)這條款行使其權利向保戶追討所有其因汽車保險（第三者風險）條例下而需支付的賠償款項。例如，在前述的例子中，如果的士司機已發現前面有危險及看見樹正在倒下來，但為尋求穿過倒樹並避開撞擊的剌激而仍然向前開車，那因而導致的車輛損毀將不會是保單保障的範圍。

故此，我的看法是，在颱風下的士的保險仍然有效，但當然的士車主及司機在惡劣天氣下營運時要適當地小心謹慎行事，而是否已經小心謹慎行事的舉証責任是在的士車主和司機身上。當購買保險時，買方向保險公司澄清保障範圍及條款是永遠對自己有益的。的士車主很有可能在惡劣天氣條件下仍然會向乘客提供服務，故向保險公司查詢在惡劣天氣下的保單保障範圍，實在是個很好的做法。

作者：　王鍾慧蓮 
香港專業教育學院柴灣分校工商管理系高級講師(Irene Wong, Chartered Insurance Practitioner, MBA, MScITE, FCII, ARe, FLMI)

(編者註：　王鍾慧蓮女士，Irene是資深保險業培訓和教學工作者，本身亦是英國特許保險學院資深院士，現於香港專業教育學院柴灣分校任教包括保險的課程，亦為香港保險學會董事（考試），於保險業有近二十年經驗。原文為英文稿件，中文為編輯翻譯。標題為編輯所加。為方便讀者理解，部份翻譯為意譯。翻譯文責由編輯自負。）

原文:

After Typhoon ‘Koppu’ hit Hong Kong on Sept 14 2009, the hottest topic discussed in town at the time was not about price hike in groceries but rather whether or not taxi should have imposed extra charge on commuters when typhoon 9 was up.

Taxi fare normally increases after typhoon signal 9 is hoisted. The extra charge is said to cover the extra risk assumed by the taxi owner and driver offering services under adverse weather condition. Commuters probably felt the extra was fair given everyone would have stayed home during such condition and would consider the extra as a gratitude for these drivers who are still prepared to provide service to them given such weather condition. However, the topic seemed after Typhoon ‘Koppu’ to have switched to whether or not there was insurance cover on taxis operating during a typhoon. It was even speculated by some commentators or the taxi community that the extra fare charged was to cover losses, if any, encountered during typhoon as it was suggested that insurance would become ineffective under adverse weather condition such as typhoon signal 9.

This is one of the interesting phenomena about insurance. It always takes centre stage whenever accidents or disasters happen. Discussions will carry on about what insurance is involved and to what extent the losses are covered by insurance etc. This kind of discussion is good from the perspective of public education on insurance. However, it also shows how much misunderstanding the public have about insurance.

Although the loss of insurance cover could be seen as a justification made up for extra fare, I would have thought that the extra should have been paid because these taxi drivers are still prepared to provide service to the needy commuters when the weather is so bad. It is not uncommon that we pay more e.g. when we dine out during Chinese New Year Holiday.

Back to the insurance cover. Is it true that insurance cover is gone when typhoon signal 9 is up? The quick answer is not a definite ‘no’ as conveyed by most taxi drivers. The third party insurance cover as required by the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risk) Ordinance is still there when a car is on the road when typhoon signal 9 is up, be it a private car or a commercial vehicle like a taxi. If a taxi whilst manoeuvring through a dark corner hit someone who dashed out from a side walk to cross the road and the taxi couldn’t stop in time, the taxi might be held liable for this man’s injury. The third party bodily injury cover is definitely on and the insurer will have to pick up the bill of compensation subsequently if the driver is liable. This kind of accident would have happened whether the weather is good or bad.

What probably in question is the taxi’s third party property damage cover or its own damage if the taxi is insured on a full third party cover or a comprehensive basis. Insured should check policy terms and conditions carefully to see if there is any specific exclusion on loss or damage arising during adverse weather condition such as typhoon signal 9. If a falling tree hit the taxi when it was driven on a road plying for passengers, will the damage caused by the falling tree be covered under the Own Damage section of the insurance? My personal view is the in the absence of any express exclusion on adverse weather, the damage subject to any excess applicable at the time is covered.

The only clause which might cause concern on insurance cover is the usual insurance requirement that the insured should act as if uninsured; in other words, this is requiring the insured to exercise reasonable care and the insured should not put himself in a dangerous situation because there is insurance. If an insured is proven to have in breach of such a condition, the policy cover is invalidated in so far as loss/damage arising out of the accident is concerned and the insurer might even exercise its right under the ‘Avoidance of Certain Terms and Right of Recovery Against the Insured’ to recover any claim payment that it might have been required to pay under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risk) Ordinance from the insured. If, e.g., in the earlier example the driver has noticed that there is a danger ahead seeing a tree falling and still driver on just to experience the thrill in avoiding the hit, any car damage so caused is not intended to be within the cover of the policy.

Therefore, my view is that the taxi’s insurance is still in force when in typhoon, but of course the taxi owner and taxi driver should exercise due care when operating under such adverse weather condition and the burden of proof that care has been exercised is on the taxi owner and driver. It is always in the interest of an insurance buyer to clarify covers with the insurer when he arranges the cover. Cover under adverse weather condition is a good question to be raised by taxi owner who is likely to continue to serve commuters in such weather condition.

By Irene Wong, Chartered Insurance Practitioner, MBA, MScITE, FCII, ARe, FLMI