Plaintiff insured, through a nominee, insured its registered ship against Defendant insurer for coastal inland waterway fishing ship insurance, and because the ship failed to pass the inspection visa, the nominee, in providing the insuring information, amended the date of the next inspection of the ship’s inspection certificate. The insurer issued an insurance policy stating that the insured category was all risks for coastal inland waterway fishing ships. During one of the voyages, the ship suffered damage to its parts and was unable to travel or be repaired. The insured immediately reported the incident to the insurer and the ship was towed back to port for repairs, incurring substantial towing and repair costs. As the insurer failed to pay, the insured filed an action before court to request the insurer to compensate for the loss suffered. The court held that (1) the accident involved was not covered by the insurance, because the insurance for coastal inland waterway fishing ships was a listed risk, and the damage to the parts of the ship involved did not fall within the scope of the listed risk, and belonged to the exclusion of liability expressly set out in the insurance terms—the failure of the machine itself. (2) The insurer had the right to apply for rescission of the insurance contract, because the insured knew that its agent had modified the next inspection time of the ship inspection certificate, which belonged to concealment of the true situation and concluded an insurance contract with the insurer, contrary to the insurer’s true intention of concluding an insurance contract, according to the Contract Law Article 54 Paragraph 2, the insurer had the right to request the People’s Court to change or rescind the insurance contract. After the insurer applied for rescission, it should refund the premium to the insured.