Defendant insure and Plaintiff first compensation insurer’s successively issued insurance policies for the welded pipes loaded on the deck of M.V. “NASCO GEM”. The insured persons, insurance subjects and insurance amounts of the two insurances were consistent. The insured discovered damage to the goods at the port of discharge, filed a claim with the shipowner and charterer, and promptly informed the two insurers of the situation of the goods being damaged. Plaintiff first compensation insurer entrusted the appraisal company to inspect and found that the cause of the damage was improper stowage, as the insured goods were squeezed by the goods above. The insured issued a compensation receipt to Plaintiff first compensation insurer, and subsequently Plaintiff first compensation insurer paid the insurance compensation. Defendant insurer urged the insured the following year for the charter party and the subrogation authorization letter issued by the insured, but was rejected by the insured. Defendant insurer refused Plaintiff first compensation insurer’s request to share 50% of the insurance compensation and inspection fee on the grounds that the insured violated the policy obligations, so Plaintiff first compensation insurer filed an action. The court held that (1) Plaintiff first compensation insurer had the right to file an action against Defendant insurer for duplicate insurance allocation, as the insured persons, insurance subjects, insurance interests and underwriting risks of the two insurance contracts were the same, and both insurance contracts were full insurance, constituting duplicate insurance, and Plaintiff first compensation insurer already made compensation in advance. (2) Plaintiff first compensation insurer’s claim for duplicate insurance allocation should be established. Because it was reasonable for Plaintiff first compensation insurer to provide full compensation when the insured requested compensation from it; Defendant insurer was also liable for compensation to the insured under their insurance contract, even if the insured did not inform the situation of double insurance, but they were not double compensated, which did not affect the effectiveness of the insurance contract; amount of compensation paid by Plaintiff first compensation insurer exceeded its liability for compensation. (3) Defendant insurer did not prove that Plaintiff first compensation insurer had received compensation from a third party, nor did they prove that their own subrogation rights had been damaged. Plaintiff first compensation insurer’s right to claim duplicate insurance contribution should not be affected. (4) Therefore, according to the ratio of the insured amount to the total insured amount, Plaintiff first compensation insurer had the right to claim an additional 50% of the insurance compensation and corresponding interest from Defendant insurer. However, Plaintiff first compensation insurer’s request for Defendant insurer to share 50% of the inspection fee could not be supported, as this was the normal operating cost it should bear.