insurance document rejected using icc opinion

The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
Post Reply
Fajar
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:38 am
First Name: Fajar
Last Name: Manggala
Organization: Bank Sinarmas
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: jakarta

insurance document rejected using icc opinion

Post by Fajar » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:55 pm

Dear experts

i would like to know your opinion regarding this case:

LC ask for insurance policy/certificate made out to order of issuing bank

insurance policy mentioned "for account of : beneficiary" and mentioned "to order of issuing bank" also.

on the back side of insurance policy, contain beneficiary's stamp and sign, and statement "to the order of issuing bank"

Issuing bank reject the document with statement follows :

- insurance policy not made out to order of issuing bank (icc opinion ra778)

Is it valid discrepany?

Navi
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:17 pm
First Name: Olcay
Last Name: Özcan
Organization: Ziraat Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Turkey

Re: insurance document rejected using icc opinion

Post by Navi » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:31 pm

Hi,

In my opinion the wording "for account of..." may refer to "insured" unless there is no indication of another insured party on the document.

According to that opinion (R778), since the document seem to be endorsed by the insured, the document must be accepted.

other opinions appreaciated.

cristiand969
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
First Name: Cristian
Last Name: D.
Organization: Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: Romania

Re: insurance document rejected using icc opinion

Post by cristiand969 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:48 pm

It is worth mentioning that an ICC opinion is not binding upon any and every person who's using a letter of credit. An icc is not an extension of UCP or ISBP but a general view of ICC banking comission related to a particular case which shall in no case apply mutatis mutandis to other cases. Even DOCDEX decisions will not be applicable to the parties unles expressly agreed
As per DOCDEX rules : A Decision shall not be binding on any Claimant or Respondent unless each Claimant and Respondent agrees that the Decision shall be contractually binding upon them. Any such agreement shall be recorded on Forms 1 and 2.
As long as the policy clearly states to the order of issuing bank and is properly endorsed transferring in this way the rights of claim to the issuing bank, document is in order.

Fajar
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:38 am
First Name: Fajar
Last Name: Manggala
Organization: Bank Sinarmas
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: jakarta

Re: insurance document rejected using icc opinion

Post by Fajar » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:00 am

I already explained the issuing bank that the insurance document has been endorsed by the beneficiary and quote " to the order of issuing bank)on the back side of BL, however the issuing bank replied :
Quote

"In l/c field 46a requires insurance policy or certificate...made out to order of (issuing bank).by statement, the insured party could only be (issuing bank). However, your insurance document seems to be issued to beneficiary and endorsed"

in fact, the discrepancy could be explained by referring to the conclusion from the case 6 on icc opinion r778/ta688rev which fully explains about the clause 'to order of xyz bank' does not change the fact that the assured is stated to be beneficiary. If our lc required the insurance document to be blank endorsed then your document are considered to be complied with the lc requirement.

we believe there is no ambiguity and our agreement is legitimate enough. If you do not agree pls give us your clain againts it based on ucp600/isbp745/icc opinion
unquote

The issuing bank still insist on icc opinion, but i think even icc opinion r778/ta688rev does not talk about endorsement so the issuing bank's opinion is still debunkable.

Post Reply