Only Negotiated Bank Sign On Reverse Of Marine Cargo Policy

dua · Post by **dua** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:45 am

dear all,
our situation as follows:
- As per LC stipulated: the cargo insurance policy and assignable, sign endorse in blank.
- The importer bought goods with CIF)
But the negotiated bank present docs with marine cargo policy:
- assured: the negotiated bank
the exporter

but only the negotiated bank sign on the reverse of the marine cargo policy.
there are discrepancies????
Can both of them can buy insurance and they must sign endorsed in blank?????

jmitra · Post by **jmitra** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:57 am

dear dua,

without looking at the insurance policy, it is difficult to say anything. however having two assured is not that unusual. in such cases the insurance policy generally includes a term which says that the first assured named therein can act on behalf of all other assured. im not a insurance expert but to me the policy is not discrepant.

regards

mitra

dua · Post by **dua** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:29 pm

thanks
but there are no information about the assured as you said on the marine cargo policy.
I think that if the remain assured not sign endorsed in blank, risks happen we have not been claimed for all damages.due to the Cargo Policy only assisgned by one assured, not both of them.
So there is completely decrepant.
Do you think so?

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:00 pm

Document is compliant.
For a short reference pls read ISBP
'An insurance document should be issued or endorsed so that the right to receive payment under it passes upon, or prior to, the release of the documents.'
If insurance document is to the order to the nominated/negotiating bank this party should be the one who can endorse the document so as the rights to pass upon.
Regards
Cristian

dua · Post by **dua** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:53 pm

can you show me items on ISBP clearly.

thanks

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:18 pm

Dear Dua,
I already stated in quotes the relevant point from art. 180 of ISBP.
regards
Cristian

dholat · Post by **dholat** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:24 pm

if i am not making a mistake, such insurance policy is know as composite / co-assured policy. each assured has their own right and is not affected by other's. therefore the policy should be acceptable. however i have never encountered such a policy.

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:38 pm

Dear Dua,
perhaps I had a wrong understanding of your document ,
Do you mean that beneficiary of policy is BOTH negotiating bank AND EXPORTER?
regards
C

dua · Post by **dua** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:02 pm

the issuing bank require insurrance policy is assignable and endorsed in blank.
But the negotiable bank presented the doc endorsed in blank by one part meanwhile the doc is bought by both exporter and the negotiable bank.
pls check and rpl.,
thanks

shahriar · Post by **shahriar** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:59 pm

dear dua,

i agree with dholat. to me the document is compliant

dua · Post by **dua** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:35 am

I don't agree
because, the right for ben' cargo policy is only assignable by the negotiated bank. If there are risks, the ben don't have the right to claim all (110%) value of goods.
meanwhile, the exporter not assignable the cargo policy under the percentage of the assured bought.,
I don't know how to understand ?
pls explain to me clearly.,
thanks

Only Negotiated Bank Sign On Reverse Of Marine Cargo Policy

Only Negotiated Bank Sign On Reverse Of Marine Cargo Policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy

Re: cargo policy