Best Trade Solution

Hi All,
We have known that if an insurance certificate requires a coutersign by the assured then it must be signed to establish the valid.
Para.38 ISBP states that a signature is not necessary to be signed at a box or place for it.
From this suggested answer related to endosement in FAQ of Gary

There is no requirement that an endorsement must be made on the reverse or back side of a document. An endorsement on the front of a document would have equal effect

Can i infer that a countersign can be done on the back of insurance certificate ?
A Countersign or an endosement is basical also a signature even their functions are diffrent i think.
.
If the presented insurance certificate only contains a stamp and signature of the assured on the back side, and lack of a coutersign of the assued at its place on reverse side. Then you usually raise the discrepancy as "Not be countersigned", dont you ?
But if what i think above is not wrong then either the discrepancy as lacking a countersign or an endorsement can be not firm for not any argument later because the refusal is single.
I would like to have your opinions about this matter.

Many thanks advance.

very interesting question. i think its all ISBP. any other opinion?

I do believe that when an endorsement is made on an insurance document it acknowledges that the assured not only agreed to the engagement under the 'policy contract' but also wishes to transfer the valid interest he may have under such insurance policy. It would be pointless for the assured - if in this stage we can name him so- to transfer 'inexistent rights' of a non-valid document. It is my understanding that in the situation described, the signature of the beneficiary would be regarded both as a countersignature which render the policy valid and and an endorsement as well.
Generally the countersignature is required on the pre-signed certificates as a confirmation of assured engagement under the policy/certificate. Any signature of assured, whatever it may be placed, would acknowledge such intention to render the document valid.
Conversely, if the signature appears in the countersignature place, this would not be a proof of an endorsement
Other comments appreciated

@loankim

Countersigning is generally required in instances where an insurance certificate has been issued against a blanket policy. Such certificates are generally in the shipper's possession, and usually pre-signed (in facsimile form by the insurance company). After the shipper has completed the necessary details regarding shipment, in order to make the certificate effective and confer validity, it is usually required to be counter-signed by the shipper in a pre-printed box on the face of the certificate.

Countersigning should not be confused with endorsements. An insurance certificate may be countersigned by the shiper, but if the "assured" is shown as the same shipper, it would require endorsement by the "assured" (usually on the revere of the certificate) in order to make it negotiable and to enable the security interest to be transferred to a third party. See ISBP para. 179 & 180.

loankim wrote: Can i infer that a countersign can be done on the back of insurance certificate ?

ummm good question. well i would say no. you need to understand the need for a signature first. why do we sign? we sign with the intention to authenticate or certify something. its some kind of undertaking. right? thus for any signature for commercially and legally important, it is required to be able to sign it in a manner that the undertaking of the signatory can be logically linked to some content of the document. for example if a bank cheque is signed on the back, what would your interpretation? will you honor it even if the cheque is not signed on the front?

same is for insurance certificate. thus the apparent intention of the signatory is important and not the placement of the signature. not to mention that it is customary for an insurance certificate to have specific place for a counter signature.

Dear All,
@Cristiand,
From what you shared, I understand that the described document is not discrepant because the signature of the assured now can shoulder intentions of both countersignature and endorsement. In fact, that’s also my first thought.
But im thinking about

but also wishes to transfer the valid interest he may have under such insurance policy

, and wonder whether this is safe for applicant and the issuing bank or not ? With LC transactions, banks don’t act in good faith, do they?
Well, I have no idea for your last text if that is different from Gary’s FAQ, I however feel stuck in them.

@abar,
Thank you for your detailed sharing about Countersigning. It seems i still doubt whether the document now is discrepant or not and the language if the discrepany (if any) in your opinion. Could you tell me the final decision after all ?
Uhmm.., you wrote

in order to make it negotiable and to enable the security interest to be transferred to a third party

As to “Negotiable”, kindly tell me more about this word ?
As fas as I know, an endorsement is merely a transfering all valid interest under an insurance policy, please correct me !

@iLC,
Thank you for your nice word , hope that it is still a good question at least with me .
I suppose that I wont care about the placecement of the signature more so now focus on intention of the signatory , my matter is still there somehow. I only have one representative of two intentions and this can be a difficult decision when the refusal is single.

Thank you so much you all for sharing your opinion with me on this issue.They are so helpful to me.
I long for your comments on my matter above again.

Kindly regards,

On review, I will have to admit that my comments didn't actually add anything more to what Christiand stated, which, in fact is a better explanation. Perils of not reading through all the responses!

"Negotiation" is also (on hindsight)not the most apt description in this case, to convey the characteristic of transferability by endorsement.