number of original insurance policy

ofei · Post by **ofei** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:13 am

Dear all,
There is heat discussion here recently. It mainly focuses on wether LC needs to indicate number of original insurance policy. I want to hear your comments.
Moreover, if LC requires 3 originals insurance policy, but the beneficiary get only 2 originals because the insurance company can only issue 2 originals. Is it complying since the bene has presented full set of original insurance policy?
The last question, if the LC misses to call for number of original insurance policy, can the bene present only 1 original and declare that the 1 original is the full set of? How to prove?

Your comments appreciated.

maqianyueer · Post by **maqianyueer** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:23 pm

1.iWhen the insurance document indicates that it has been issued more than one original ,all original must be presented.for this qustion ,2 origional comply with the lc

iLC · Post by **iLC** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:57 pm

Hi Ofei
its good to see you after so many days. why you are asking this question. i believe you know the answer very well. anyway,

unlike bill of lading, there is no requirement for a insurance document to show the number of original issued. unless the document shows otherwise, the presented insurance will be considered to be full set. please note that full set does not necessarily mean that there are more than one. 1 insurance can constitute a full set.

however when the credit is specific in its requirement of number of original, the beneficiary must meet that. he or she needs find a insurance company that issues "three original"

ybattia · Post by **ybattia** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:21 am

iLC wrote:
however when the credit is specific in its requirement of number of original, the beneficiary must meet that. he or she needs find a insurance company that issues "three original"

Otherwise, amend it.

fionawang · Post by **fionawang** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:25 am

1.It's discrepancy. Cause the L/C requires Three Original not full set
2.Agree with

shruti · Post by **shruti** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:53 am

please rephrase your query / view keeing in view art 17 of UCP or quote some diffrent para/article?
regards kalra n k

power575 · Post by **power575** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:42 am

3 originals is necessary.though two originals presented in full set,not complied with l/c

ofei · Post by **ofei** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:36 am

Hi, iLC,
Tks for still remembering me.

It's really long time not coming here. I have just finished the whole draft of a textbook named international settlements. Hope it can be okay by the press.

The question I posted here is mainly focused on whether LC needs to indicate copies of original of insurance policy. Someone here once asked the same question to Gary Collyer. And Mr. Collyer thinks insurance policy shouldn't be regarded as the same as BL. But I couldn't agree with him.

In my viewpoint, insurance policy acts the same as BL if the insured goods are suffered from losses or damages.The holder of the original copy of insurance policy may lodge claims against the insurer. Once one original insurance policy has been surrended for claims, the remaining copies of originals will become useless(supposing there are more than 1 copy of original.)

That's why I posted here, hopefully more friends here could discuss it. Moreover, some insurance companies in china don't issue 3 originals even if the insurant insist on 3 originals. Thus it would be a problem for the beneficiary to constitute a complying presentation. If so, I would recommend that the beneficiay copy an original and ask the insurer to sign in the document.

Best regards
Ofei

SHAMEER · Post by **SHAMEER** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:33 pm

Whether LC needs to indicate number of original insurance policy. I want to hear your comments.

I believe it is same like how we treat B/L - whatever no. of original mentioned in the docs -that has to be observed .
1.Moreover, if LC requires 3 originals insurance policy, but the beneficiary get only 2 originals because the insurance company can only issue 2 originals. Is it complying since the bene has presented full set of original insurance policy?

this is what the issue - when the L/C opener does not know the practicability of the presentation of docs called in the credit - this mistake happens

2.If the LC misses to call for number of original insurance policy, can the bene present only 1 original and declare that the 1 original is the full set of? How to prove?

like I said above - check the number of the original mentioned in the Insurance policy itself

Tks and rgds

wongvv · Post by **wongvv** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Hi !

I agree with Gary's point of view that B/L and insurance documents should not be regarded as same, especially, in the context of number of original issued. It can be seen from the different requirements in originals presented.

For instance, according to Art 20 a iv , it states " bill of lading ....must appear to ....be the full set as indicated on the bill of lading". It means that even L/C doesn't call for "full set" B/L, it/they should also indicate the number of original issued. But, on the other hand, in the same case of insurance documents, it/they is/are not required to do so.

However, if L/C requires "full set" insurance documents, the requirement "full set" would override the Art 28 b "when the insurance document.......". The indication of number of original would not longer optional and becomes a requirement, so that the checker can determine the compliance of insurance documents.

Although Gary said that it should not be a discrepancy, I think the reason behind is that he realizes the L/C should not call for the "full set" insurance documents. But I think there is nothing wrong as a L/C requirement!

V.V.

cristiand969 · Post by **cristiand969** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:28 pm

Unless expressly requested by the applicant, bankers should refrain for developing such no. of originals in the credit as they are not aware of intention of applicant as well as the practice industry.
Having also more than 10 years experience in a export/import company I would say that in case applicant expressly indicated the no. of original required you should accept such number and nothing less even they constitute full set. We don't know what would be local laws regarding surrendering originals of Policy (including a dispute that may lead to a court) as well as the need of the buyer in its company for such a document.
The applicant may sue you by making use of art.29 of ISBP and demolish you completely.

nayanrshah · Post by **nayanrshah** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:34 pm

It is a Clear Discrepancy:3 originals is necessary though two originals presented in full set,not complied with LC terms.
.
Benef. should have arrange to amend the terms at the time of receipt of advice of LC from Aplicant,if Insurance would be available in 2 only .