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?
insurance document rejected using icc opinion
-
Fajar
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:38 am
- First Name: Fajar
- Last Name: Manggala
- Organization: Bank Sinarmas
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: jakarta
-
Navi
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:17 pm
- First Name: Olcay
- Last Name: Özcan
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: Turkey
Re: insurance document rejected using icc opinion
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.
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: 754
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
- First Name: Cristian
- Last Name: D.
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: RO
Re: insurance document rejected using icc opinion
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.
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: 28
- 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
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.
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.