Home Uncategorized INSURANCE DOCUMENT ISSUED TO ORDER OF THE ISSUING BANK

INSURANCE DOCUMENT ISSUED TO ORDER OF THE ISSUING BANK

2 min read
5
1
3,521

QUESTION

Dear Mr. Old Man,

LC issued by XYZ BANK requires presentation of an insurance document as follows:

MARINE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE IN DUPLICATE FOR 110 PCT OF INVOICE VALUE, ENDORSED TO THE ORDER OF XYZ BANK WITH CLAIMS PAYABLE IN SAUDI ARABIA IN THE CURRENCY OF THE CREDIT.

The insurance certificate presented shows:

Insurance applicant: ABC VIETNAM CO LTD
Insured name: TO ORDER OF XYZ BANK.

Does ABC VIETNAM CO LTD need to endorse the insurance certificate?
Thanks and regards,
BD
—-
ANSWER

Hi,

An insurance document issued to the order of an insured party is as valid as that endorsed to the order of that insured party

I understand XYZ BANK is the LC issuing bank. As the insurance certificate in question is issued to order of XYZ BANK, endorsement (if any) shall be made by XYZ BANK and not by the insurance applicant – ABC VIETNAM CO LTD.

XYZ BANK shall endorse the insurance certificate to the LC applicant when the LC applicant takes up the documents and fulfils his obligations towards XYZ BANK under the contract for opening LC, i.e., to deposit funds (in case the import transaction is self-financed) or to provide signed promissory note to the issuing bank (in case the import transaction is financed by the issuing) to cover the payment.

The insurance certificate in question is acceptable without endorsement. ABC VIETNAM CO LTD should not endorse it.

Kind regards,
Mr. Old Man

Load More Related Articles
  • LẦN THỨ BA TRỞ LẠI NGÔI LÀNG ĐÃ MẤT

    Mr. Old Man gọi làng phong Hòa Vân (làng Vân) ở bãi biển dưới chân đèo Hải Vân là “ngôi là…
  • 100 KM DAI NHÁCH

    Hôm nay đạp xe đi Đông Giang với ý định đạp hết cung đường xã Tư quay trở ra chợ Trung Man…
  • NGÓ LÊN HÒN KẼM ĐÁ DỪNG

    Ngó lên Hòn Kẽm Đá Dừng Thương cha nhớ mẹ quá chứng bậu ơi Thương cha nhớ mẹ thì về Nhược …
Load More By Mr Old Man
Load More In Uncategorized

5 Comments

  1. vijaymelathil

    November 22, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    Dear Nguyen,Thanks for your clarification.Suppose no where in the insurance certificate it is being evidenced that insured party as "TO ORDER OF XYZ BANK", but it is repeats the LC condition as " Insurance certificate made out to order of XYZ Bank covering 110% invoice value and having coverage of ICC A, war risks etc., in this case whether you require endorsed by the shipper on the endorsement page as " To the order of XYZ BANK" by shipper name ABC Limited or the notation on the face documents (repetition of LC condition) is enough. Please comment your opinion.

    Reply

  2. mroldmanvcb

    November 22, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    Dear Vijay,My answer is that the repetition of LC condition as shown in your question is not sufficient. The insurance certificate must be endorsed by the assured party named in the insurance certificate (The shipper may be the assured party but I don’t want to use the term “shipper” as shipper can be a party other than the seller/beneficiary). I would like to draw your attention to R778/TA688rev in which you can find various cases regarding insurance document showing the assured party as “to order”, “to order of XYZ Bank Ltd. Case 5 is much the same as that I answered and Case 6 is to some extent the same as yours. Let me quote herewith for your reference:————————————-QUERYCase 5 where the L/C required insurance document to be issuedto order of XYZ Bank LtdThe presented insurance policy without endorsement showed:Assured: To order of XYZ Bank LtdOur opinion: This is acceptable because the insurance policy was issued as required by the L/C.Case 6 where the L/C required the insurance document to be issued to order of XYZ Bank LtdThe presented insurance policy without endorsement showed:Assured: ABC Exporting Co LtdTo order of XYZ Bank LtdOur opinion: This is also acceptable because the insurance policy was issued as required by the L/C.Please confirm whether our opinions are correct or incorrect.ICC ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONCase 5: We agree with your opinion.Case 6: We disagree with your opinion. The insurance document requires endorsement by ABC Exporting Co. Ltd. The addition of "[T]o order of XYZ Bank Ltd" does not change the fact that the assured is stated to be ABC Exporting Co. Ltd.————————————-Kind regards,Mr. Old Man

    Reply

  3. mrhero2014

    November 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Dear Mr.old manhow are you?sorry, i don't know how to start a new discussion !!!!!!i suspect the the paraphrasing and the new language of (the freight forwarder bill of lading is acceptable) changes the meaning and the concept that illustrated on the ISBP old version especially in the last two sentence ''When a credit indicates "Freight Forwarder's MultimodalTransport Document is acceptable" or "HouseMultimodal Transport Document is acceptable" orwords of similar effect, a multimodal transportdocument may be signed by the issuing entitywithout it being necessary to indicate the capacity inwhich it has been signed or the name of the carrier.''is the result of the incorporation of the term (the freight forwarder bill of lading is acceptable) changes from the old versionbecause of the the existence of ''or''i can conclude that the result of the new language is thateither1-freight forwarder signs the document without any further details to capacity like a and m fright forwarder with signature but it needs to the show the name of the carrier or2-freight forwarder signs the document and showing capacity like a and m as agent of the carrier without indicating the carrier name in any placeis this true or still the concept in the old version is outstanding (which conclude both the capacity and the name of the carrier may not be indicated at same time in the documentthanks in advance and best regardsahmed

    Reply

  4. mroldmanvcb

    November 26, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    Dear Ahmed,What I understand from paragraph D3(b) as follows: When the LC states that “Freight Forwarder’s MMTD is acceptable” or similar, the MMTD may be signed by the freight forwarder. No need to indicate its capacity, e.g., as agent for the carrier, and no need to indicate the name of the carrier.If such a condition is not stated in the LC, the MMTD must be signed in accordance with sub-article 19(a) UCP 600.Regards,Mr. Old Man

    Reply

  5. Noha helmy

    January 8, 2017 at 4:04 am

    Helloo

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

LẦN THỨ BA TRỞ LẠI NGÔI LÀNG ĐÃ MẤT

Mr. Old Man gọi làng phong Hòa Vân (làng Vân) ở bãi biển dưới chân đèo Hải Vân là “ngôi là…