Typed vs. Pre-printed: Where Are Insurance Claims Really Payable?

In today’s question, we dive into one of those subtle yet surprisingly common document issues — when an insurance certificate contains both a typed clause and pre-printed text about where claims are payable… and they don’t quite say the same thing.

Our reader Rohini brings up a case where the LC requires claims to be payable in China, and the insurance document does mention this — but also includes a standard line saying claims are payable in Australia.

Is that a contradiction? Can claims be considered payable at both places? Or does one statement override the other?

Let’s unpack this.

_______

 QUESTION

 Dear Mr.  Old Man,

Seek your views on the below:

LC requires:

Port of Loading: Australia

Port of Discharge: Shanghai

Insurance certificate in duplicate for 110pct covering ICCA stating claims payable in China in currency of the credit.

Presented Insurance Certificate mentions all details as above including claims payable in China in currency of the credit- in a box titled description

However in the pre-printed text at the bottom indicates: Claims payable in Australia by Liberty Specialty Markets

Is this a contradiction that claims are payable in China and preprinted says Australia?

Can we consider claims are payable at both places?

Thanks and regards

Rohini

________

ANSWER

Hi,

In practice, many banks accept such documents, considering the typed clause as prevailing if it clearly fulfills the LC condition, especially when the pre-printed content is standard and not clearly applicable to the presented risk.

The presented insurance certificate contains a typed statement explicitly stating that claims are payable in China in the currency of the credit, which directly fulfills the credit requirement. While the pre-printed text refers to claims being payable in Australia by Liberty Specialty Markets; this appears to be standard boilerplate language.

In my opinion, the typed statement is considered to override the pre-printed words.

The insurance certificate is acceptable.

As for your question about whether claims can be considered payable at both places — the answer is no. The document should be interpreted as designating China as the sole claims settlement location, in line with the LC. The reference to Australia in the pre-printed text is generic and does not alter the specific instruction. Accepting both would introduce ambiguity, which would not be acceptable under UCP 600.

Best regards

Mr. Old Man