Sub art 34 d of the UCP basicly states that if a credit calls for an insurance certificate (IC), banks will accept the presentation of an insurance policy(IP).Although it is not directly cited,one must conclude that the converse of this wording also applies,if the credit calls for an IP, the presentation of an IC is not acceptable.
Do you think the refusal of the presentation of an IS in lieu of an IP could be justified under sub art 34 d of the UCP ?
Regards,
Yahya
[edited 12/20/2005 3:52:08 PM]
Insurance policy / certificate
Insurance policy / certificate
Yahya,
I agree 34d clearly allows presentation of an IP in lieu of an IC.
As to your question, my answer would be: ‘no; the ‘justification’ is found in the terms of the credit itself and not the UCP’.
Jeremy
I agree 34d clearly allows presentation of an IP in lieu of an IC.
As to your question, my answer would be: ‘no; the ‘justification’ is found in the terms of the credit itself and not the UCP’.
Jeremy
Insurance policy / certificate
Jeremy,
Thanks for your reply,
If I haven't misunderstood,your answer "no" also means that if the credit calls for an insurance policy,you can't present any other insurance doc.such as certificate to satisfy the requirement in the credit.
Yahya,
Thanks for your reply,
If I haven't misunderstood,your answer "no" also means that if the credit calls for an insurance policy,you can't present any other insurance doc.such as certificate to satisfy the requirement in the credit.
Yahya,
Insurance policy / certificate
Correct.
Insurance policy / certificate
Yes, indeed, the rule works only one way. Certificate instead of policy is not acceptable unless Credit so explicitly allows.
regards,
Pavel Andrle
regards,
Pavel Andrle