Is there a difference between a risk excluded and an exclusion clause?
Daniel
Insurance
Insurance
Daniel,
I think are totally different, but I'm not sure.I think the best would be to ask someone from an insurance company.
Regards,
Bogdan
I think are totally different, but I'm not sure.I think the best would be to ask someone from an insurance company.
Regards,
Bogdan
Insurance
Daniel,
I found some informations on:
http://www.answers.com/topic/four-corners-rule.
search for "insurance exclusion clause".
I hope will help you.
Bogdan
I found some informations on:
http://www.answers.com/topic/four-corners-rule.
search for "insurance exclusion clause".
I hope will help you.
Bogdan
Insurance
Bogdan,
Thank you.
If we assume it is different, is my reasoning correct?
According to 28g in line with "new ISBP" par. 173, a credit stating the type of insurance required and additional risks could contain any exclusion clause (28i) but NO specific risk could be excluded and an all risks insurance could exclude risks and contain an exclusion clause.
Or am I going too far?
Daniel
Thank you.
If we assume it is different, is my reasoning correct?
According to 28g in line with "new ISBP" par. 173, a credit stating the type of insurance required and additional risks could contain any exclusion clause (28i) but NO specific risk could be excluded and an all risks insurance could exclude risks and contain an exclusion clause.
Or am I going too far?
Daniel
Insurance
Daniel,
You're not going to far.
Is my understanding too.
An exclusion clause may appear on any type of insurance document.
Happy Easter and best wishes.
Bogdan
You're not going to far.
Is my understanding too.
An exclusion clause may appear on any type of insurance document.
Happy Easter and best wishes.
Bogdan
Insurance
Bogdan,
I agree an exlusion clause may appear on any type of insurance document. But if you read new par. 173 ISBP v. ex par. 186 and v. opinion R 582, I wonder what is now the exact distintion between a risk excluded and an exclusion clause.
If there is no distinction: fine but if there is one, there is something wrong.
Daniel
I agree an exlusion clause may appear on any type of insurance document. But if you read new par. 173 ISBP v. ex par. 186 and v. opinion R 582, I wonder what is now the exact distintion between a risk excluded and an exclusion clause.
If there is no distinction: fine but if there is one, there is something wrong.
Daniel
Insurance
Daniel,
I am not sure if I have understood your posts correctly, but give my own thoughts for what they are worth.
One current ‘concern’ I have is that some people may seek to draw a distinction between what they regard as an ‘exclusion’ and an ‘exclusion clause’. These persons might argue for instance:
A. that an example of an ‘exclusion’ is ‘ICC(A) excluding the vessel sinking’ and
B. that an example of an exclusion clause is ‘ICC(A)’ and separately in the insurance document it being stated ‘Subject to Vessel Sinking Exclusion Clause’.
To me this is a false distinction given that there is no obvious difference in effect, at least to a banker. For support for my view that such a distinction cannot be drawn see -for example- Opinion TA577 which would seem to regard both my examples above as being ‘exclusion clauses’.
As a result, if a credit were to specify ‘Insurance document covering ICC(A)’ I would not regard either of my examples above as being non-compliant.
Regards, Jeremy
I am not sure if I have understood your posts correctly, but give my own thoughts for what they are worth.
One current ‘concern’ I have is that some people may seek to draw a distinction between what they regard as an ‘exclusion’ and an ‘exclusion clause’. These persons might argue for instance:
A. that an example of an ‘exclusion’ is ‘ICC(A) excluding the vessel sinking’ and
B. that an example of an exclusion clause is ‘ICC(A)’ and separately in the insurance document it being stated ‘Subject to Vessel Sinking Exclusion Clause’.
To me this is a false distinction given that there is no obvious difference in effect, at least to a banker. For support for my view that such a distinction cannot be drawn see -for example- Opinion TA577 which would seem to regard both my examples above as being ‘exclusion clauses’.
As a result, if a credit were to specify ‘Insurance document covering ICC(A)’ I would not regard either of my examples above as being non-compliant.
Regards, Jeremy
Insurance
Jeremy,
Do we talk about the same TA577 as there are TA577, TA577rev. becoming, I think, the R582 in "Unpublished Opinions 1995-2004".
I am confused because of the different wordings used by ICC: "exclusion clause", "exclusions", "Risks excluded" and I wonder if the meaning is the same or not. And If not, what would be the practical consequences for the banker checking an insurance document all the more so as the new par. 173 is not exactly (in my opinion) par.186. To tell the truth, I feel ill at ease with all this.
(In the same way I feel ill at ease with the "maximum 5 days")
I heard that the fighting season (the cows, I mean) has started.
Daniel
Do we talk about the same TA577 as there are TA577, TA577rev. becoming, I think, the R582 in "Unpublished Opinions 1995-2004".
I am confused because of the different wordings used by ICC: "exclusion clause", "exclusions", "Risks excluded" and I wonder if the meaning is the same or not. And If not, what would be the practical consequences for the banker checking an insurance document all the more so as the new par. 173 is not exactly (in my opinion) par.186. To tell the truth, I feel ill at ease with all this.
(In the same way I feel ill at ease with the "maximum 5 days")
I heard that the fighting season (the cows, I mean) has started.
Daniel
Insurance
Daniel,
I do mean Official Opinion R582. I would add that we, as bankers, seem comfortable with UCP500 35(c) (carried forward in UCP600 as 28(j)) which would not seem to place any limit on the franchise / excess (deductible) to which cover is subject.
Hope the battling cows will be on TV5. I shall be looking out for them.
Regards, Jeremy
I do mean Official Opinion R582. I would add that we, as bankers, seem comfortable with UCP500 35(c) (carried forward in UCP600 as 28(j)) which would not seem to place any limit on the franchise / excess (deductible) to which cover is subject.
Hope the battling cows will be on TV5. I shall be looking out for them.
Regards, Jeremy