Insurance signed by an agent on behalf of…for

[KimChristensen]

Hi there,
I have an insurance certificate signed as follows:


Signed for and on behalf of COMPANY AA,
who is an authorized agent for COMPANY BB (Insurance Company)

________________________
[name of person signing]
COMPANY CC International Insurance Brokers


Would you accept this certificate to be signed in accordance with UCP 500 article 34,a

Thanks in advance
Kim

[RolandLeupi]

Never heard that an agent may appoint another agent to sign of behalf of the mother company.
We would not accept such a document

[KimChristensen]

Dear Roland,

Thanks for the reply – highly appreciated.

I never heard of this either – until this case; and if fact the beneficiary claims that this is exactly what happens.
So if possibly kindly indicate your arguments – from a UCP perspective – for not accepting this.

Thanks in advance.

Kim

[RolandLeupi]

Hi Kim,

Sorry to be late but I was out for some days.
Reason of refusal is that the document is not signed by the appropriate party. The document is signed by CC for and on behalf of AA who is agent of BB. The document should be signed by BB or their agents, in this case AA. What's the link between CC and AA who signes on behalf of this later ?
So as the question is presented I would not accept the document.
It is however not easy to decide without having the document in front. I remember once we had risen discrepancy for a similar case for a certificate of insurance issued by s swedish company and after careful ri-examination it cames out that in the small print the parties were clearly defined and allowed to understand the continuity and the role of all parties involved

w.a.n.r.

Roland

[PradeepT_old]

Hi Kim/Roland,

Have been away and so wasn't able to catch up with this interesting issue. UCP does not speak as to how an insurance policy or certificate should be signed. It does, however, indicate as to how the B/L or some of the the other transport documents should be signed which is further illustratively elaborated in ICC Position Paper no. 4. Should the Banking Commission bring out a Position Paper on as to how the Insurance documents or other documents should also be signed. Or should the principle that banks should accept documents "as presented" unless specifically stipulated, apply here in such cases ? It is a moot question. The specific query of Kim poses a much wider question whose answer would rather lie not only within the "Laws of Agency" of the land where the insurance document has been issued but also the "Terms of the Agency" and the Contract between the Principal and the Agent. If the Contract allows the Agent to appoint a sub-agent, it is acceptable. But could a sub-Agent appointed by the Agent bind the main Principal, by his actions is something debatable. I would not accept such a document on first presentation or at least seek some additional information before a decision could be made.

What's your opinion ?

Regards,

Pradeep

[NigelHolt]

Pradeep,

My impression is that UCP does 'speak' as to how an insurance policy or certificate should be signed, in a manner more or less the same as for transport documents. Sub-Article 34a states “Insurance documents must appear on their face to be issued and SIGNED by insurance companies or underwriters OR THEIR AGENTS” [my emphasis]. Therefore, a UCP based refusal of the insurance document mentioned by Kim would be that sub-Art 34a does not permit signature of an insurance document by the agent of an agent. This is certainly the basis on which I believe I would refuse it.

Regards, Jeremy

[PradeepT_old]

Hi Jeremy,

I do agree with you.

Regards,

Pradeep

[KimChristensen]

Pradeep, Jeremy and Roland,

I thank you for you input to this topic. They are truly appreciated.

Best regards
Kim