A non-member has asked me to include the following question in the Forum - would appreciate your feedback on same.
L/C TERM Insurance policy in assignable form covering Institute cargo clauses(A/air cargo), institute war clauses ,(A/air cargo ) and institute strikes clauses(A/air cargo)with claims payable at destination is required.
PRESENTATION Insurance policy showing 'excluding the risks of rust,oxidation and discoloration unless direct caused by S.S.B.C. and/or heavy weather' is presented.
Is this a discrepancy?
Exclusions
Exclusions
Leo,
From memory there has been at least one ‘thread’ on this subject in the not too distant past. I also suggest you look at R360 and TA576.
My own opinion, which I think reflects TA576, is that if the insurance document appears to suggest that less than ‘Institute cargo clauses(A/air cargo), institute war clauses ,(A/air cargo ) and institute strikes clauses(A/air cargo’ is covered it is discrepant. However, if the insurance document appears to suggest that the ‘exclusion’ is part of the terms of one of ‘Institute cargo clauses(A/air cargo), institute war clauses ,(A/air cargo ) and institute strikes clauses(A/air cargo’ then it is compliant.
Regards, Jeremy
From memory there has been at least one ‘thread’ on this subject in the not too distant past. I also suggest you look at R360 and TA576.
My own opinion, which I think reflects TA576, is that if the insurance document appears to suggest that less than ‘Institute cargo clauses(A/air cargo), institute war clauses ,(A/air cargo ) and institute strikes clauses(A/air cargo’ is covered it is discrepant. However, if the insurance document appears to suggest that the ‘exclusion’ is part of the terms of one of ‘Institute cargo clauses(A/air cargo), institute war clauses ,(A/air cargo ) and institute strikes clauses(A/air cargo’ then it is compliant.
Regards, Jeremy