insurance certificate

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:00 am

Credit requires full set of insurance policies or certificates. Presented complying certificates indicating that same have been issued in 2 exemplars. Both certificates presented are original but the word "original" and "duplicate" or like are missing. Has this to appear or is that a discrepancy ?
Roland

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Roland,

Originality can be achieved many ways; see e.g.: “Policy statement: The determination of an "Original" document in the context of UCP 500 sub-Article 20(b)”; or in other words: there are other ways to determine originality than the document being marked “original”.

So in this case where the document indicates in how many originals it has been issued - and that number has been presented; I can not see a problem.

Best regards
Kim

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Kim,
Thanks that much for your Sunday's clarifications to which I do fully ...........partially agree. My question however is wheter or not sub-art. 20(b)also apply for representative documents like drafts, B/L, insurance policy/certificate, delivery order.
Roland

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Roland

I am not absolutely sure that I can follow you. Why should 20(b) not apply?
In my view the interesting article (if I follow you correct) is 34(b) which says that

“If the insurance document indicates that it has been issued in more than one original, all the originals must be presented …”

So in this case if the document indicates that two originals has been issued – then two must be presented.

There are (as far as I know) no provisions saying how they should be marked – but ISBP para 31 indicates a couple of possible ways; e.g. “Original”, “Duplicate” and “Triplicate”.

For those “representative documents” I accept that it is usually the first document that are being used – but that does not diminish the value of the others – and there need not be a number 1,2 and 3. All of them can be used - of course only until one is – then the others are void.

Best regards
Kim

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:00 am

Roland,

As to your opening question, I see no grounds for interpreting sub-Art 34(b) as requiring the insurance documents to be marked ‘original’ & ‘duplicate’, where the document says two originals have been issued. (The position is no different than with bills of lading, e.g. sub-Art 23(a)(iv).) That this might be insurance industry practice has no bearing on the matter. The insurance document says two originals have been issued and that is what you have got. Therefore, there is not any discrepancy.

Jeremy

[edited 4/24/2006 10:31:44 AM]

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:00 am

Thanks to all
Roland