Best Trade Solution

Dear all,

When agent or proxy singing insurance document for or on the behalf of the insurance co.or underwriter , is it necessary to indicate the name of agent or proxy in signature ?

Hi Pal,

IMHO, name of signatory must be indicated, see ISBP 745 K4-
Other comments appreciated
Ciao

Insurance document has been shown "for or on the behalf of the insurance ....(the name of insurer). that's enough. As K4 ISBP, the insurance company or underwriter name has been identified in the document. So, name of agent or proxy in signature is may be added in insurance.

Note however the last paragraph of ICC Opinion R685 which reads:

Quote
When an insurance document is signed by an agent, the signing should be in a similar style to that of a transport document, in that a bank is required to determine the capacity and relationship between the person signing and the named insurance company or underwriter. Similarly, if an underwriter signs the insurance document should indicate the capacity in which it is signing i.e., for an on behalf of the insurance company or the underwriter itself.
Unquote


Document 470/TA.835rev


QUOTE

The credit stipulates presentation of an insurance document as follows:

“Insurance policy in assignable form and endorsed in blank for 110 pct invoice value
covering all risks, war and SRCC, showing claim payable in Vietnam in invoice currency in
01 original”

Upon presentation of documents a discrepancy was raised by issuing bank as follows: “Insurance policy No [xxxxx] without indicating the name of the Proxy”

The presented insurance policy has apparently been signed by hand and shows the following text immediately above the signature: “Signed as Proxy for xxxx Insurance plc (Ireland), Sweden Branch”. Underneath the signature the document contains preprinted wording “clarification of signature”. While the name of the insurance company is evident in clear text, the signature is not clarified.




The negotiating bank did not consider the discrepancy valid as the signing of the insurance policy complied with requirements stated in UCP 600 sub-article 28 (a) as well as the practices for its signing stated in ISBP 745 paragraphs K2, K3 and K4. It also argues that there is no explicit requirement in UCP 600 or in ISBP 745 to clarify the signature signing as proxy for a named insurance company. The effectiveness of the signature would not be dependent on whether it is clarified or not.

In your opinion:

1. Is the discrepancy raised valid or not?
2. Would a clarification of signature be a mandatory requirement for an insurance
document, in addition to the need to identify a named insurance company?
3. Does the fact that the document itself contains the preprinted “clarification of signature” wording have any bearing on your conclusion or not?


ANALYSIS

UCP 600 sub-article 28 (a) requires that an insurance document is to “appear to be issued and signed by an insurance company, an underwriter or their agents or their proxies. Any signature by an agent or proxy must indicate whether the agent or proxy has signed for or on behalf of the insurance company or underwriter.”

The insurance document presented complied with the requirements of this sub-article.

ISBP 745 paragraphs K2, K3 and K4 offer guidance on how to correctly deploy UCP600 sub-article 28 (a).

UCP 600 does not require that an agent or proxy is to be named in the document.

It should be noted that the issuing bank did not raise the discrepancy of missing clarification of signature. The discrepancy stated in the notice of refusal refers solely to the missing name of the proxy.


CONCLUSION

1. The discrepancy is not valid.
2. In the context of the document as shown in the excerpt copy, clarification of signature is not a mandatory requirement.
3. No, the preprinted wording does not alter the conclusion.

dear friend ,

name of the underwriter or proxy must be indicated

best regards

Hi Pals,

I asked a friend in London about the meaning of ISBP 745 K4 and the a.m. opinion, being no native speaker I may omit the true meaning of a sentence. He told me that there is no contrast amongs the
verbiage in ISBP and opinion. So the correct interpretation is that the name of agent or proxy is not necessary.
Ciao

According to UCP 600, sub article 28 (a), there is no need of mentioning the name of the agent or proxy.