Institute Cargo Clause (A) 1/1/82 vs Institute Frozen Food Clause (A)

Bagi sebagian orang penggunaan kedua wording ini menjadi disputable, manakah yang lebih luas apakah Institute Cargo Clause (A) atau Institute Frozen Food Clause (A) ? atau apakah malah sama saja luas jaminan antara kedua wording polis tersebut mengingat keduanya merupakan sama All risk type cover ?

Bagi sebagian orang, mengcover asuransi marine cargo menggunakan Institute Cargo Clause (A) untuk barang barang yang beku atau segar sepertinya menjadi “lebih aman” dari segi jaminanya mengingat apabila menggunakan Institute Cargo Clause (A) sifatnya lebih luas dibandingkan dengan Institute Frozen Food Clause (A).

Sebetulnya pendapat ini tidak sepenuhnya benar atau mungkin kurang setuju.

Seperti yang kita ketahui bahwa memang pada dasarnya Institute Frozen Food Clause (A) didesain khusus untuk barang barang atau insurable interest yang bersifat Perishable (mudah hancur) yang secara nature bersifat organik, fresh dan terurai seperti Ikan, Daging, Buah, Sayur, Es Krim dan sejenisnya.

Apabila kita melihat Risk Covered pasal 1 pada kedua wording tersebut sebagai berikut :

ICC A 1/1/82

RISKS COVERED

1 This insurance covers all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured except as provided in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below.

2 This insurance covers general average and salvage charges, adjusted or determined according to the contract of affreightment and/or the governing law and practice, incurred to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of loss from any cause except those excluded in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 or elsewhere in this insurance.

3 This insurance is extended to indemnify the Assured against such proportion of liability under the contract of affreightment “Both to Blame Collision” Clause as is in respect of a loss recoverable hereunder. In the event of any claim by shipowners under the said Clause the Assured agree to notify the Underwriters who shall have the right, at their own cost and expense, to defend the Assured against such claim.

INSTITUTE FROZEN FOOD CLAUSE (A)

1 This insurance covers, except as provided in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below, Risks Clause

1.1 all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured, other than loss or damage resulting from any variation in temperature howsoever caused,

1.2 loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured resulting from any variation in temperature attributable to

1.2.1 breakdown of refrigerating machinery resulting in its stoppage for a period of not less than 24 consecutive hours

1.2.2 fire or explosion

1.2.3 vessel or craft being stranded grounded sunk or capsized

1.2.4 overturning or derailment of land conveyance

1.2.5 collision or contact of vessel craft or conveyance with any external object other than water

1.2.6 discharge of cargo at a port of distress.

  1. This insurance covers general average and salvage charges, adjusted or determined according to the contract of affreightment and/or the governing law and practice, incurred to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of loss from any cause except those excluded in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 or elsewhere in this insurance.
  2. This insurance is extended to indemnify the Assured against such proportion of liability under the contract of affreightment “Both to Blame Collision” Clause as is in respect of a loss recoverable hereunder. In the event of any claim by shipowners under the said Clause the Assured agree to notify the Underwriters who shall have the right, at their owncost and expense, to defend the Assured against such claim.

Kemudian dimana letak anehnya jika kemudian barang barang tersebut dijamin dalam Institute Cargo Clause (A) bukankah ICC A adalah polis asuransi yang bersifat All Risk cover yang menjamin semua kerugian.

Pun pada bagian risk covered sebagaimanan tertulis di Pasal 1 kedua polis tersebut seolah-olah tidak ada perbedaan. Hanya saja pada Ins Frozen Food A terdapat tambahan Pasal 1.1 dan 1.2 yang secara garis besar menuliskan jaminan kerugian terhadap variasi perubahan suhu kontainer berpendingin. Bukankah pada ICC A 1/1/82 hal tersebut juga tidak dikecualikan dengan demikian variasi perubahan suhu juga dijamin dong dalam ICC A?

Argumentasi semacam itu biasanya memang muncul diantara kita sehingga at the end of the day barang- barang yg bersifat demikian itu dijamin menggunakan standard wording form ICC A 1/1/82.

Nah sekarang mari kita perhatikan pada section selanjutnya dari kedua wording polis tersebut yaitu bagian

EXCLUSIONS (S.4)

Dari sejauh yang kita lihat, kedua wording nampak sama dan tidak ada perbedaan yang mendasar sampai pada kemudian pada Pasal 4.4

ICC A 1/1/82

4.4 loss damage or expense caused by inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured

INSTITUTE FROZEN FOOD CLAUSE (A)

4.4 loss damage or expense caused by inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured (except loss damage or expense resulting from variation in temperature specifically covered under Clause 1.2 above)

 

Dan juga terdapat tambahan pada Sub Poin 4.8 dan 4.9 INSTITUTE FROZEN FOOD CLAUSE (A)

4.8 loss damage or expense arising from any failure of the Assured or their servants to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the subject-matter insured is kept in refrigerated or, where appropriate, properly insulated and cooled space

4.9 any loss damage or expense otherwise recoverable hereunder unless prompt notice thereof is given to the nderwriters and, in any event, not later than 30 days after the termination of this insurance.

Institute Frozen Food Clause (A) sepertinya dengan tegas memberikan “kelonggaran” terhadap pengecualian yang ada sehingga tidak bertentangan dengan nature dari Interest Insured yang memang menjadi bagian utama dari tujuan wording ini dibuat. Kalimat (except loss damage or expense resulting from variation in temperature specifically covered under Clause 1.2 above) yang tercantumkan pada bagian belakang ini memberikan penegasan bahwa meskipun sifat barangnya adalah perishable dan akan rusak due to inherent vice, kerugian tersebut dapat dijamin oleh Institute Frozen Food (A). Sedangkan apabila dalam ICC A memang kerugian akibat variasi temperatur tersebut tidak dikecualikan. Namun perlu diingat ada ketentuan Exclusion 4.4 ini yaitu loss damage or expense caused by inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured, sama halnya dengan Institute Coal Clause vs ICC ‘A’ : “self combustion” tidak dijamin di ICC “A”, tapi dijamin dalam Coal Clause, walaupun Coal clause bersifat Named Perils dan jaminannya equal dengan ICC ‘B”. Applikasi yang sama dengan Institute Bulk Oil Clause vs ICC ‘A”, ICC “A” tidak menjamin “ordinary leakage dsb….” sedangkan Bulk Oil Clause menjamin “leakage during loading / unloading” dan menjamin “contamination yang disebabkan perubahan cuaca”. (Catatan BS : ICC “A” is NOT the GOD for Cargo insurance, there are more specific clauses that more suitable with the type of cargo itself.)

Kasus menarik dibawah ini menjadi catatan dengan salah satu skenario shipment sbb :

An Insured buy a Institute Frozen Food Clause (A) insuring their interest of perishable products of fresh fruits and vegetables in a refrigerated container. The Shipping Company A carried out of this shipment. After weeks of transhipment the products has arriving at the port of destination. But incident happen and the goods are being rejected because half part of them are decomposing and down grading on whatsoever causes. The shipment history is running well. Transhipment completely delivered without any obstacles during the voyage.

Is the insured entitle for a claim of loss for insured against ?

This clause, regarding changes in temperature, covers the damages that can be attributed to a breakdown of the machinery of “reefer” for a period of no less than 24 hours, by fire or explosion, by sinking the ship, collision or unloading of the ship in a port other than originally agreed, but, What happens in case the goods do not arrive at the agreed temperature and there is no way to prove which has been the cause of the damage, or that there has been a problem in the cold machinery? .

We often face this problem. It is quite common. When there is a temperature problem, the first thing our insurance company will ask us is about temperatures during transport of the goods, to inquiry if the cold machinery has failed or not, and for how long. Some of the companies put readers “Ryan” in the containers, or other kind of readers to make easier such actions but, What happens when it has not been installed? What happens if somebody defends that there may be a drop in temperature without involving breakage of machinery (loss of gas, for instance)? .

The clearest solution would be to request the shipping company to provide us with the temperature readings, but in case there has been a problem in the recording, we will hardly get it. What shall we do in this case? .

It usually happens that the goods are rejected, even rejected by health authorities, but there is no way to prove to the insurance company that machinery has been stopped for a longer term than 24 hours, as there is no temperature recording to prove it. The insurance companies take advantage of this, and then Insured must be in the difficult diatribe between claiming the insurer or the shipping company. What can we do in that case? – Selma and Illueca Abogados.

(Catatan BS : That’s part of the onus of proof owned by the assured. The assured basically still can sue the FFL / the Bailees by not having proper record of the temperature in the refrigerated container. Insurance is on the correct position (for this case). Remember the wording (ICC 1/1/82) clause 15, says : this policy shall not inure the bailee —- polis ini tidak akan bekerja lebih dulu sebelum pihak bailee yang mengakibatkan negligence sudah dituntut dan membayar ganti rugi.)

Lanjut ke section berikutnya akan kita temukan kembali perbedaan antara kedua wording yaitu pada Section Transit Clause dan Termination Clause – nya (S.8) Duration

INSTITUTE FROZEN FOOD CLAUSE (A)

DURATION

  1. 8.1 This insurance attaches from the time the goods are loaded into the conveyance at freezing works or cold store at the place named herein for the commencement of the transit, continues during the ordinary course of transit and terminates either

8.1.1 on delivery to the cold store or place of storage at the destination named herein,

8.1.2 on delivery to any other cold store or place of storage, whether prior to or at the destination named herein, which the Assured elect to use either

8.1.2.1 for storage other than in the ordinary course of transit or

8.1.2.2 for allocation or distribution,

or

8.1.3 on the expiry of 5 days after discharge overside of the goods hereby insured from the oversea vessel at the final port of discharge, whichever shall first occur.

ICC A 1/1/82

DURATION

8 8.1 This insurance attaches from the time the goods leave the warehouse or place of storage at the place named herein for the commencement of the transit, continues during the ordinary course of transit and terminates either

8.1.1 on delivery to the Consignees’ or other final warehouse or place of storage at the destination named herein,

8.1.2 on delivery to any other warehouse or place of storage, whether prior to or at the destination named herein, which the Assured elect to use either

8.1.2.1 for storage other than in the ordinary course of transit or

8.1.2.2 for allocation or distribution,

or

8.1.3 on the expiry of 60 days after completion of discharge overside of the goods hereby insured from the oversea vessel at the final port of discharge,

whichever shall first occur.

 

Perbedaan diantara keduanya terletak pada tempat akhir (warehouse direplace dengan cold storage) dan tentu saja adalah jangka waktu berakhirnya lebih cepat untuk Institute Frozen Food Clause.

 

Roger ….

Ditulis oleh

Hari Pendi

Assistant Branch Manager

Surabaya Branch Office

PT Asuransi QBE Pool Indonesia

Direct: +6231 5477300             Fax: +6231 5477370

Email: hari.pendi@qbe.co.id

Visit us on the web at www.qbe.co.id

 

Dan koreksi dari

Bayu Samudro

Head of Underwriting & Product

PT Asuransi QBE Pool Indonesia

Direct: +6221 5723737 ext 231                     Fax: +6221 5710547/48

Email: bayu.samudro@qbe.co.id

Visit us on the web at www.qbe.co.id

 

Di upload oleh : Imam MUSJAB

About the Author

has written 1833 stories on this site.

3 Comments on “Institute Cargo Clause (A) 1/1/82 vs Institute Frozen Food Clause (A)”

  • Dion wrote on 1 December, 2015, 15:14

    Jika ada mohon di share complete wording dari Institute Frozen Meat “A” dan “C”.

    Saya masih belum puas dengan hasil googling, karena beberapa tautan yang saya kunjungi section 8 nya berbeda dengan tulisan di atas. Terima kasih bantuannya.

  • minar wrote on 18 February, 2016, 13:41

    Selamat Siang. Saya mohon informasi untuk cakupan Definisi “Refrigerating Breakdown” pada section

    1.2.1 breakdown of refrigerating machinery resulting in its stoppage for a period of not less than 24 consecutive hours

    Apakah lupa mencolok kabel sehingga produk rusak juga termasuk dalam pengertian breakdown ini?
    Terimakasih sebelumnya untuk responnya.

    Salam

    Tidak, Pak
    Breakdown – adalah kerusakan yang berasal dari dalam mesin itu sendiri

  • Daniel wrote on 20 May, 2021, 11:50

    Pak sering terjadi kejadian kalau barang barang itu seafood atau kepiting suhu turun 1 jam aja menyebabkan barang sudah rusak? Jadi kalu menggunakan icc frozen dijamin gak? kalau tidak kalau polis menggunakan icca itu dijamin gak? tq Pak atas jawabannya

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

*

Copyright © 2021 ahliasuransi.com. Ahliasuransi is a registered trade mark. All rights reserved. Managed by PT Ahliasuransi Manajemen Indonesia - Specialist Insurance Training & Consultant.
Powered by WordPress.org, Custom Theme and ComFi.com Calling Card Company.