• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Contact Us
  • Sponsor An Email
  • Post A Job
  • Merger & Acquisition Services

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts Insurance News & Job Opportunities

You are here: Home / Latest News / The LoC & Insurance: An Important Tip From A Cautionary Case

The LoC & Insurance: An Important Tip From A Cautionary Case

August 22, 2023 by Owen Gallagher


For main street agents, a letter of credit (LoC) is not something they deal with in the ordinary course of their business. However, LoCs have substantial importance in various commercial transactions, including certain insurance operations, making their understanding vital for industry professionals.

Use of LoCs in Insurance Transactions

 In property and casualty insurance, LoCs are commonly employed as a mechanism for risk financing, acting as collateral for amounts owed by an insured party in various cash flow programs. These can include scenarios involving incurred but unpaid losses within paid loss retrospective rating programs, the provision for capitalization requirements in captive insurance entities, or the satisfaction of security prerequisites set by excess insurers in “fronted” deductible or retention initiatives.

A recent decision of the Appeals Court involving a dispute over a bank dishonoring a $300,000 LoC underscores a risk in physically securing and handling LoC documents that professionals, particularly those who are beneficiaries of an LoC, should heed.

The Appeals Court Decision and Its Implications

In ProQuip Limited v. Northmark Bank, the Appeals Court ruled that a LoC can only be paid on the presentation of original documents. ProQuip, the beneficiary of a LoC that was renewed annually for ten years, sought payment from the issuing bank. The bank refused to honor the LoC because ProQuip had produced the original LoC but not an original amendment. The Superior Court ruled in favor of ProQuip. On appeal, however, the Appeals Court ruled that ProQuip’s failure to produce the original amendment barred its recovery under its LoC.

Today, copies of business and legal documents are accepted for almost any purpose. A requirement of an original document in most situations is almost an anomaly. However, for LoCs, the financial security they provide can be a “trap for the unwary” if a beneficiary does not safeguard the original LoC and its amendments.

Facts of the ProQuip Case

ProQuip Limited (ProQuip), a Scottish company specializing in golf apparel, entered into an agreement with Marblehead Weather Garments, LLC (Marblehead) for the resale of ProQuip’s products in North America, Bermuda, and the Caribbean. This agreement had a 15-year term extending into 2025. As part of the agreement, Marblehead procured a Standby Letter of Credit (LoC) from Northmark Bank (Northmark), with ProQuip as the beneficiary, in the amount of $300,000.

The LoC stipulated certain requirements for payment, including the original Letter of Credit and any amendments, and it explicitly stated it was subject to both the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) and the laws of Massachusetts. The LoC was set to expire one year after its date of issue.

Two days before the original expiration date, an amendment was made to the LoC (Amendment 1), which extended it by one year, added an automatic extension provision, and reaffirmed the other original terms. The automatic renewal process allowed the LoC to be renewed annually with a requirement for a 45-day written notice to ProQuip if Northmark intended not to renew the LoC.

In 2020, Northmark notified ProQuip that the LoC, as amended, would not be renewed, and it expired later that year. Six days before the expiration date, ProQuip demanded payment under the LoC, presenting the original LoC but only a copy of Amendment 1. An affidavit from ProQuip’s company secretary was also provided, declaring that a diligent search failed to locate the original Amendment 1 and promising to hold Northmark harmless from potential liabilities relevant to Amendment 1.

The bank refused to honor the demand, citing that the original of Amendment 1 was required by the terms of the amended LoC.

In a subsequent communication before the expiration date, Northmark reaffirmed that the original documents of both the LoC and Amendment 1 were required. In response, ProQuip’s U.K. counsel sent various documents to Northmark, including a Sight Draft and an Original Document Affidavit and Indemnity.

ProQuip’s indemnity provided it “would defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Northmark “from any and all demands, claims, causes of action, liabilities, losses, cost, or damage, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees, arising out of, pertaining to, or in any manner connected with or related to [Amendment 1].”

ProQuip offered the indemnity because they were unable to locate the original Amendment 1, but only the copy.

Based on ProQuip’s inability to present the original Amendment 1, Northmark again declined to honor the presentment, and the LoC and Amendment 1 expired without any payment made.

Superior Court rules in favor of ProQuip and Northmark appeals

On November 3, 2021, ProQuip filed a complaint in the Superior Court against Northmark, asserting two counts:(1) Breach of the Letter of Credit and (2) Declaratory Judgment. As there was no dispute as to the facts, both Northmark and ProQuip moved for judgment in their favor.

The Superior Court judge hearing the parties’ cross-motions ruled in favor of ProQuip holding:

In sum, because the LOC does not clearly require presentment of the original of Amendment 1 for payment, and because equity supports judgment in favor of ProQuip since there is no risk that Northmark will be harmed, the court concludes that Northmark’s refusal to make payment to ProQuip pursuant to the LOC was unlawful. Accordingly, ProQuip is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claim for breach of contract (Count I) and its request for declaratory relief (Count II)

Northmark appealed the judge’s decision to the Appeals Court

The Appeals Court’s decision in favor of Northmark

Although the lower court had ruled in favor of ProQuip based on its hold harmless agreement and the equity of the situation, the Appeals Court found that strict compliance with the terms of the LoC was required. The presentation of a copy instead of the original Amendment 1 did not meet the legal standard applicable to payment under a LoC.

The Court’s reasoning was straightforward.

According to Massachusetts law, a letter of credit (LoC) serves as a definite commitment by an issuer to the beneficiary to honor a documentary presentation, either by payment or the delivery of an item of value. As per the statute, the issuer must honor a presentation that strictly complies with the LoC’s terms and conditions. Conversely, the issuer must dishonor a presentation that fails to comply.

The LoC in question stipulated that credit would be available through payment against the presentation of the original letter and all amendments for endorsement by the issuer. Additionally, it indicated that the LoC was subject to the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits (2007 Revision) (UCP 600) and Massachusetts law.

Under Article 17(a) of UCP 600, the presentment of an original of “each document stipulated in the credit” is required for payment under an LoC. ProQuip’s presentment included the original LoC but only a copy of Amendment 1.

Certainty, without inquiry, required for payment

In deciding this case, the Court explained that letters of credit are unique commercial instruments, serving the primary purpose of assuring payment to the party providing goods or services. Their attractiveness lies in the certainty they offer. However, deviating from strict compliance could undermine this certainty, making banks reluctant to assume the risks of litigation.

The Court also noted that ProQuip and Northmark had different versions of Amendment 1. Northmark’s version included three handwritten signatures at the bottom of each page of the document, while the photocopy presented by ProQuip included just one. Since Northmark’s role was ministerial, requiring it to determine the substantiality of discrepancies in the documents presented to it, the Court found, was inconsistent with its function.

The Court emphasized the importance of originals, stating that even under the strict compliance standard, some variances might be allowable if they do not compel inquiry into the underlying commercial transaction.

In this case, however, the variance in the copies of Amendment 1 presented, the Court determined “was not minor, and [Northmark] rightfully dishonored payment.”

The final order of the Court

The final order of the Court was:

“Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in favor of ProQuip and remand the case for entry of judgment in favor of [Northmark].”

Conclusion

The ruling in ProQuip Limited v. Northmark Bank serves as a reminder of the significance of original documents in securing and handling LoC transactions in the insurance industry. It highlights the vital need for beneficiaries to safeguard the original LoC and its amendments, emphasizing that even legal indemnities might not be sufficient to overcome the strict requirements of LoC provisions. Professionals dealing with Letters of Credit should heed this warning and ensure their measures to protect the integrity and enforceability of these vital financial instruments are adequate.

ProQuip has twenty days to apply for further appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court is an intermediate appellate court. The ultimate judicial authority resides with the Supreme Judicial Court. Parties dissatisfied with an Appeal Court’s decision may apply for further appellate review. However, the allowance of any further appeal is discretionary with the Supreme Judicial Court.

Under the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, ProQuip will have until September 7, 2023, to apply for further appellate review.

Based upon the decision of the Appeals Court to take away the judgment in favor of the ProQuip, there is a likelihood it will make an application for further appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Best insurance lawyers Massachusetts

Owen Gallagher

Insurance Coverage Legal Expert/Co-Founder & Publisher of Agency Checklists

Over the course of my legal career, I have argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as well as helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.

Connect with me directly, by calling me at 617-598-3801.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    Filed Under: Latest News, MA Insurance Law | Updates & Analysis Tagged With: Agency Checklists, insurance coverage cases in Massachusetts, insurance coverage lawsuit, insurance news massachusetts, ma insurance news, Mass. Insurance News, massachusetts insurance news, New England Insurance News

    About Owen Gallagher

    Owen Gallagher is an experienced insurance litigator as well as a certified mediator and arbitrator who specializes in insurance industry disputes. His interest and affinity for insurance began at a young age working the counter at his father’s assigned risk agency in Roxbury. Over the course of his career, Owen has argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and has helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.  Owen can be reached here.

    Primary Sidebar

    Massachusetts Division of Insurance Announcement

    Sponsored

    Latest Agency Sales

    Gallagher Snaps Up Eastern In Sale Worth 5-Times Commissions

    Salem Five Insurance Acquires Philbin Insurance Group

    Salem Five Insurance Acquires Philbin Insurance Group

    More Agency Sales

    Career News

    Fred C. Church Hires Accomplished Higher Education Risk Management Professional Damual Greaves As Client Executive, Commercial Lines

    New Hampshire Insurance Department Announces Confirmation of DJ Bettencourt as Insurance Commissioner

    New Hampshire Insurance Department Announces Confirmation of DJ Bettencourt as Insurance Commissioner

    NAIC Now Accepting Applications for 2024 Consumer Representatives

    Boston Bruins Defenseman Hampus Lindholm Joins Plymouth Rock Assurance as Brand Ambassador for 2023-24 NHL Season

    Boston Bruins Defenseman Hampus Lindholm Joins Plymouth Rock Assurance as Brand Ambassador for 2023-24 NHL Season 

    Charles Symington Becomes Big ‘I’ President & CEO

    The Hanover Appoints Stephanie E. Seibold and Arthur J. Barrett to Key Specialty Leadership Roles

    Michelle Raue, SVP & Chief Claims Officer for Preferred Mutual Insurance Company Appointed to Rise Advisory Board of Directors

    Fred C. Church Announces Key Personnel Changes to its Education Team

    Kaplansky Insurance Appoints Peter Kenyon as Chief Acquisition Officer

    The Hanover Appoints Charles F. Hamann to President of Small Commercial

    View More Career News

    In Memoriam

    Robert J. Barnat

    In Memoriam: Robert J. Barnat, 1946-2023

    In Memoriam: Bernard Gitlin

    In Memoriam: Pauline R. Gifford, 1936-2023

    CAR News

    DOI Approves CAR’s Changes in Massachusetts Auto Insurance Claims Handling

    3rd Look At The 2023 Commercial Auto Marketplace in Massachusetts

    Ballot Law Campaign Opposes Industry-Backed Auto Repair Agreement

    View More CAR News

    Massachusetts Law Updates

    Claims-Made Policy Snares Another: Preservation Trust Loses Coverage For Late Notice

    Strict Construction of Claims-Made Policy Strikes Again

    Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News

    Appeal Denied: Allstate Agents’ Wrongful Termination Claim Falls Flat

    A case involving two former Allstate agents allegedly misusing confidential customer data after their termination.

    Harvard College Sues Zurich to Overturn A Late Notice Denial of A $15 Million Policy Claim

    The Pitfall of Late Notice: Harvard’s $15 Million Coverage Loss

    The lawsuit over Harvard’s admission policies discriminating against Asian-American applicants.

    Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News, GEICO, Largest Auto Insurance Cos. in Massachusetts

    GEICO Faces Legal Battle as Captive Agent’s Lawsuit Advances

    A Captive Agent’s Suit Against GEICO Can Proceed on Claims of Breach of Contract, Renewal Commissions Owed, Unjust Enrichment, and Employee Misclassification

    More Mass. Law Updates

    DOI News

    Home Insurance Report Part III: Policies by Massachusetts County

    MA Homeowners’ Insurance Premiums Topped $2.8B in 2021

    Massachusetts Remains The 14th Largest Insurance Marketplace As Ranked By Total Premium Volume

    Facts & Figures For New England Insurance Departments & Insurance Producers | 2023

    View More DOI News

    Insurance Fraud

    Prison For A Year-And-A-Day in $14 Million Payroll Tax and Insurance Fraud Case

    Greed & Betrayal: 67-year-old Advisor Gets 4 Years For Annuity Thefts From Vulnerable Clients

    Physical Therapy Assistant Sentenced in Massachusetts Auto No-Fault Insurance Fraud Scheme

    Surprising Survey Results Show Many Americans Think Insurance Fraud Is Not A Crime

    More Insurance Fraud News

    Footer

    Agency Checklists

    Contact us

    Advertise on Agency Checklists

    We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

    Announcements
    Email Sponsorships
    Partnerships
    Custom Collaborations

    *Affiliate Disclosure

    Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

    SEARCH OUR SITE

    Explore Our Archives

    Copyright © 2023 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.

     

    Loading Comments...