Amended Migrant Workers Act RA 1022 - common questions
Common questions (posted 4th November)What are the key differences between the minimum compulsory insurance requirements provided for within Section 37-A of the AMWA/RA 10022 and the scope of P&I cover?
Although some of the minimum compulsory insurance requirements contained within Section 37-A, sub-paragraphs (a) to (i) are similar to liabilities already recoverable by an assured under their P&I policy, there are some notable differences between those minimum compulsory insurance requirements and the scope of P&I cover.
These differences are discussed and compared in more detail in A comparison between the "minimum" Compulsory Insurance provisions of SEC, 37-A of the Migrant Workers Act / RA 10022 and the scope of P&I cover available to a Member (posted 4th November).Where can our Manning Agent obtain insurance meeting the Compulsory Insurance obligations?
We are advised that the Insurance Commission accredited insurance providers are:
1. Paramount Life and General Insurance Corp.
2. Philippine Charter Insurance Corp.
3. United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corp.
It has been indicated that premiums are USD 56.70 per seafarer for six months and USD 100 per seafarer for one year, although we are also aware of quotes being provided in the region of USD 100 to 150 per seafarer for one year. For further guidance about these facilities, members should consult with their manning agents.What is the IG's position in relation to the Certificate of Cover?
The position of the International Group of P&I Clubs (IG) as outlined in the UK P&I Club's Circular in September 2010 (Ref: 17/10) has not altered.
As highlighted within this Circular, the "Certificate of Cover", which the POEA has indicated it would accept as evidence of compliance with the Compulsory Insurance provisions of the Amended Migrant Workers Act (AWMA), has not been approved by the IG. The scope of P&I cover (leaving aside the matter of policy deductibles) does not meet the "minimum" Compulsory Insurance requirements of the Act, nor does Club cover benefit seafarers directly. For this reason, the IG has already informed the POEA that no assumptions should be drawn from the wording of the Certificate of Cover, in relation to the scope of Club cover.Should Members sign the Certificate of Cover or authorise its issuance on their behalf?
It should be emphasised that the obligation is on the Manning Agent to evidence compliance with the Act, not the employer/shipowner. It will be for each Member to decide whether or not they are happy to authorise their Manning Agent to provide the "Certificate of Cover", or, alternatively, to agree with the Manning Agent that cover is taken out with a local insurer approved by the Insurance Commission.If a Member signs the Certificate of Cover or authorises its issuance on his behalf, will Club cover be prejudiced?
We can confirm that the issuance of the proposed "Certificate of Cover" does not prejudice Club cover, PROVIDED the Member understands that this does not relieve their Manning Agent of the obligations arising under the Act and may leave some exposures uninsured. The Association will be happy to give its consideration to any claims for reimbursement a Member may present, but on a strict indemnity basis and subject always to the Association's Rules and the Terms & Conditions of Entry.
You may also be interested in:
Our Americas Members often deal with contracts of carriage subject to the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”) and the Harter Act, this article addresses some frequently asked questions.
This article examines the outlook for offshore wind farms in the United States, including the two types of offshore wind farm, regulatory compliance and more.
In the second episode of the UK Club ask an expert series focusing on ballast water the topic of Type Approval US Vs IMO, old G8 Vs BWM Code – Limitations of the Type Approval is examined with Dr Li Gang from SGS.