Banks should not request additional insurance status

We welcome you back to the Academy Christopher Boggs, the Chief Executive Counselor of Boggs and insurance consultation.

Banks (well, their lawyers or accidents of accidents) make inappropriate requests for lending. I said what I said, and I stand still what I said – unless someone can give evidence differently.

What leading me to this is blamed? Simple, a question from the greater agents, learn such as:

“One of our devours has taken a business loan, and the Bank requires that our client calls the Bank as an additional insurance on the general credit policy. How do we do this?”

Why is this request done at all? Bank What happens because of the work or lending activities?

Loan is an arm transaction between two non-fully related businesses, each working to do your own.

There is no conreement relationship between organizations where the borrower has agreed to do anything instead of or For the benefit of it Of the lender. And there is certainly no relationship between the party between the groups where each one needs to be available in another group.

Additional insurance status is required only when there is contractual relationships or symbols between groups. The domestic / borrower relationship is not contract or sybbiotic.

So, if not the type of relationship is required, why is the added insurance situation required? There may be few opportunities:

• The lender is investigating and agreed to the procedures and procedures for lenders; or
• This borrower guarantees safety and movement of a borrower product.

It is questioned that the borrower are professional or authority to investigate and approve businesses, procedures and procedures, or a borrowing system. There are some companies that are better suited and for these goals.

Therefore, the bank is No Credit exposure to products, services or lenders. When no mandatory disposal, there is no need for an additional insurance situation.

Finally, no relationship or exposure between the lender and a lender who requires an additional insurance situation. This requirement is an incorrect and unnecessary problem.

If you do not agree, please give me practical reasons or active laws. But or using the law is a problem. The law of cases is guilty, and forms a broad standard of stroke based on a very direct set of circumstances is not right! If the law case is used to support this requirement, it should be reviewed.

Until the students provide accurate evidence Besides, I stand behind my argument for lawyers and / or misconditions of the accident, incorrect and tied with their insurance need to receive a bank loan. However, when a reasonable evidence is given, I will renew my situation again.

I look forward to hearing from you.