Case Summary:
Company Q (Plaintiff – the Insured) and Company B (Defendant – the Insurer) entered into an insurance contract. After an insured event occurred, the parties could not agree on the value of the loss and therefore conducted an assessment. The unilateral assessment conducted by the Insurer was not accepted, while the independent assessment was only partially recognized.
Lessons Learned:
Insurance contract disputes are quite common in arbitration. In practice, it is not unusual for parties to disagree on the insured loss and require an assessment. The key question is: Does the assessment result have binding legal value?
In this case, the parties signed a motor vehicle insurance contract under which the Plaintiff insured a vehicle with a coverage value of VND 1,245,000,000, valid from May 2, 2012 to May 1, 2013. On July 18, 2012, the insured truck was involved in an accident that caused damage to both the vehicle and the cargo. On August 10, 2012, the Insurer conducted a motor vehicle damage assessment with the vehicle owner’s representative present. Meanwhile, the Insured requested Company HA to check the vehicle’s condition. Later, both parties agreed to appoint the third independent assessment body – the H Vehicle Registration Center – which concluded that no engine damage was found, and other systems were evaluated based on the Insurer’s prior damage assessment.
When resolving the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal determined that “there are grounds to confirm that both parties agreed to appoint H Vehicle Registration Center as an independent assessor whose conclusion would be binding on both parties. The assessment was conducted twice in the presence of the Plaintiff.” Regarding the conclusion that “no engine damage was found at the time of inspection,” the Tribunal “recognized the assessment result of this authority.” However, for other parts, the Tribunal noted that “H Vehicle Registration Center relied on the Defendant’s previous assessment result, which was not objective and not consistent with the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant. H Center should have conducted a re-assessment as agreed by both parties. Therefore, the Tribunal does not recognize this conclusion.”
The above demonstrates that the Arbitral Tribunal did not accept a loss assessment conducted unilaterally by one party in case of dispute. This approach is reasonable and should be understood by businesses, as an assessment conducted by one side cannot ensure objectivity.
As for the independent assessment jointly agreed upon by both parties, the Tribunal accepted its results when it was carried out as agreed. In such a case, the assessment is binding on both parties. However, the part of the conclusion that merely repeated the prior unilateral assessment was not recognized, as it failed to comply with the agreed independent reassessment procedure. This reasoning is also convincing since, for an assessment to have legal validity, it must be conducted independently and objectively.
From this case, both insurance companies and insured businesses should note that a unilateral assessment (conducted by one party only) has no legal value in the event of a dispute and that an independent assessment is required. Furthermore, an independent assessment must also be carried out in an independent and objective manner; otherwise, its conclusion will not have binding legal effect, as demonstrated in the case above.
Disclaimer:
This article is published for informational purposes only, intended as a reference for arbitrators, disputing parties, participants in arbitration proceedings, and those studying commercial arbitration. It does not represent or express any opinion or viewpoint of the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC). Any reference or citation by third parties to part or all of this article has no validity and is not acknowledged by VIAC.
Source: https://www.viac.vn/
As global supply chains continue to shift and the air cargo industry enters a new phase of post-pandemic restructuring, Southeast Asia is increasingly positioned as a strategic air logistics hub on the global map
After two hot years driven by e-commerce and disruption in sea freight, the air-cargo market in 2025 is slowing as supply and demand gradually normalize, belly-capacity (passenger-aircraft freight space) recovers and trade policies fluctuate. For Vietnamese companies exporting high-value goods, this is the time to re-calculate the “sea-air mix” to optimize cost, time and shipment certainty.
From January 1, 2025, the FuelEU Maritime regulation officially takes effect, requiring ships to reduce their “well-to-wake” greenhouse gas intensity by 2% compared to the 2020 baseline, with targets rising progressively until 2050. As a result, “green” costs—including scarce alternative fuels, compliance fees, verification expenses, and carbon-related surcharges—are now clearly reflected in the invoices issued by carriers and shippers. FuelEU does not mandate the use of any specific fuel. Instead, it allows operators to choose the optimal combination of solutions—such as blended biofuels, LNG/bio-LNG, wind-assisted propulsion, or operational optimization—as long as the required emission intensity is achieved. In practice, on major European trade lanes, many carriers have already begun introducing separate “Green Compliance Surcharges” rather than incorporating all environmental costs into traditional bunker surcharges.
We wish our valued customers and partners a joyful and happy holiday.
On 23 December 2015, Glotrans Da Nang was officially established under the strategic direction of Glotrans Vietnam, marking an important milestone in expanding our nationwide network across Central Vietnam. From day one, the branch has carried the mission of becoming an efficient logistics gateway, contributing to the enhancement of Glotrans’ nationwide service network.
On the occasion of Vietnamese Teachers’ Day 20/11, Glotrans Vietnam would like to extend our warmest and most respectful greetings to all teachers, trainers, and everyone who tirelessly dedicates themselves to the mission of imparting knowledge.
The shipment of food additives was transported in container No. FCIU3301688 (20’), under B/L MPRSMUM1806, on the voyage from Nhavasheva Port (India) to Dinh Vu Port (Hai Phong, Vietnam) on 29/04/2017.
Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.
Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.
