A letter of indemnity moves cargo when the paperwork has not caught up with the ship, and it does one thing only: it shifts the risk of that gap onto whoever signs it. It is not insurance, it is not a bank guarantee unless a bank has actually countersigned it, and it does nothing at all to protect an innocent third party who later turns up holding a genuine original bill of lading. For a freight forwarder, knowing which of a handful of situations an LOI actually belongs in, and which ones it does not, is the difference between a routine operational fix and a claim nobody's insurance will pay.
What a letter of indemnity actually is
An LOI is a private contract. One party asks a carrier or agent to do something it would not otherwise do, typically release cargo without the document that is supposed to control it, or issue a document that does not accurately describe what was actually loaded, and promises in writing to cover whatever loss results. Its only real strength is the financial standing of whoever signs it, which is why the standard advice from every major Protection and Indemnity (P&I) club is the same: get it countersigned by a first-class bank, because an LOI from a company of unknown credit is, in practical terms, a promise and nothing more.
1. Delivering cargo without an original bill of lading
This is by far the most common reason a forwarder ever sees an LOI. A negotiable bill of lading is a document of title, and a carrier is meant to release cargo only against a genuine original. On short intra-Asia or intra-Gulf routes, and increasingly on any fast transit, the ship can arrive at discharge days before the courier carrying the original bill does, because the paper is still working its way through a bank's documentary credit process while the vessel is already alongside.
Rather than let the cargo, and the demurrage clock, sit, the consignee's bank or agent asks the carrier to release the cargo against a letter of indemnity: a promise to produce the original bill later, or to indemnify the carrier for whatever loss results from releasing without it. The practice is common enough that the International Group of P&I Clubs, the association behind the standard wordings most container and bulk carriers rely on, maintains three approved standard forms for exactly this: INT GROUP A for delivery without an original bill, and INT GROUP B and C for delivery at a port other than the one stated on the bill. Using one of the approved wordings, and having it countersigned by a bank, is standard practice precisely because an uncountersigned LOI from an unknown trading company is worth only as much as that company's balance sheet.
The risk sits squarely with the carrier that accepts it. The UK P&I Club's own guidance states plainly that liabilities arising from mis-delivery of this kind are not covered by P&I insurance, and that under the Club's own rules, delivering cargo without production of a bill of lading prejudices the member's cover, restorable only at the committee's discretion. The LOI is what stands in the carrier's place once that happens, not an extra layer of protection on top of it.
2. Switch bills of lading
A switch bill of lading is a second, replacement set issued by the carrier in place of the bill presented at the load port, usually changing the named shipper or consignee, while the underlying vessel and voyage stay the same. There are genuine commercial reasons for this: a trading intermediary who buys cargo afloat and resells it on often needs a bill that does not disclose the original seller's identity, price or load port to the next buyer down the chain. That is ordinary practice in commodity trading.
The same mechanism is also how a load port or a seller's identity gets hidden for less legitimate reasons, most often to obscure the true origin of goods for sanctions or customs purposes, or to misstate a loading date so a shipment fits a letter of credit's shipping deadline. The requesting party issues the carrier a letter of indemnity assuming all risk from the switch, and Skuld's own guidance is explicit that P&I cover is not automatically lost when bills are switched, but that it is seriously jeopardised if the switch bill is antedated, postdated, or describes the cargo in a way the member knows to be incorrect, or if the vessel is knowingly used for an illegal purpose. As one maritime law firm has put it, a letter of indemnity is little consolation when the party that signed it has no means to pay: the underlying danger of any switch is that two sets of bills can end up circulating at once, with two different consignees able to show up at the quay claiming the same cargo.
3. A clean bill of lading against a claused mate's receipt
A mate's receipt is the ship's own record of what was actually loaded, and it gets claused whenever the cargo does not match its description, condition or quantity on paper: rust on steel coils, wet cartons, a short count. The bill of lading is supposed to mirror that record. A shipper who needs a clean bill anyway, most often because a letter of credit requires one and a claused bill will be rejected by the bank, will sometimes offer the carrier a letter of indemnity promising to cover any claim that follows from issuing a clean bill despite the discrepancy.
This is the one situation where carriers, and their P&I clubs, are genuinely cautious, and for good reason. In the 1957 English case Brown Jenkinson & Co Ltd v Percy Dalton (London) Ltd, a carrier issued a clean bill for old, leaking barrels of orange juice against an LOI from the shipper, and the court held that the LOI amounted to a knowing false representation intended to be relied on by whoever ended up holding the bill, including any bank financing the deal. That made the indemnity unenforceable for illegality: the carrier could not fall back on the shipper's promise once the fraud on a third party was established. The West P&I Club's guidance is direct on the insurance consequence: liabilities of this kind are excluded from club cover, and accepting an LOI does not re-engage that cover in any way. The UK P&I Club's own briefing draws the same line.
The reason carriers refuse LOI-backed clean bills for a known discrepancy is not caution for its own sake. A clean bill against a claused mate's receipt is a representation to whoever later holds that bill in good faith, a buyer, a bank, an insurer, that the cargo was in good order when it was not. The carrier's indemnity from the shipper does nothing for that third party, and once a court treats the arrangement as a scheme to deceive, the indemnity itself becomes worthless to the carrier too. The only sound response to a claused mate's receipt is a claused bill of lading, or cargo that actually matches what the paperwork says.
4. Shipping without a bill of lading at all
On short-sea and feeder moves, particularly regular runs between related parties or trading partners who are not settling through a letter of credit, carriers increasingly issue a sea waybill instead of a bill of lading at all. A sea waybill is a receipt and evidence of the contract of carriage, but unlike a bill of lading it is not a document of title: the consignee named on it gets the cargo released against proof of identity, with no original document to chase down and no LOI needed to bridge a gap that cannot exist in the first place. Our guide to bill of lading types covers the practical differences between an original, seaway, telex-release and switch bill in more detail.
A straight, non-negotiable, named-consignee bill of lading is sometimes confused with a waybill, but it is not the same thing: a straight bill still generally has to be surrendered to obtain delivery in most trades, so it does not remove the document-chasing problem the way a genuine sea waybill does. Choosing the right document at booking, rather than patching a mismatched one with an LOI later, is the actual fix for a short transit.
Why an LOI protects only the parties who signed it
Every situation above shares the same structural weakness. A letter of indemnity is a private promise between the party that asked for something irregular and the carrier or agent that agreed to it. It binds only those two parties, on the credit of whichever one is doing the promising. It does nothing to protect, and creates no obligation toward, an innocent third party who later turns up holding a genuine original bill of lading in good faith, a bank that financed the shipment on the strength of a clean bill, or a buyer who paid against documents that misrepresented the cargo. That third party's claim against the carrier is unaffected by an LOI it never saw and never agreed to. A bank countersignature turns the promise into something with real financial backing behind it; an LOI from a company of unverified standing is, in a dispute, only as good as that company's ability and willingness to pay when it is called.
Normal operational tool, or red flag?
| Signal | Usually normal | Usually a red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Reason for the request | Fast transit, original bill still in transit through a bank | No clear commercial reason offered, or a vague one |
| Documents involved | Release against a genuine, otherwise unremarkable original set on the way | Request to issue a clean bill against a claused mate's receipt |
| Counterparty | An established trading relationship, or a bank-countersigned request | An unknown company, or an uncountersigned LOI from a thin balance sheet |
| Timing pattern | Isolated, tied to one shipment's document delay | Repeated switch-bill requests on the same route or counterparty |
What to do before accepting one
- Use the approved wording. For release without an original bill, the International Group's standard forms exist precisely so both sides know what is, and is not, being promised.
- Insist on a bank counter-signature whenever the sums or the counterparty's standing justify it. An uncountersigned LOI is a bet on that company's solvency months or years from now, when the claim actually lands.
- Never accept an LOI to issue a document you know is wrong. A clean bill against a claused mate's receipt is the one request to decline outright: the indemnity does not survive contact with a court once fraud on a third party is shown, and the club cover most carriers rely on is excluded from the start.
- Ask why a switch is needed, and get the original set back before issuing a replacement. A legitimate trading reason is easy to state; a request to obscure the load port or the seller with no commercial explanation is not.
- Choose the right document at booking on short routes, rather than patching the wrong one with an indemnity after the fact.
None of this is exotic. Documentary delay, switch bills and clean-bill pressure show up constantly in ordinary trade, and most forwarders who handle bills of lading regularly will meet all four situations at some point. What separates a routine fix from a real exposure is whether the paperwork is actually accurate, and whether the party standing behind the promise can pay. Our guides to handling a cargo claim against your forwarding business and freight fraud, fictitious pickups and double brokering cover the wider risk picture, and if your shipment moves on an alliance sailing rather than a single carrier's own vessel, vessel sharing agreements and slot chartering explains why the bill you actually booked on, not the vessel that shows up, is what governs a claim.
You can search more than 29,300 logistics companies by country and service in the CargoLinked directory, or post your shipment and let forwarders come to you.
This article explains a commercial and legal practice in general terms and is not legal advice. Letter of indemnity enforceability, club cover and the standard forms referenced here vary by jurisdiction, carrier and P&I club rules; confirm current terms with your own P&I club or legal counsel before relying on any point here.
