Claims Review 29

10/10/2013
The design of a small aluminium ship was undertaken by a naval architect, who was insured by ITIC. The owner advised that the ship was to be capable of achieving a specific commercial survey class.

10/10/2013
A marine chemist carried out routine testing of a cargo of methanol when a vessel docked for discharge.

10/10/2013
A ship fixed by a commercial manager had a clause in the charterparty which stated that the charterer would reimburse owners any extra costs in relation to the ship being ordered into a war risk area.

10/10/2013
A commercial ship manager fixed a ship for a voyage of 4,000 metric tonnes of ammonium nitrate in big bags. This type of cargo had been carried by the commercial manager’s fleet on several occasions, but the cargo had always previously been described as being in loose/bulk condition.

10/10/2013
Historically shipbrokers have been one of the only marine professionals not to use standard terms and conditions when contracting. However this practice has been changing. Over the last couple of years individual broking companies, including some of the biggest, have begun to use their own terms and conditions. ITIC has encouraged this development and assisted with the drafting process.

10/10/2013
The loading of a ship was delayed, as a result of which the owners had a claim against the charterers under the terms of the charterparty for demurrage of around EUR 70,000.

10/10/2013
A ship was fixed for a trip timecharter for two voyages, with an option for a third. In accordance with the recap the option was to be declared by the charterers on completion of loading on the second voyage. The fixture had been negotiated via brokers in two different offices of the same broking company.

10/10/2013
After the conclusion of a voyage, various owner’s claims were submitted by the shipbroker to the charterers within the time allowed (including the costs of shifting, cleaning and demurrage). However the owners separately sent the shipbroker a claim for loss of hire. This was for an amount of USD 31,500 but this was not sent to the charterers within the 90 days. The charterparty was subject to US law and the time bar clause was wide enough to cover all “charges and claims”.

10/10/2013
A shipbroker fixed an extension of a charter in direct continuation. However, the broker working the account had forgotten to include the charterer’s “subject to 24 hours reconfirmation” in the negotiation.

10/10/2013
As you will see from the examples given in the following paragraphs a mistake in a bill of lading can have wide ranging consequences and produce a variety of claims. The main source of ship agency claims seen by ITIC are those which involve bills of lading.

10/10/2013
In late September, an agent for a major shipping line accepted a booking of industrial solvent. On 10 October the vessel arrived at the loadport but did not complete cargo operations until five days later.

10/10/2013
A ship agent received instructions from a shipper to book eight containers of cargo from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia and issued two bills of lading for the booking.

10/10/2013
The shipment of six containers of castor oil, worth USD 270,000, was arranged by a ship agent member of ITIC. The containers were to be transported from India to Antwerp. Unfortunately, the Belgian agent released the cargo to the consignee against a bill of lading that appeared genuine at first glance – but was in fact a clever forgery.

10/10/2013
A ship agent overlooked the filing of some customs documentation for two containers of bananas due to be loaded on a ship in the Caribbean. Due to this error, the two containers remained in port.

Get a quote

Get a Quote

Fill in the relevant proposal form to receive a quote.

Make a claim

Make a claim

Guidance on how to report a claim.

Talk to our experts

Talk to our experts

Contact us at ITIC.
+44 (0)20 7204 2928