Berthing pain

An agent was appointed by owners to manage loading operations at three ports. However, at one of the ports, the stevedores were on strike causing delay to the ship.

Owners consulted with the agent about the possible available options. The agent advised that they had three available options: (a) stay at the berth, which was most convenient as they were already there, plus a watchman would be appointed and there would be a 24-hour customs authority attendance at a cost of US$3,000 per day; (b) stay anchored at the port, but not in the berth which would cost US$3,800 per day; or (c) sail to a nearby port.

Owners chose option (a). However, it became apparent that the agent had omitted to include the actual berth costs, which amounted to a further US$67,000. Had the owners been aware of these additional costs, they would have chosen option (b) or (c).

As a result of this oversight, the owners agreed to pay the cost of option (b) whilst holding the agent responsible for the difference between option (a) and (b). ITIC covered the claim in full.