The Claims Review - Issue 48

16/05/2023

Welcome to the May edition of ITIC's Claims Review

Welcome to the May edition of ITIC’s Claims Review. The ITIC board met for their March board meeting in Singapore. 

A series of unfortunate events

An offshore surveying firm signed a contract with an oil company, for the provision of geophysical surveys and geotechnical surveys over certain gas fields.

16/05/2023

Heartless owner

A yacht manager performed a successful coordination of a medical emergency response in respect of a crew member that felt ill. A helicopter collected the crew member from the yacht and took him to a hospital onshore. The costs, paid directly by the manager, were US$ 30,000.

16/05/2023

Be conditioned to check conditions

Managers were responsible for a ship between 2014 to 2017 subject to a shipman contract. After redelivery they were put on notice of a claim from the owners who alleged that they had suffered losses exceeding US$ 500,000 due to the managers’ negligence.

16/05/2023

Interview with Matthew Offers

Matthew Offers, sits down to chat with the Claims Review editor, as part of this regular interview series in which we get to know ITIC’s claims handlers. 

16/05/2023

Payment problem

A ship agent was appointed by owners who asked them to arrange a ship inspection for their ship which had been detained by the MCA (Marine and Coastguard Agency).

16/05/2023

Claim email sent to wrong address

Members, were shipbrokers between owners and charterers. Owners sent their demurrage claim to the shipbrokers to pass to the charterers. They sent it to the shipbroker’s operations email address by mistake.

To hull and back

A yard contracted naval architects to provide designs for four identical hulls in the summer of 2021. The hulls were to be the basis of a passenger vessel, and three different owners were destined to take delivery of these.

16/05/2023

Consignee conundrum

A ship was headed to a port of discharge to carry a petroleum product cargo. The charterparty contained a clause which allowed the charterers to change the port of discharge and subsequently the bills of lading in exchange for a Letter of Indemnity (LOI).

16/05/2023

Sinking feeling for tug owners

A ship agent was asked by the owners of a ship which was in difficulties in the Atlantic to arrange tugs to attend to the ship. The agent arranged for tugs to attend the ship, but the ship subsequently sunk.

16/05/2023

Test rained off

Hull and water damage became apparent on a boat, which the owner alleged should have been noted during a survey but had been missed by the surveyor. The claim total was US$ 33,000 and court documentation was issued.

16/05/2023

Poor performance

A claim was made against a ship manager for alleged failure of their duty in the supervision of the crew leading to poor crew performance and a poor standard of maintenance. The claim brought forward was for US$ 1 million.

16/05/2023

Bond, bonded warehouse

A ship agent took delivery of a cargo which was stored in a temporary storage warehouse at the port. The ship agent was meant to transfer and declare the cargo as “bonded”. However, they failed to do so. The reason simply being they forgot.

16/05/2023

Label liable

A port agent in the Middle East was appointed by a Line to assist in the discharge of 94 containers. Subsequently the port authorities levied a fine of US$ 333 per container as they did not have the correct IMCO labels for the cargo being carried in the name of the agent.

16/05/2023

Not ready for NOR

A ship agent in the US failed to issue a Notice of Readiness (NOR) to the terminal in time, resulting in a delay of just under five days.

16/05/2023

Ask the Editor

Please continue to send in your questions – we are enjoying them. You can email us at askeditorCR@thomasmiller.com