The Claims Review - Issue 35, September 2016

Claims Review 35

20/09/2016

Misread tariff

A South American port agent was asked by the owners of a vessel to provide a quote for the costs of discharging a shipment of project cargo.

20/09/2016

Missing profit

A ship broker fixed a tanker for a two-year period to charterer ABC. It was subsequently renewed for a third year. During the course of the third year the brokers arranged a subcharter to XYZ. The subcharter needed to be on back to back terms with the original fixture.

20/09/2016

Tax troubles

A liner agent had been paying 2.5% of all freight, paid on export cargo to the local tax authorities. Local regulations made the local agent jointly liable for the tax with the foreign carrier.

20/09/2016

Wasted time

A ship agent in the USA failed to update a local tug company of a change to a vessel’s departure time. This resulted in the tug being prematurely dispatched to assist the ship. The tug company claimed for the wasted time which had to be paid for by the agent.

20/09/2016

Insufficient Blanking

A layup manager arranged the blanking of sea valves for a vessel going into cold layup.

20/09/2016

No Notice of claim

A demurrage claim for US$ 352,122 was passed onto the charterer by the broker within the 90 day charterparty time limit period. However, the charterer declined to pay the claim as they had not been given notice that a demurrage claim would be made within the 60 day period provided for in the charterparty. The owner had advised the broker within the 60 day period that a demurrage claim would be made but this had not been passed on by the broker.

20/09/2016

Costly storage

A ship agent failed to spot that a bill of lading had specific instructions to arrange the delivery of 10 containers of cargo to the port’s free zone, where the consignee would have enjoyed a free storage period of 21 days from the port authority.

20/09/2016

Wrong holds

A ship agent issued bills of lading in respect of a cargo of different types of coal being transported to Canada. Due to human error, they confused the holds and indicated on the bills of lading that Coal Type A cargo was in holds 1, 3 and 5 and Coal Type B cargo was in holds 2 and 4. However, it was actually the other way around.

20/09/2016

Reports alone are not enough

Ship managers acted as managers of a vessel for a number of years until it was sold. When it was delivered in Northern Europe to the buyers, Class suspended the vessel’s approvals due the state of its ballast tanks.

20/09/2016

Guaranteed commission

Ship brokers in Asia were due commission on the sale of a vessel for scrap. The buyers performance of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was guaranteed by their Hong Kong based affiliate.

20/09/2016

Short circuit

This claim involved one cargo owner, two brokers working at different offices, and three shipowners.

Get a quote

Fill in the relevant proposal form to receive a quote.

Make a claim

Guidance on how to report a claim.

Talk to our experts

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

You are currently offline. Some pages or content may fail to load.