Baltimore Bridge Allison Insurance case

Predictably, General Average appears to have been declared:

1 Like

The figures may get even bigger if the ship will brake it’s spine during salvage operations.

I do not understand why the salvage teams are remowving containers first from Hold no 1 , instead of removing the superheavy remanants of bridge constuction , which hava their LCGb in relation to ships aft perpenicular much bigger then resultant LCGh of hold No.1 .LCGb>>LCGh.

On the recent video clip posted by Ausmariner Dali has a pronounced /huge trim by the head. I am worried that by removing cargo from hold no 1 first and heavy construction as second, the ships bending moment will increase . once she regains buoyancy solely by the removal of cargo with bridge cinstruction still sitting on the bow.

Of course they have engineers /specialist there that kniow what they are doing and i am may be a bit too hysterical about it.

Any thoughts on that

Which by no means may be contested by at least some cargo owners if vsl unseaworthiness due to technical matters is proven. I may be wrong of course.

Addendum: what turns out it can not be contested due to New Jason cl which is an American thing , and is incorporated into the bills of lading. Hence it seems America is very convinient as a place to declar G.A.

I’m guessing they want to clear the containers out of the way of the work of removing the bridge. I can’t say whether that’s smart or not, I’m not a structural engineer or a salvage expert.

1 Like

The video clip I saw showed them lifting 3 boxes at a time , lifting 2 of them on the twist locks. They would have been empties.

1 Like

Part of this podcast discusses the issue of G.A. Luckily at the begining .
The reminder is off topic but interesting as well.

This Bloomberg article, quoted on gCaptain Newsletters today, appears to confirms that General Average has been declared :

Since 54% of the n\boxes carried on M/V Dali was “empties” that raises one question;
Will the owners of the empty boxes be regarded as part of the GA?

PS> Assuming that the “empties” are carried free of charge as part of a “repositioning scheme” agreed between the partners in whichever “alliance”, or “slot shearing agreement”, this voyage was made.

1 Like

That is the kind of question that excites legal eagles and will occupy many to their pension. This case has a very good chance of taking an important place in legal text books when it is settled.

1 Like