Limited Liability

[ombugge]

Here is an article from CNA re: Owner and Manager attempting to limit their liability for the M/V Dali incident:

Ship's owner, manager try to limit liability in Baltimore accident

Their joint filing seeks to cap the companies’ liability at roughly $43.6 million. It estimates that the vessel itself is valued at up to $90 million and was carrying freight worth over $1.1 million in income for the companies. The estimate also deducts two major expenses: at least $28 million in repair costs and at least $19.5 million in salvage costs.

[Tugboater203]

We all knew that was coming. I’m sure the general public will be outraged at the “low” cap due to the expected costs. That number isn’t even really enough for the wrongful death suits that should be coming soon.

[spowiednick]

This Gard material shows how Liability limitation worked in case of MSC Flamina .Owner v/s Charterer

Limitation of liability lessons from the msc flaminia - Gard

[tugsailor]

Limitation of liability is usually denied, especially if shoreside managers were consulted and they advised or pressured the Master to depart with defects.

A bit off the Limited Liability Act topic, but

Watch for the P&I Club to try to deny coverage if the Master and Engineer are charged with criminal acts.

Insurance generally covers negligence.

Insurance generally does not cover intentional or criminal acts (taking the decision to sail with serious unreported defects).

Insurance generally may not cover “gross negligence “ or “recklessness.”

[spowiednick]

Interesting comment from Splash247 " Baltimore takes Dali owner and manager to court"

[Hogsnort]

As for much of these things there will be some unintended consequences. The loss of limitations of liability will in tern result in a sharp rise in Insurance and P&I club dues for voyages to US ports leading to an escalation in freight charges. If you have your eyes on a Beemer or Merc I would get in quick.

[tugsailor]

Not at all.

Limitation of Liability is usually denied. It has been for a long time. It’s a relict of the past from a beyond era before instant 24/7 comms and dozens of emails from the office everyday.

[Kennebec_Captain]

Don’t know what charter rates are for a 6500 CEU car carrier, assuming $100,000 / day which may be high, divided by 4000 cars comes out to $25 / day per car. Under $1000 per car, not much on a high-end car.

[spowiednick]

Ok. Looks like everybody has a point here .

Mr. Gordon comment is still opened for rebuttal and/or discussion under the source article . May be the arguments presented here should be adressed there. I am not competent to do it.

But there is someting that boders me a lot.

This liability, that applies to all sorts of damages to property, pollution , death is denied sort of automatically because of this 24/7 access to the ship and most legal minds sitting on the cases know or suspect , that masters of today are not the same masters of say 50 years ago and present day masters/Chengs are heavily influenced/pressured by office/shore side people who have means of monitoring all aspects of ships activity via remote means and increased reporting requirements.

From my observation (25+ years of command) most of this office blokes have no maritime licences and yet they sort of command remotely and instruct those on board .

ALL on board , including ratings have their valid STCW cerificates/licences or other(USCG) and some of them have licences, that entitle them not only to command but also manage the vessel. I read here and there ,that nowadays after the CMA CGM Libra precedence some managements require masters to send their voyage plans for OFFICE APPROVAL!!! .

In my subjective opinion this is a complete nonsense.

And yet and despite all what I have written above , the situation regarding CARGO claims is still according to the old and ancient rules . The majority of B/Ls have a fine print on their back side containing what !!!.

Containg Haugue Visby rules , which so far are doing very well, despite introduction of Hamburg rules and Rotterdam rules ( one of them is still not ratified AFAIK) .

And HV rules contain the following :

Article IV

1. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness unless caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier to make the ship seaworthy, and to secure that the ship is properly manned, equipped and supplied, and to make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article III. Whenever loss or damage has resulted from unseaworthiness the burden of proving the exercise of due diligence shall
   be on the carrier or other person claiming exemption under this article.

2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from:

(a) Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship.

And in contrast with this Limitation of liability thing , cargo claims are succesfully defended and all that is possible is done to prove masters/crew fault to rely on
Art IV rule 2 a) of mentioned HV rules.

It beats me really.

Addendum from P&I on HV r.
2767683-contracts-of-carriage-and-bills-of-lading-the-hague-visby-rules.pdf (standard-club.com)