Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Shipping industry court rulings and arbitration awards under U.S. law.

Oslo Caribbean Carrier v Knowles Construction & Development Co. Ltd. (The “SEA CARRIER”), SMA No. 4463, 3 August 2023

PARTIAL PAYMENT - DAMAGES FOR DENTENTION - DEMURRAGE - FAILURE TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT - FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT This arbitration involved a charterparty for the transport of bulk aggregate sand from Kingston, Jamaica, to Nassau, Bahamas. Oslo Caribbean Carrier AS, the owner of the M/V SEA CARRIER, claimed outstanding demurrage payment and interest from Knowles Construction & Development Co. Ltd., the charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Naviera Transoceanica and Products Tankers Management Company v PetroChina International (America) Inc. – SMA No. 4464, 29 August 2023

VOYAGE SPEED - WEATHER - DEMURRAGE CLAIM - OWNERS GUARANTEE - SLOW STEAMING - ASBATANKVOY A voyage charter was made for the transport of clean petroleum product (CPP) from Cherry Point, Washington, to a Chilean port of the Charterer's choice. Owners initiated arbitration seeking a partial final award of outstanding demurrage, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Charterer disputed the claim, asserting that the vessel failed to meet the charterparty speed and failed to adhere to voyage orders, resulting in a missed discharge window.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Dorval SC Tankers Inc. v SeaRiver Maritime, LLC, (The “GOLDEN AUSTRALIS”) – SMA No. 4465, 7 September 2023

EMVOY 2012 - WITHHELD SAMPLES - SAMPLE CONTAMINATION - JOINT SAMPLE TESTING - ARBITRABILITY - CAUSE OF CONTAMINATION An Owner and Charterer entered into a Contract of Affreightment (COA) for the transportation of bulk chemical products from Singapore to Australia. Sampling at the discharge revealed water droplets and cloudiness in the cargo. The Charterer withheld samples from the discharge from joint testing that was requested by the Owner to determine the cause of contamination.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Teekay Tankers Chartering Pte. Ltd. v SeaRiver Maritime LLC. (The “ZENITH SPIRIT”) – SMA No. 4467, 22 September 2023

EMVOY SPECIAL CLAUSE 15 - EXXONMOBILE VOY2012 - CARGO STORAGE - DAMAGES - AUTHORITY OF BROKER TO REPRESENT BOTH PARTIES - MEETING OF THE MINDS The dispute between SeaRiver Maritime (Charterer) and Teekay Tankers Chartering (Owner) revolved around the terms of a charter party agreement for the vessel ZENITH SPIRIT. The key point of contention was the interpretation of Special Clause 15 from the contract written on an ExxonMobile VOY2012, with Owner claiming a guaranteed minimum of 90 days of storage, while Charterer contended that storage was at Charterer’s option.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Phibro Renewables AG v. Formosa Plastic Marine Corp. – SMA No. 4462, 25 July 2023

CHARTERPARTY BREACH – LATE DELIVERY – CARGO SPECIFICATIONS – ABANDONED CARGO – VESSEL SUBSTITUTION
In this arbitration between Phibro Renewables AG (Charterer) and Formosa Plastic Marine Corporation (Owner), disputes arose from a charterparty agreement concerning the transportation of 5,000 metric tons of UCOME. Charterer claimed damages due to alleged breaches by Owner, including late delivery and vessel substitution, while Owner counterclaimed due to alleged cargo loss.

Shell Trading U.S. Company v. Vinmar International Ltd. (M/T “SOLAR NESRIN”) – SMA No. 4461, 26 June 2023

UNPAID DEMURRAGE – VINMAR TERMS – UNPAID INTEREST, COSTS, AND FEES – PARTIAL PAYMENTS
On January 28, 2023, SHELL issued a demurrage invoice to VINMAR in the amount of $ 77,079.84, as per the laytime calculations with a due date of 1 March 2021. VINMAR did not dispute the demurrage charges but argued the invoice should be reduced by balances allegedly owed to VINMAR by a different SHELL entity from an unrelated transaction. SHELL initiated arbitration for recovery, subsequently receiving partial payment by VINMAR of the disputed amount. SHELL continued with arbitration proceedings to reclaim the remaining unpaid demurrage, associated costs, fees, and interest.

SwissMarine Pte Asia v. Mosaic Fertilizer (MN “PRESINGE”) – SMA No. 4457, 10 March 2023

BREACH OF COA – FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFE BERTH – FAILURE TO NOMINATE SAFE VESSEL – DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – WEATHER – HURRICANE – LOST TIME

SwissMarine and Mosaic Fertilizer had a COA for the carriage of phosphate rock from Peru to the US Gulf for discharge at either New Orleans Triport and/or Tampa – Port Manatee. On the way to discharge at Tampa, concerns were raised by the Port that the Vessel could not safely berth, so the vessel was diverted to New Orleans. Shortly after arrival at anchorage on the Mississippi River, the US Coast Guard limited marine traffic due to the impending arrival of Hurricane Ida. Mosaic declared force majeure, and the PRESINGE did not complete cargo operations until 38 days later. Owners alleged demurrage was due and that Charterers were in breach of COA for failing to provide a safe berth. Charterers countered that no demurrage was due because of the force majeure event, and Owners were in breach of COA for failing to nominate a safe vessel.

Phillips 66 Company v. Yamuna Spirit, LLC, Teekay Chartering and Teekay Marine (The “YAMUNA SPIRIT”) – SMA No. 4454, 12 January 2023

OIL SHEEN – OIL LEAK – OIL SPILL – MARINE TERMINAL LEAK – VESSEL LEAK

On September 19, 2016, the YAMUNA SPIRIT began discharging her Arabian Extra Light crude cargo at the Phillips 66 Marine Terminal, Rodeo Refinery, California. Shortly after operations commenced, a series of odors and oil sheens were observed nearby in San Pablo Bay, San Francisco. The parties, in cooperation with the USCG and state agencies, conducted extensive investigations and testing to determine whether the source of the leak was the Terminal or Vessel. Both parties contended that the other was the source of the oil. Arbitration was sought to establish responsibility for the leak and recover the expenses associated with the oil spill responses, investigations, and legal fees.

Seastar Maritime Ltd. v. AUM Scrap and Metal Waste Trading LLC. (MT “AMIAS”) – SMA No. 4455, 12 December 2022

DEMURRAGE – CHARTERPARTY BREACH – DEVIATION – LOSS MITIGATION
The MT AMIAS was chartered by AUM from Seastar using the Asbatankvoy form with rider clauses to carry Methanol in bulk from Venezuela to 1-2 Safe Port/ 1 Safe Berth (Kandla to Chennai Range). The Vessel finished loading in Venezuela and submitted its invoice for 70% freight for payment within 10 days, per the charterparty. AUM did not pay, and the Vessel stayed in port until May 11. Seastar was forced to seek alternate employment to mitigate losses, which required calling another port. Both parties agreed upon an earlier settlement, but AUM did not pay it either.

XCoal Energy v. Classic Maritime – SMA No. 4450, 16 August 2022

DAMAGES – COVID-19 – COA BREACH – BURDEN OF PROOF
A December 2, 2019 contract of affreightment between XCoal Energy and Classic Maritime stated XCoal was to provide cargos for 6 – 7 vessels during the year 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, XCoal was only able to provide cargo for two vessels. Classic believed they should have been awarded damages of over US$ 4.4 million for the breach, however, XCoal asserted they owed far less, claiming Classic did not meet the burden of proof to warrant this higher claim.