Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Clipper Holding (The Netherlands) BV v. Agritrade, LP (The “Sea Melodyr”) – SMA No. 4204, 29 Mar 2013

BALTIMORE FORM C -- MOORING PERSONNEL STRIKE -- PILOT DELAY -- WIBON CLAUSE -- NOTICE OF READINESS VALIDITY -- SUBSTANTIAL READINESS -- Charterer Award The Vessel experienced serious delays en route to the upriver loadberth due to a strike of mooring personnel. Charterer rejected the subsequent demurrage claim, and at arbitration, they argued that (1) Shortened Proceedings should govern, (2) the loadport Notice of Readiness (NOR) was invalid because the Owner had not met all NOR requirements, and (3) the delay due to a workmen strike (mooring personnel) is exempted by a special exceptions clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Invista SARL v. Stolt Tankers BV (The “Stolt Perseverance”) – SMA No. 4205, 8 Apr 2013

ASBATANKVOY -- COA -- ARBITRAL VENUE -- Charterer’s Motion Denied Charterer requested arbitration hearings to be conducted in Houston, Texas, despite the Contract of Affreightment (COA) stipulating that arbitration is to take place in New York.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sangamon Transportation Group v. OSL Steamship Corp. (The “Genco Carrier”) – SMA No. 4206, 12 Apr 2013

NYPE -- LOSS MITIGATION -- UNSAFE BERTH -- VESSEL DAMAGE -- CHARTER HIRE RATE -- PROTRACTED VOYAGE -- WITHOUT GUARANTEE PROVISION -- Partial Owner Award The Disponent Owner’s claim was a summation of five different issues recapped below as (1) Vessel damage while alongside the discharge berth; (2) disputed daily hire rate for transit time to Santos to conduct repairs; (3) unsafe berth; (4) time charter trip exceeding the estimated voyage days fixed; and (5) indemnity for a third-party claim for underperformance attributable to bottom-fouling (due to prolonged waiting time at Charterer’s disport).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Kelso Enterprises Ltd. v. LauritzenCool AB (The “St. Lucia”) – SMA No. 4208, 1 May 2013

COA -- SEAWORTHINESS -- CARGO DAMAGES -- INDEMNITY -- Owner Award Charterer seeks market damages due to a one week delay in cargo delivery because of Vessel repairs. Owner rejects the Charterer’s damages claim on the basis that the Charterer sold the cargo under a CIF contract (title and risk of loss to the cargo is transferred when the cargo passes the ship’s rail at the loadport) and is therefore not the injured party.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. (The “Athos I”) – US Court of Appeal (Third Circuit), 16 May 2013

ASBATANKVOY -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- "APPROACH" DEFINED -- Owner Award Owner appealed the U.S. District Court ruling for exoneration from or limitation of liability resulting from the Vessel striking a partially submerged anchor in its approach to the Charterer’s discharge terminal. Per Owner, Charterer breached the safe berth warranty. Per Charterer, the incident occurred outside its area of control and the Owner is responsible for port draft restrictions by virtue of the port being named in the charter party.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Great Elephant Corp. v. CPC Corp. (The “Front Sabang”) – SMA No. 4197, 14 Dec 2012

ASBA II -- GANGWAY FAILURE -- SEAWORTHINESS --BAD WEATHER -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award The gangway collapsed during the boarding of the Charterer’s mooring team causing injury and subsequent delays in berthing. Per Owner, the cause of the collapse was due to a sheared swivel pin from contact by the tug in adverse weather. Conversely, Charterer asserted that the condition of the swivel pin was pre-existing and combined with the weight of the team caused the failure.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

America Metals Trading, LLP v. Phoenix Bulk Carriers, Ltd. (The “Captain P. Egglezos”) – SMA No. 4201, 25 Feb 2013

GENCON -- CONDITION OF PERFORMANCE -- ADDITIONAL FREIGHT FOR REPLACEMENT VESSELS -- Owner Award Charterer seeks compensation for the freight differential paid on substitute tonnage when the Owner failed to perform in their obligation to nominate two vessels as required in the charter party. Conversely, Owner counters that due to cargo issues (railcar allocation, export documentation, etc.) and berth operational issues, the Charterer would not have been able to supply the cargo even if the Owner complied with the Vessel nominations.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Tankers AS v. Colonial Oil Industries Inc. (The “Kiso”) – SMA No. 4187, 5 Oct 2012

ASBATANKVOY -- EXTENSION OF LAYDAYS -- DEMURRAGE -- NO RESPONSE FROM CHARTERER -- FAILURE TO NOMINATE ARBITRATOR -- Owner Award Charterer agreed to a laycan extension when it became clear that the Vessel would be unable to reach the loadport by the cancellation date. After the voyage, Owner submitted a claim for demurrage and Charterer disputed their calculation. Charterer did not respond to any further communication.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Phoenix Bulk Carriers, Ltd. v. America Metals Trading, LLP. (The “Captain P. Egglezos”) – SMA No. 4164, 9 Feb 2012

GENCON -- DEMURRAGE RATE -- FORCE MAJEURE -- REVERSIBLE LAYTIME -- CHARTER CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award At issue is whether the charter party allowed for reversible laytime due to the deletion of the ‘Non-Reversible’ Laytime Clause in a prior charter incorporated basis "logical alterations". Also, Charterer claimed that Force Majeure was in effect at disport due to prior Hurricanes Gustav and Ike which allegedly caused delays in procuring barges.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Caribe Tankers, Ltd. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, SA (The “Negotiator”) – SMA No. 4165, 17 Feb 2012

SHELLVOY 6 -- DEMURRAGE -- DOCUMENT SIGNATURE -- FAILURE TO ISSUE LETTER OF PROTEST -- Charterer Award After the Vessel loaded her cargo, the terminal representative refused to sign the Statement of Facts. When Owner submitted their demurrage claim after the voyage, the Charterer refuted it on the grounds that the missing signature invalidates the relevant loadport demurrage on the basis that Owner failed to issue a requisite Letter of Protest (LOP).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.