Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Hess Corp. v. Leo Tanker Corp. (The “Atlantic Leo”) – SMA No. 4181, 31 Jul 2012

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- TANK SEGREGATION -- COGSA -- MITIGATION -- COMMERCIAL DAMAGES -- Partial Charterer Award Upon loading the Charterer’s two parcels of premium and regular gasoline, some of the premium was found to be below the Buyer’s required octane rating due to an apparent commingling of the two parcels. The Charterer mitigated their losses by deviating to an additional disport and discharging the unacceptable cargo there to be sold as regular. Charterer claims that the contamination took place on board the Vessel and that they were owed the difference between the Buyer’s price for premium and an average sampling of bulk regular pricing as proper mitigation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers v. Noble Americas Corp. (The “Team Jupiter”) – SMA No. 4183, 31 Aug 2012

ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL COLLISION AND DECEPTIVE HANDLING -- DEADFREIGHT -- VETTING REJECTION -- COMMERCIAL DAMAGES -- Charterer Award Without Charterer’s knowledge, the Vessel had suffered class-affecting damages while operating under a prior charter. As a result, the Vessel was rejected at discharge port by the Receiver’s vetting group and the Charterer was forced to make a distress sale at severe losses. Owner commenced arbitration proceedings to collect deadfreight and demurrage; Charterer counterclaimed for commercial losses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Euroceanica (UK) Ltd. v. Crystal Amaranto and Tricon Shipping Inc. (The “Crystal Amaranto”) – SMA No. 4186, 21 Sep 2012

CRYSTAL AMARANTO -- ASBATANKVOY -- COMMERCIAL DAMAGES -- MASTER'S ROLE -- CONTAMINATION -- CAUSTIC SODA -- FREE MARINE LIMITED -- UNCLEAN BILLS OF LADING -- Owner Award While loading Charterer’s cargo, the Master noticed signs of potential contamination. Surveyors would later support his findings however they could not ascertain the nature or source of the problem. The Master chose to clause the Bills of Lading to reflect the findings which caused a loss of sale to the Charterer. Owner brought arbitration to recover demurrage for lost time testing the cargo and the Charterer counterclaimed for commercial losses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Clipper Bulk Shipping BV v. Korea Line Corp. and Grieg Star Shipping AS and Atlas Shipiing AS (The “Fomalhaut”) – SMA No. 4145, 24 Oct 2011

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- OFF-SPEC BUNKERS -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION PRIOR TO ANALYSIS -- DAMAGES -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION -- Partial Owner Award Off-spec bunkers were provided by Charterer yet prior to the sample analysis being received Vessel consumed some of the off-spec bunkers damaging the engines. Owner subsequently claimed for the cost of repairs, the cost to replace the bunkers, and the cost of cleaning of the tanks the off-spec bunkers were stored in. This arbitration also covered eight issues regarding the speed and consumption warranties.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sherwin Alumina, L.P. v. Western Bulk Carriers KS – SMA No. 4148, 30 Nov 2011

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- ISPS CODE -- LIABILITY FOR PORT EXPENSES -- DOCKAGE AND SECURITY FEES -- Owner Award Midway through an eight-year fixed freight rate Contract of Affreightment (COA), Charterer's new port manager directed Charterer to pass on port fees to Owner given the COA states Owner is responsible for "all port expenses". Fees were previously not being passed on presumably due to Charterer's lack of experience in this area.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sinotrans (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Crossbridge Shipping Singapore Ltd. (The “Ming Hai”) – SMA No. 4149, 7 Dec 2011

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- BUNKER PRICES -- BUNKER SHORTFALL ON REDELIVERY -- Owner Award When Charterer failed to redeliver Vessel with the charter party mandated quantity of IFO and MDO, Owner claimed for the difference.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co., Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 4150, 9 Dec 2011

ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL BREAKDOWN -- ENGINE PROBLEM -- SEAWORTHINESS -- Owner Award At the time of the fixture, Vessel was in drydock for repairs. After undocking further repairs were found to be required subsequently causing the Vessel to miss her laydays. Charterer cancelled the fixture incurring costs in finding a suitable replacement which Charterer is claiming from Owner in this arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Olendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. v. Sidor, CA (The “New Navigation”) – SMA No. 4151, 22 Jul 2010

GENCON -- CERTIFICATE OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- GROUNDING IN RIVER -- SAFE PORT / BERTH WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- BUNKERS -- Charterer Award En route to the discharge berth named in the Contract of Affreightment (COA) and warranted as being a "safe berth", Vessel grounded either due to poor seamanship or as a result of a buoy being out of place. As a result of the grounding, Vessel missed its berthing opportunity and after repairs was forced to await berth availability. Disponent Owner, arguing berth was unsafe, claimed for damages resulting from the grounding and demurrage during the aforementioned wait.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Midas Shipping Co. Inc. v. PDVSA Petroleo SA (The “Liberia”) – SMA No. 4153, 16 Dec 2011

PDVSA TIME 2006 -- TIME-CHARTER -- EXTRA WAR RISK INSURANCE -- INSURANCE PREMIUM -- INTEREST CALCULATION -- Owner Award Charterer failed to pay the Extra War Risk Insurance Premiums and interest that was allowed within the charter party. The Panel revised the Owner’s interest rate and calculation methodology.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Korea Line Corp. v. CMC Cometals (The “Namrun”) – SMA No. 4156, 23 Dec 2011

MEDITERRANEAN CHARTER PARTY -- ETA SUBMITTED WITH INCORRECT CALL SIGN -- BERTHING DELAY -- INVALID NOR -- BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- WIBON -- Owner Award Albeit quickly corrected, Master initially submitted an ETA with an incorrect Vessel call sign which per Charterer, caused the Vessel to be held out at anchorage whilst correcting the paperwork with the Chinese Authorities. As such, per Charterer the NOR is invalid. Further, per Charterer the charter party was of a berth nature, with NOR subsequently only effective in regards to the commencement of laytime upon the Vessel's arrival in berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.