Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

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

CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. (The “Athos I”) – Supreme Court of the United States, No. 18-565 – 30 March 2020

OIL SPILL – SAFE-BERTH CLAUSE – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – UNQUALIFIED CLAUSE – STRICT LIABILITY – SAFE VS. UNSAFE BERTH SELECTION – EXPRESS CLAUSE – EXPRESS LIABILITY In 2004, Frescati Shipping Co. (the Owners) allowed CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. (CARCO) to charter their vessel Athos I. While attempting to dock in Port of Paulsboro, New Jersey, the vessel collided with an abandoned anchor, resulting in a major oil spill in the Delaware River. The arbitration primarily focused on the Charterers’ (CARCO) liability for the spill per the charterparty’s Safe-Berth Clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Bulk & Metal Transport Pte Ltd v Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. dba Consolidated Terminals and Logistics Company (The “Bi Jia Shan”) – SMA 4478  – 22 May 2024

AMENDED GENCON – HOLD-IN TUGS AND STANDBY PILOTS – DECREASE OF TRANSIT DRAFT – MISSISSIPPI RIVER – RIVER DRAFT RESTRICTIONS – HIGH RIVER ADVISORIES – SAFE NAVIGATION COMMITTEE – MISSISSIPPI RIVER PILOTS – NOBRA – CARROLTON GAUGE – DISPONENT OWNERS - LIEN ON VESSEL In a dispute between Bulk & Metal Transport Pte. Ltd (Disponent Owners) and Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. d/b/a Consolidated Terminals and Logistics Company (Charterers) Bulk & Metal Transport sought to recover $89,427.58 paid for hold-in tugs and standby pilots during discharge of rock salt at anchorage at Belle Chasse, Louisiana.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Panamex International Shipping Company Ltd. v AAT Global Ltd. (The “CABO FUJI”) – SMA No. 4473 – 4 March 2024

ASBATANKVOY – DEMURRAGE – FAILURE TO PAY – FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION

Panamax International Shipping sought $332K from AAT Global for demurrage incurred during a voyage transporting Carbon Black Feedstock from Mississippi River ports to East Coast India. AAT Global failed to respond to payment requests, forcing Panamax to initiate arbitration.

Soreidom S.A. v Hansen-Mueller Co. – SMA No. 4474 – 14 March 2024

DEMURRAGE – NAEGA 2 CONTRACT – UNPAID BALANCES ON PREVIOUS VESSELS – REVOKING NOR – REFUSAL OF PAYMENT – MULTIPLE VESSELS ON CREDIT

Soreidom sought to recover $776,202.94 in demurrage for the vessels M/V GANT FLAIR and M/V CENTURY EMERALD chartered under NAEGA 2 contracts with Hansen-Mueller Co. HM disputed its liability for the GANT FLAIR charges and claimed reduced liability for the CENTURY EMERALD charges.

Oslo Caribbean v Bethell’s Trucking – SMA No. 4477 – 14 June 2024

DEMURRAGE – LIEN AGAINST CARGO – EXTENSIVE DELAY – FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFE BERTH / SAFE PORT – DIVERTED TO ALTERNATE PORT – DAMAGES

When the SEA CARRIER faced extensive delays at Clarence Town port awaiting safe berth / safe anchor, Oslo Caribbean was forced to invoke a lien on Bethell’s cargo and divert the vessel to another port. Bethell’s Trucking filed a counterclaim for damages, contending contract breach and wrongful termination.

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

PARTIAL PAYMENT – DAMAGES FOR DETENTION – 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.