Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Atlas Shipping AS v. Olendorff GmbH & Co. KG (The “Fomalhaut”) – SMA No. 4211, 8 Jul 2013

NYPE -- CHAIN OF TIME CHARTERS -- CONTAMINATED BUNKERS -- WHETHER CHARTERER PREJUDICED BY FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN EARLIER CONSOLIDATED DISPUTE -- Owner Award After bunkering, the Vessel sailed to the next port prior to receiving the bunker test results showing that the bunkers were off-spec (after the bunkers were already partially consumed). At the consolidated proceedings, the Owner was deemed liable for the resultant machinery damage but was awarded costs for debunkering, tank cleaning, rebunkering, and associated costs. At issue in this dispute is whether the last Charterer in the chain, who freely chose not to participate in the consolidated proceedings, is liable to indemnify the Time Chartered Owner.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Zurich American Insurance Co. and Vinmar International Ltd., Inc. v. Team Tankers AS and Eitzen Chemical (The “Siteam Explorer”) – SMA No. 4216, 26 Aug 2013

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA) -- Owner Award Charterer alleged that their cargo of Acrylonitrile (ACN) was allegedly contaminated onboard the Vessel resulting in a yellowing to a color rating of APHA 13 (exceeding the maximum resale spec of APHA 10).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Falcon Carrier Shipping, Ltd. v. ST Shipping and Transport, Pte. Ltd. and Glencore, Ltd. (The “Falcon Carrier”) – SMA No. 4217, 20 Sept 2013

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- OIL MAJOR APPROVALS -- WRONGFUL EARLY REDELIVERY -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award At dispute is whether the Charterer’s clause requiring three Oil Major approvals throughout the duration of the time charter is ambiguous when blanket approvals are no longer given; and, whether Charterer’s early redelivery was wrongful.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.