Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

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.

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.