Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Petroleo Brasileiro, SA v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Kriti Art”) – SMA No. 3838, 23 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- DISCHARGE -- PORT -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- Charterer Award The Vessel was required to discharge at two separate ports, however, the draft was erroneously calculated to only accommodate the deeper port. And upon arrival at the deeper port, the berth was occupied by another vessel thereby detaining the Owner’s Vessel. So in response to Owner’s subsequent demurrage, the Charterers blame the erroneous draft level for the delay because otherwise the Vessel could discharge at the shallower (but unoccupied) port first.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Lakeview Maritime Ltd. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Astro Altair”) – SMA No. 3841, 29 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- ARRIVAL DRAFT -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- DRAFT -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYTIME -- ARBITRATION -- Charterer Award Although the Charterers assured that an arrival draft of forty feet was acceptable, tidal changes delayed the Vessel’s arrival to disport. The Owners submitted a claim for demurrage arguing that the Charterers draft levels kept the Vessel from reaching disport. But the Charterers reference a clause in the Charter Party which states that tidal delays cannot count as laytime in arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Petroleo Brasileiro v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Kriti Akti”) – SMA No. 3845, 25 May 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- BARGE -- BERTH -- PORT -- DEMURRAGE -- ACT OF GOD -- Owner Award After part cargo discharge to barge, bad weather delayed the Vessel’s berth at port thereby incurring an Owner demurrage claim. The Charterer agreed to the fine, however, requested that this claim be offset by consolidating it with other outstanding claims that the Owner owes to the Charterer (making net demurrage due Charterer).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Byzantine Maritime Corp. v. Adam Maritime Inc. (The “Mountain Lady”) – SMA No. 3821, 6 Jan 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- NAPHTHA -- CARGO -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- INDUSTRY -- Charterer Award The Charterer ordered the Vessel to arrive at loadport ready in all respects and duly cleaned to load a cargo of naphtha. Upon berthing, the inspector rejected the Vessel’s tanks and ordered them to be fresh water rinsed. Afterwards, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that fresh water rinsing was neither required nor industry standard.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Americas AS v. El Bravo Investment Group (The “Bow Antisana”) – SMA No. 3824, 20 Jan 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- DEADFREIGHT -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- INVOICE -- Partial Owner Award After the Vessel tendered NOR at loadport, the Charterer responded that the cargo was unavailable and agreed to pay the contracted deadfreight. The Charterer tried to make allowances for the deadfreight by negotiating another voyage, however, the new voyage was never carried out and the Owner subsequently began arbitration to recover the outstanding invoice.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

A/S Dampskipsselskabet Torm v Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Sitamarie”) – SMA No. 3828, 6 Feb 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- COASTGUARD -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award Once inspected by the coastguard, the Vessel was required to undergo minor repairs in order to comply with berthing standards at loadport. The Charter Party stipulates that any time loss resulting from non-compliance to safety regulations shall not count as laytime; however, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that the infractions were minor and did not hinder the loading process.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

A/S D/S Torm v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Olga”) – SMA No. 3818, 22 Dec 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- GANGWAY -- Partial Owner Award The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR, but was forced to wait for the berth to be free. The Owners filed demurrage for this lost time, however, the Charterers wanted to offset this claim with the delays resulting from Vessel unreadiness when berth became free (lack of proper gangway rigging).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3803, 7 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- Owner Award Before leaving berth at loadport, the voyage’s laytime had already expired and the Vessel was now on 5H demurrage. This claim continued to accumulate during the voyage, however after tendering NOR at disport, the Owner granted the Charterer 6H "free time".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3804, 8 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- LAYTIME TERMINAL -- DISCHARGE RATE -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award In this case, the Vessel arrived at disport with 6H 48M of laytime left. But in addition to the little remaining laytime, the terminal’s restrictive discharge rate further increased the eventual demurrage claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sea Goddess Shipholding, Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bahamas, Ltd. (The “Strimon”) – SMA No. 3807, 15 Oct 2003

EXXONVOY 90 -- ACT OF GOD -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEMURRAGE RATE -- Charterer Award Because of high winds pushing water out of the Houston Channel, the Vessel was unable to arrive at disport with its ordered draft. The Owners demanded that this extensive delay be paid in full by the Charterers, however, the Charterers cite the contract which stipulates that any delay due to adverse weather is paid at half the Demurrage Rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.