Quantum/Liability

Charters are entitled to a 25% offhire deduction where evidence showed condition of ship’s crane hampered stevedores’ cargo operations by approximately 25%

SMA 3240

_______________________

Master’s execution of a standard certificate issued by stevedores stating time and date scrap loading was completed did not constitute a waiver of Owner’s claim for stevedore damage

SMA 3553

______________________

Owner was not responsible for rain damage related to the length of time required to close the hatches, where stevedore elected to discharge during periods of rain and the crew was diligent in opening and closing the hatches upon the request of receivers and their stevedores.

SMA 1793

______________________

Charterer was entitled to recover for stevedore standby and other extra expenses incurred because of an off-hire, even though the expenses were not itemized in the charter party.

SMA 1961

______________________

The panel granted owner's claim for stevedore damage, and denied charterer's claim for stevedore standby time and other costs, on the basis that the masters contemporaneous accident report was more probative than a subsequent ambiguous report by charterer's surveyor.

SMA 1963

______________________

Charterer's claim for extra stevedore expenses caused by prolongation of loading due to the configuration of the vessel's holds was denied because charterer accepted the vessel without reservation.

SMA 1962

______________________

Charterer established a prima facie case for reimbursement of stevedore overtime by documenting the overtime charges and proving that the vessel's crane was inoperative. Owners failed to prove that the charges would have been incurred in the absence of the breakdown.

SMA 1983

______________________

The cost of crane drivers was for charterer's account.

SMA 2189

______________________

The panel also held that charterer could not recover from owner for charges allegedly paid to stevedores for delays caused by malfunctioning of the ship's gear, where the evidence was insufficient to establish the extent of gear deficiencies, the causal connection between the deficiencies and the delay, and charterer's payment of the charges.

SMA 1833

______________________

Clause in charter party expressly stating that “discharge to be effected by receivers’ stevedores at the expense of Receivers” was held to be unambiguous.

SMA 3231

______________________

Owner’s claim against charterer for damage to vessel’s crane allegedly caused by stevedores did not succeed; owner bears the burden of establishing causation and did not do so

SMA 3269

______________________

Despite any loading irregularities or errors by Charterer’s stevedores, it is the responsibility of Owner and ship’s officers to check for proper stowage, and thus, Owner is liable for any lost cargo due to improper stowage

SMA 3992

______________________

Under Clause 8 of the NYPE charter, charterer is responsible for improper stowage where the master relies upon the expert advice and assurances of charterer’s stevedores that the cargo is loaded and stowed properly.

SMA 3513

______________________

Charterer’s claim for increased stevedoring costs denied where documentation was inadequate

SMA 3278

______________________

The panel decided whether the parting of the cargo runner and the resulting damage to Charterer’s grab and the receiver’s hopper, was caused by stevedore negligence or the condition and inadequacy of the sheave though which the runner passed

SMA 3367

______________________

Charterer’s gear penalty claim was denied where the vessel’s cranes were accurately described in the Charter and delays in discharging occurred because the stevedore was unfamiliar with the cranes’ controls as well as a shoreside obstacle which impeded discharge during low tide.

SMA 3722

______________________

Charterer’s claim for additional stevedoring expenses denied where claim devoid of customary supporting documentation, such as stevedore time sheets and invoice

SMA 3463

______________________

Breakdown of vessel’s crane not an offhire event where evidence showed breakdown resulted from negligence of charterer’s stevedore.

SMA 3885

______________________

Damage to a tank top caused by a stevedore’s negligence, which allowed water to enter the hold and come into contact with the cargo, was the responsibility of Charterer under the Charter rather than the receiver. Owner properly settled the receiver’s cargo damage claim under the bill of lading and was entitled to be indemnified for it by the Charterer as well as to recover damages.

SMA 3897

______________________

Owner’s claim for stevedore damage denied as an onhire survey had not been performed, so that Owner was unable to prove damages.

SMA 3908

______________________

Arbitrators rejected Charterers' argument that the validity of the off-hire survey was negated by the absence of a corresponding on-hire one, because had charterers been truly concerned about establishing the age of the vessel's alleged stevedore damages, they could have provided in the charter party for such an on-hire survey.

SMA 1377

______________________

Where stevedore damage was repaired during vessel's normal drydocking, and no on/off hire surveys were performed, the panel used its own expertise to calculate compensation due owner for repairs, and did not rely solely on shipyard invoices.

SMA 1948

______________________

Under express language of Clause 33 of NYPE Time Charter Form, Owner must notify Charterer in writing within at least 24 hours of the occurrence of any damage. Failure to comply with the express notice requirement will preclude Owner's claims against Charterer. Notice to stevedore does not amount to constructive notice to the Charterer.

SMA 3230

______________________

Where owner failed to repair stevedore damage promptly, the arbitration panel awarded owner the amounts of the master's initial damage estimates instead of larger damage estimates obtained from a shipyard several months later.

SMA 1713

______________________

Owners' claim for ice damage to propellers during voyages to Montreal did not extend to drydock periods which followed said voyages, because those drydock periods were controlled by time required for other unrelated repairs, nor were the expenses of such unrelated repairs granted. Absence of damage notices required by one clause of charter party did not nullify the express obligations of charterers, with regard to damages, of other clauses. Where there were no major damages or off survey that master was delinquent in not detecting, owners' claim for stevedore damages, measured by the amount of actual repair bill minus fair wear and tear, was granted.

SMA 1172

______________________

Owner's claim for stevedore damage was denied where owner did not comply with the requirements of notifying charterer about the damage within 24 hours, entering the damage in the vessel's log book, and notifying the stevedore in writing, with a copy to charterer, that the stevedore would be held responsible.

SMA 2332

______________________

The majority held that owner may look to charterer for reimbursement for his expense of repair of stevedore damage to his vessel and for the time involved.

SMA 1450

______________________

Owner and charterer bore equally the costs of damage to raised manhold covers caused by stevedore negligence and owner's failure to take precautions to protect the covers; shallow dents were ordinary wear and tear not recoverable by owner; charterer's surveyor's report of the offhire survey was sufficient notice to charterer of stevedore damage occurring during the last voyage of the charter, and charterers were not prejudiced even if Master failed to give written notice required by charter.

SMA 1803

______________________

An award of stevedore damage can be based on estimated repair costs.

SMA 2235

______________________

Unrepaired damage attributable to stevedore negligence, rather than normal wear and tear, is recoverable on the basis of estimates where no funds have been expended by owner, but interest is not recoverable.

SMA 1809

______________________

Owner's claim for stevedore damage was denied because of insufficiency of evidence. Owner did not provide an on-hire survey or notices of claim to stevedores and owner's off-hire survey was merely a list of defects rather than an overall survey of vessel condition.

SMA 1625

______________________

The panel unanimously denied owner's stevedore damage claim because owner failed to prove that repair costs were incurred or the value of the vessel was diminished.

SMA 2065

______________________

The arbitration panel disallowed owner's claim for stevedore damage even though there may have been some outstanding damage at the time of redelivery, because owner failed to prove that the crew actually repaired the damage.

SMA 2194

______________________

Owner's claim against charterer for damage to vessel's crane allegedly caused by stevedores did not succeed; owner bears the burden of establishing causation and did not do so. Failure of owner to respond to charterer's request for production of logs and maintenance records created adverse inference which did not assist owner with its crane damage claim.

SMA 3269

______________________

If stevedores foresaw that their equipment would, or might entail damage to the vessel, it was up to the stevedores, not the owners, to furnish proper protection for the vessel, or change their method of mechanical discharge.

SMA 670

______________________

Owner was not entitled to recover for stevedore damage to the vessel where the evidence indicated that the damage occurred because the vessel was in such a wasted condition that it could not withstand normal grab discharge.

SMA 2206

______________________

Although charterer's offer to pay for crane damage was not conclusive on the issue that its stevedore caused the damage, it was relevant evidence.

SMA 3932

______________________

Where the charter party required owner to give notice of stevedore damage to the stevedore, with copies to charterer, charterer received sufficient constructive notice where owner gave notice to the stevedore without a copy to the charterer, and the stevedore damage was mentioned in the off-hire survey and in a garnishment of charterer's bank account filed by owner five days after redelivery

SMA 2439

______________________

Stevedore damage is not compensable where Master fails to give required notice, where loss is not documented by repair bids, and where vessel is in fact sold without repairs being made with no demonstrated diminution in value.

SMA 1278

______________________

Timely notice of damage to a stevedore appointed by a charterer constitutes proper notice to the charterer, and is not negated as to either stevedore or charterer by the lack of stevedore's acknowledgement.

SMA 1817

______________________

While the charterers were liable under the GENCON Charter Party for the cost of repairing damages to the vessel, they were not obligated to make the repairs. Owners were responsible for making the repairs.

SMA 59

______________________

The amounts awarded for certain items of stevedore damages were less than claimed, because owner expended more than necessary in performing the repairs.

SMA 2190

______________________

Where owners' claim for stevedore damages was supported only by a private estimate of repair costs, such claim was denied .

SMA 1110

______________________

Where owners did not comply with charter party provisions requiring written damage reports to be served on responsible party, owners' claim for stevedore damages withheld by charterers was denied.

SMA 1094

______________________

SMA 1983

______________________

Owner was not entitled to recover the cost of repairing stevedore damage which unquestionably occurred and was unquestionably for charterer's account, where the evidence left open the question of which of the claimed repairs had actually been made.

SMA 1854

______________________

Absence of wooden sheathing on tank tops did not constitute improper protection for scrap; unrepaired stevedore damages were not recoverable where diminution of vessel's value was not shown.

SMA 1651

______________________

Owners are not entitled to recover for any of the stevedore damages claimed by them as, failing to adhere to a charter party clause requiring them to notify the Charterers of such damages, they are deprived of the protection for which they had originally bargained.

SMA 1422

______________________

Charterers were held liable for expenses incurred in repairing vessel because of stevedore damage,but not for machinery repair expenses unrelated to stevedore damage. The panel considered all the arguments propounded by the Charterers; found that the repairs in Taranto being mostly machinery repairs were utterly unrelated with stevedore damages (including the first item of the invoice referring to replacement of vent

pipes on deck and the second referring to building-up wasted pieces) and made sufficient allowance for wear and tear, but otherwise it finds the Charterers liable to a certain extent for the damages.

SMA 918

______________________

Where charterers accepted vessel on delivery with limited tank top protection, notwithstanding their uncommunicated contemplation of extensive employment of vessel in scrap trade, and where charterers then represented to subcharterers that tank tops of chartered vessel were suitable for grab discharge, stevedore damages resulting from careless grab discharge were for charterers' account. Charterers' disclaimer of stevedore damages with argument that vessel was deficient from outset was ineffective, especially since charterers extended charter party after the stevedore damages occurred.

SMA 1154

______________________

Although stevedores damaged vessel, charterer is not liable unless owner shows that damage was repaired or that value of vessel was diminished. Repair estimate is insufficient proof by owner of diminished value.

SMA 1591

______________________

Owners were awarded full value of repaired damages and a compromise award of 75% estimated cost on damages yet to be repaired, reflecting an apportionment of stevedore damage and normal wear and tear.

SMA 519

______________________

Measure of recovery for unrepaired stevedore damage is the diminution of vessel's value. Charterers are not liable for loss of earnings resulting from stevedore damage which owners elect not to repair.

SMA 1259

______________________

According to the joint off-hire survey , there was evidence of stevedore damages. However,

there was no indication that Owners made any attempt to collect their claim for stevedore damages from the stevedores. Insofar as the Panel was concerned, in cases of unrepaired stevedore damages, Owners were only entitled to the amount by which the sound value of the vessel was reduced on account of such unrepaired damages. In their opinion, this vessel's sound value was not reduced in any way by the minor stevedore damage. Owners' claim was, therefore, disallowed.

SMA 1068

______________________

The panel denied owners' claim for damages for unrepaired stevedore damage where the damage to the vessel was not inconsistent with normal wear and tear, the owners gave no specific notice of the damage, and the owner presented no evidence of diminution of the value of the vessel due to the unrepaired damage.

SMA 1543

______________________

Charterer was liable for stevedore damages beyond ordinary wear and tear.

SMA 1585

______________________

Master's timely notification in writing to Charterer's appointed stevedores of specific damages when they occurred during discharge deemed to be notification to Charterers required under Time Charter.

SMA 3113

______________________

Absent proof that exceptionally long drydock period was devoted exclusively to stevedore damage, owner's detention claim in connection with repairs is reduced to a period sufficient to effect those repairs for which charterer is responsible.

SMA 1321

______________________

Owner's claim for stevedore damages was reduced because an off-charter survey did not support the extent of damages in owner's shipyard repair invoice. Other damages were borne by the owner because he had failed to install certain protection in the hold as required by charter party.

SMA 960

______________________

The vessel underwent a survey after cancellation in which charterer was not invited to participate. Owner claimed for stevedore damage on the basis of an estimate prepared from the survey results by a consultant. Owner breached Clause 52 by not inviting charterer to participate in the survey. Owner's damage estimate was not credible because it was prepared by a consultant who had not seen the vessel and was unfamiliar with its conditions

SMA 1761

______________________

Clause 35 sets forth the onditions to be met for a damage claim. Owners have not supplied the documentation required, and thus the claim must fail.

SMA 3673

______________________

Master's execution of a standard certificate issued by stevedores stating time and date scrap loading was completed did not constitute a waiver of Owner's claim for stevedore damage. Comparison of pre-loading and offhire surveys suggested that stevedore damage was not pre-existing and in view of vessel's five prior “soft” cargoes, it was held more likely that damage was caused by Charterer's scrap cargo for which it remained responsible.

SMA 3553

______________________

The charter put the burden, to seek compensation from charterer appointed stevedores for damage to vessel, upon the vessel owner not the charterer. The exception is if the damage affects the vessel's class status or its cargo handling ability. The burden is on the owner to establish that the damage falls within the exception. The damages claimed were insignificant and in our view did not affect the vessel's seaworthiness nor her cargo handling capabilities. But even if they had, owner furnished no evidence that the vessel's classification society required repairs to be carried out prior to redelivery. Owner's claim against charterer for stevedore damages is denied.

SMA 3729

______________________

Owner's claim for stevedore damages, requested in timely fashion and in full compliance with charter, were measured by the actual cost of repair plus interest after allowance was made for replacement with “new for old”.

SMA 1044

______________________

Where the charter provides for FIOS terms, charterer is liable for any vessel damage occasioned by stevedoring activities; charterer is also responsible for all stevedore expenses.

SMA 2902

______________________

Where charterers were bound to return vessel “in like good order and condition”, any damage reported by master or found in comparison of on and off surveys, that charterers did not show to be within nominal limits of “fair wear and tear”, were to be paid for at reasonable prices, regardless of whether they were yard-certified prices or not.

SMA 1129

______________________

Where owners failed to show that unrepaired stevedore damages materially affected the sound market value or actual sale price of vessel, such damages were denied.

SMA 1092

______________________

Although owners notified stevedores of damages to vessel, owners' claim for damages was denied because there was no evidence that owners had taken any steps to recover those damages from stevedores as required by charter party.

SMA 1131

______________________

As certain vessel damage was not clearly proven to have been caused by stevedores, and Charterers' witness gave a logical explanation to show that the damage was a result of “painting” caused by heavy weather, Owners' claim for these damage repairs was denied.

SMA 1386

______________________

Charterers were not liable for damage to vessel since the master did not notify charterers of the damages promptly as required by N.Y.P.E. Clause 31.

SMA 58