POLİÇELERİN YAPISAL ÖZELLİKLERİ

Ticari ve Ekonomik hayatın gereksinimleri sağlıklı ve istikrarlı bir ortamın yaratılmasını gerekli kılar.

Sigorta ; çift taraflı bir akittir ki onunla belli bir ücret yani prim karşılığında, bir kişinin belirtilen koşullar nedeniyle uğrayacağı zararı tazmin etme yükümlülüğüne almaktadır.

Dolayısıyla ,Sigorta bir tazminat akdi niteliğindedir. Hukuksal yapı çerçevesinde Sigortalı; prim ödemekle yükümlü iken, Sigortacının sorumluluğu ancak belirli koşulların gerçekleşmesine bağlıdır.

Sigortacıyı bir iş adamı olarak düşünmek gerekir. Belli bir prim karşılığı sizin riskinizi satın alır.

Bu sebeple ekonomik ve ticari amaçlı Sigorta akitlerinde görünüşte tarafların karşılıklı olarak yükümlülükleri değer oranında ( sigorta değeri / prim açısından)  dengesizlik bulunmaktadır.

Sigorta ettirilen risk ile , ödenecek primler ve zarar olasılığı gözetilerek, ödenecek tazminat tutarının Poliçe süresince dengesinin korunması sağlanacak şekilde bir hesap düzenlemesine gereksinim bulunmaktadır.

Sigorta Poliçesi; her iki tarafın hak ve borçlarının tümünü gösteren bir belge niteliğindedir.

Poliçe de; Sigortacının, Sigortalının Ad -Soyad- Ticari Ünvanları -Sigortanın konusu-Sigortanın üstlendiği riskler-süresi- Sigorta bedeli-Sigortacının üstlendiği rizikoların gerçek mahiyetinin detayı-muafiyetler-ve teminat düzenleme tarihi yer alır.

Yukarıdakilerin yanı sıra en önemli husus ," Sigortacının üstlendiği yükümlülüklerin yani teminat detayının tüm öğeleri ile Poliçe de yer alması gerekmektedir.

Böylece Poliçenin sizi hangi riskelere karşı teminat altına aldığını anlarsınız ki; herhangi bir hasar halinde Poliçe, size özellikle farklılık arz eden Tekne ve Makine ( H&M) Poliçelerinde hangi risklere karşı teminat altına alınmış iseniz , bu risklere karşı tazminat ödemesinde bulunacaktır.

Tekne ve Makine Poliçeleri; verilen teminatın tarihi ( kloz tarihi), kloz no, ve teminata göre alınan ek ek klozlar şeklinde , diğer Sigorta türlerine göre farklılıklar arz etmektedir.

Ayrıca Gemi Sigorta  teminatları , Geminin yaşına göre kloz ve ek klozlar da farklılık arz etmekle birlikte, tonaj ve Gemi tipine görede değişiklikler içerebilir.

Konumuz Denizcilik olduğuna göre doğal olarak burada H&M ve P&I Poliçelerini ele almaktayız.

P&I Poliçeleri / Sertifikaları zaten belirli riskleri karşıladığından tek tiptir.Yani fazla bir teminat farkı göstermez. Burada en önemli unsur "Çatışma Sorumluluğu" nun oranı'dır.

Bu risk P&I Poliçelerinde  1/4 olarak teminata dahil iken, H&M Poliçelerinde 3/4 olarak Genel teminata dahildir.

Her ne kadar  zaman zaman P&I teminatının ,bazı Sigorta Şirketlerinden " Cargo hariç" risklere karşı temin edilen Poliçeler ile  teminat altına alındığını  görsek te, bu sadece prim düşürmek ve durumun farkında olmayacağını düşünülen Sigortalılara karşı  bu konuda uzmanlaşmış bazı aracıların veya bazı kiracıların ( eğer P&I teminatını temin etmek ve primini ödemek durumunda ise) bir uygulamasıdır.

Oysa P&I teminatı tüm rizikoları ile bir bütündür . H&M Poliçeleri gibi kloz tarih farkı ve kloz farkı bulunmamaktadır.

Bu sebeple Sigortalının, P&I Sertifikasını aldığında tüm P&I Risklerine karşı Sigortalandığını , P&I Sertifikasını iyice inceleyerek kontrol etmesi gerekir.

Bir diğer önemli hususta , orijinal de 1/4 şeklinde P&I Poliçe kapsamında bulunan " Çatışma Sorumluluğu" ( Running Down Clause) " THS RDC" nin , kalan 3/4 lük kısmının H&M Poliçesinde  yer almaması halinde " 4/4 THS RDC + FFO" olarak P&I Poliçesine dahil ettirildiğinden emin olunması gerekir.

Her halükarda , benim tavsiyem bu işe ilk başladığım 25 sene öncesinde de tüm Poliçelerde uygulattığımız gibi; "Çatışma Sorumluluğunun" " 4/4 THS RDC " olarak ( + 4/4 FFO olarak yüzer ve sabih cisimlere çarpma da dahil olacak şekilde) P&I Poliçelerine devredilerek teminat altına alınmasıdır.

Herhangi bir "Çatışma " hasarı halinde  iki farklı Sigortacı' yı aynı riskin farklı oranları için işin içine sokmaktansa, zaten sorumluluk konusu olan P&I Poliçelerine dahil ettirmek , hasarın çözümünde işlevselliğin daha kolay olması, gerekli Teminat Mektubu veya Banka Garanti Mektuplarının Donatan adına P&I Klüp' çe verilmesi açısından büyük kolaylıklar sağlamaktadır.

H&M Poliçeleri için Sigortacılar,hiçbir zaman 3. şahıslara Banka Teminat Mektubu veya Teminat Mektubu vermezler. Sadece " Letter of Undertaking" verirler ki buda Gemisi  ve / veya yükü zarar gören 3. şahıs için bir anlam ve önem arz etmez.

Bu yüzden Gemi; 3. tarafın istediği Teminat Mektubu veya Banka Garanti Mektubu verilene kadar tutuklu kalacaktır.

Oysa " 4/4 THS RDC + FFO " P&I  Poliçesine dahil ettirildiği takdirde bu sıkıntı ortadan kalkacaktır.

H&M Poliçelerinde ise Teminat çeşidi durumu farklılıklar göstermektedir.

Zaman zaman tarafımıza çeşitli Denizcilik Şirketlerince gönderilen H&M Poliçelerinde  Ana Teminatın Kloz numarasının Poliçe üstüne yazılmadığı yaygın olarak gözlenmektedir.

H&M Poliçelerine sadece I.T.C.H." Institute Time Clause Hulls" yazmak teminat açısından yeterli değildir.

H&M Teminatının ana temeli zaten I.T.C.H. dir. Ancak bu klozlar günümüze değin pek çok kez çeşitli değişikliklere uğramıştır.

En son düzenleme 2002  ve 2003 yıllarında yapılmış iken, günümüzde pek uygulamaya alınmamıştır.

Ülkemizde ısrarla 1.11.95 tarihli I.T.C.H. kullanılırken, yurt dışında tüm Marketlerde ve Sigorta Şirketlerinde 1.11.95 'in yanı sıra 1.10.83 tarihli klozlar da uygulanmaktadır.

1.11.95 ve 2002 + 2003 tarihli klozların nitelikleri ile ilgili daha önce DTO  Dergisi ve Aktüeldeniz deki yazılarımda yer vermiştim.

H&M Poliçe teminat farklılıkları ve H&M Poliçe değeri başlı başına ayrı bir konu olduğundan daha sonraki yazılarımda H&M Teminat çeşitlerine , içeriklerine ve H&M Sigorta Değerinin önemine  yer vereceğim.

TOP 9 Ship Accidents

 

MARINE INSURANCE HISTORY & APPLICATIONS

 

 

MARINE INSURANCE IS SAID TO HAVE HAD ITS BIRTH IN CHINA IN ANCIENT DAYS, WHEN PIRATES WERE NUMEROUS ON ALL RIVERS AND CHINA SEAS, MANY SHIPPERS GROUPED TOGETHER AND THEIR JUNKS STARTED THE VOYAGE AS A FLEET.

 

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT  MARINE INSURANCE; THE FIRST NAME WHICH COMES TO MIND IS LLOYD’S.

 

IN THE 1680’S ,EDWARD LLOYD OPENED A COFFEE HOUSE IN LONDON AND IT BECAME A MEETING PLACE FOR SHIP’S MASTERS,OWNERS AND THE CITY MERÇINTS WHOSE BUSINESS WAS ARRANGING SUITABLE POLICIES FOR THE INSURANCE OF SHIPS AND THEIR CARGOES.

 

THESE MERCHANTS WHO GUARANTEED COMMERCIAL VENTURES FOR AN AGREED SUM OF MONEY (PREMIUM), SIGNED THEIR NAMES UNDERNEATH THE WORDING OF POLICIES AND HENCE WERE KNOWN AS UNDERWRITERS.

 

THIS LLOYD’S COFFEE HOUSE SOON BECAME WIDELY RECOGNISED BY SHIPOWNERS AS THE PLACE WERE UNDERWRITERS COULD BE  FOUND TO PROVIDE INSURANCE WHICH THESE UNDERWRITERS BECAME KNOWN AS LLOYD’S UNDERWRITERS.

 

THIS INSURANCE MONOPOLY RESULTED IN SHIPOWNERS HAVING TO PAY WHAT THEY CONSIDERED TO BE EXCESSIVELY HIGH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

 

ALTHOUGH ACTING ILLEGALLY, GROUPS OF SHIPOWNERS FORMED A NUMBER OF ASSOCIATIONS.

 

THE PURPOSE OF THESE  ASSOCIATIONS WAS TO PROVIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE FOR THEIR MEMBERS TO COVER THE RISK OF DAMAGE OR LOSS OF THIER SHIPS FROM THE PERILS OF THE SEA OR FIRE FOR HULL RISKS.

 

EACH MEMBER OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS ENTERED HIS VESSELS  AT AN AGREED PREMIUM FOR A 12 MONTH PERIOD AND ALL LOSSES AND EXPENSES WHICH OCCURRED IN THAT PERIOD WERE DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONGST ALL MEMBERS.

 

THESE ASSOCIATIONS WERE KNOWN AS MUTUAL HULL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATIONS OR HULL CLUBS.

 

 THESE HULL CLUBS ALSO PROVINDING COVER AGAINST THE DAMAGE TO OTHER VESSELS IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION WHICH WAS COMMON PRACTICE EVEN BEFORE LLOYD’S UNDERWRITERS AGREED TO COVER THREE FOURTS OF SUCH LIABILITIES.

 

 

UNTIL 1824 , LLOYD’S , THE LONDON ASSURANCE AND THE ROYAL EXCHANGE INSURANCE WERE   ONLY ALLOWED BY LAW TO CONDUCT MARINE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

 

AFTER SIXTY YEARS ,THERE WAS A GREAT EXPANSION IN THE NUMBER OF INSURANCE AND SHIPPING COMPANIES.

 

THESE FOLLOWED TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN CLAUSES.

 

IN 1883 ,U.K UNDERWRITING COMMUNITY WAS HELD AT LLOYD’S TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS AND PHRASEOLOGY OF CERTAIN CLAUSES USUALLY INSERTED IN POLICIES OF MARINE INSURANCE  WITH A VIEW TO THE GENERAL ADOPTION OF AN ESTABLISHED WORDING OF THESE CLAUSES.

 

IN 1884 THE INSTITUTE OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS WAS FORMED  AND THEY RECOMMENDED THE GENERAL ADOPTION OF THREE CLAUSES FOR STEAMERS BUT THE FIRST FULL SET OF INSTITUTE TIME CLAUSES WAS ISSUED IN 1888.

 

IT STANDS TO REASON THAT CHANGING THE TRADE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES , BROUGHT TOGETHER THE  NEW VERSIONS OF HULL INSURANCE  WERE INTRODUCED IN 1952 ,1959,1969,1970,1983,1995,2002 AND 2003.

 

THERE ARE VARIETY OF MARINE INSURANCE SUCH AS ; CARGO INSURANCE, HULL & MACHINERY INSURANCE, PROTECTION & INDEMNITY COVER, CHARTERER’S LIABILITY, SHIP REPAIRER’S LEGAL LIABILITY, BUILDERS ‘RISK COVER AND CONTINGENCY  COVER MEANS  KIDNAP AND RANSOM.

 

 

IT WOULD TAKE YEARS OF STUDY TO BECOME A SPECIALIST IN MARINE INSURANCE.

 

 

OVER THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS, THE INSTITUTE TIME CLAUSES HAVE BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL STANDART FOR PERIOD INSURANCE ON VESSELS AND REFLECTED IN THE NEW TITLE OF INTERNATIONAL HULL CLAUSES WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDING THE COVER REQUIRED BY COMMERCIAL INTEREST AND THE GREATEST POSSIBLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY IN THE APPROACH TO HULL CLAIMS.

 

 

NOT ONLY THE OWNERS  NEED HULL & MACHINERY COVER FOR THEIR VESSELS  BUT ALSO THEY NEED THE PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY COVER FOR THE CARGO WHICH UNDER THEIR RESPONSIBILITY DURING VOYAGE AND RESPONSIBILITIES TOWARDS TO THIRD PARTY.

 

SUCH AS  OWNER’S RISK ,  HOWEVER,WERE NOT RESTRICTED TO THE LOSS OF THE VESSEL.

 

THEY HAD ALWAYS  BEEN LIABLE AT COMMON LAW FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO OTHER VESSEL AND THEIR CARGO AS ARESULT OF COLLISION, FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO CARGO CARRIED ON THEIR VESSELS, AND FOR LOSS OF LIFE AND PERSONAL INJURY, BUT UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF 19TH CENTURY IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THERE WERE RELATIVELY FEW SUCCESSFULL LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINT SHIPOWNERS AND CONSEQUENTLY, INSURANCE OF THESE LIABILITIES WAS NOT OF MAJOR CONCERN. HOWEVER , DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW BROUGHT ABOUT CHANGES.

 

AN ACT IN 1846 , FOR EXAMPLE ,GAVE DEPENDENTS THE RIGHT TO SUE OWNERS FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM DEATH CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE, WHEREAS PREVIOULSY THE RIGHT TO CLAIM DIED WITH THE VICTIM.

 

WITH THE INCREASE IN PASSANGER TRADE, OWNERS BECOME ALARMED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING TO PAY OUT VERY LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO SETTLE LOSS OF LIFE AND PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS.

 

THEY PRESSED THE GOVERMENT TO LIMIT THESE LIABILITIES AND IN 1854 A MERCIHANT SHIPPING ACT WAS PASSED WHICH LIMITED THEIR LIABILITY IN THIS AREA AS WELL AS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE.

 

THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT CAME SHORTLY  MR PETER TINDALL FOR RILEY AND CO WHO WAS HULL CLUB MANAGER STEPPED IN TO PROVIDE OWNERS WITH MUTUAL INSURANCE PROTECTION AGAINT THESE LIABILITIES.

 

THEY FORMED THE FIRST PROTECTING SOCIETY CALLED “THE SHIPOWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION SOCIETY” WHICH COMMENCED OPERATIONS ON 1ST OF MAY 1855. OTHER PROTECTING ASOCIATIONS QUICKLY FOLLOWED.

 

FOR THE HELP OF BITH H&M AND PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY COVERS, THE SHIP OWNERS TRADE AND SAIL THEIR VESSELS MORE COMFORTABLE.

 

BUT THE NEAR DEVELOPMENTS , UNFORTUNATLY BRING MORE OBLIGATIONS TO SHIPOWNERS DUE TO PIRACY ON THE GULF OF ADEN .

 

IN ANY COMMERCIAL VOYAGE ,THERE ARE NORMALLY FOUR PRINCIPAL INTEREST AT RISK,THE VESSEL, THE CREW, THE CARGO AND THE FREIGHT TO BE EARNED ON THE VOYAGE.

 

IN CASE OF HIJACKING OF A VESSEL BY PIRATES, ALL FOUR OF THESE PRINCIPAL INTEREST COME INTO PLAY.

 

PRIOR TO TRANSITING THE GULF OF ADEN OR NEAR TO THESE AREA, A SHIPOWNER NEEDS NOT ONLY TO HAVE PURCHASED TRADITIONAL MARINE INSURANCE, BUT ALSO ADDITIONAL COVERAGE SUCH AS;( H&M), HULL WAR RISK, INCLUDING LOSS OF HIRE, PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE POLICY AGAINST  KIDNAP AND RANSOM..

 

H&M POLICY: INDEMNIFIES AS INSURED, SHIPOWNER,VESSEL OPERATOR OR OTHER PARTY WITH AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE VESSEL AGAINST PHYSICAL LOSSES OR DAMAGE TO THE VESSEL OR ITS MACHINERY.

 

SAME H&M POLICIES EXCLUDES PIRACY (DUE TO NEW REGULATIONS) BUT WAR & STRIKES POLICY THEN MUST COVER IT.

 

AS WITH H&M TO RECOVER FOR ANY LOSS UNDER A WAR RISK POLICY, THE INSURED MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT ONE OF THE ENUMERATED PERILS PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE CLAIMED LOSS.

 

LOSS OF HIRE CAN BE ADDED THE ABOVE COVERS AS YEARLY BASIS OR CAN BE ADDED TO K&R POLICY AS VOYAGE BASIS.

 

APPLICABLE P&I CLUB RULES; GENERALLY PROVIDE INSURANCE IN RESPECT OF THE INSURED’S LIABILITIES TO CREW MEMBERS AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES.

 

K&R POLICIES PROVIDE THAT THE INSURER WILL  REIMBURSE AN INSURED WHO PAYS RANSOM TO THIRD PARTIES TO PROCURE THE RELEASE OF A VESSEL OR CREW TAKEN HOSTAGE.

 

THIS POLICIES  PROVIDES  ALSO MAJOR EXPENSES SUCH AS THE COST OF PROFESSIONAL HOSTAGE NEGOTIATORS,TRAVEL COSTS, FEES FOR MEDICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC CARE OF CREW MEMBERS,THE COSTS OF DELIVERY OF THE RANSOM, PORT CHARGES ETC.

 

K&R POLICY IS A POLICY OF INDEMNITY PAY TO BE PAID POLICY WITH RESPECT OF RANSOMS.

 

THE OTHER IMPORTANT SUBJECT IS GENERAL AVERAGE WHICH IS AN ANCIENT MARTIME LAW CONCEPT WHEREBY VESSEL ANDF CARGO ARE CONSIDERED TO BE, IN ESSENCE JOINT VENTURERS IN EACH VOYAGE.

 

IN THIS MANNER THE PRO RATA SHARING IS BASED ON THE RELATIVE VALUE OF VESSEL AND CARGO AT THE END OF THE VOYAGE.

 

ARMED PIRATES ON BOARD OF  A VESSEL CERTAINLY POSE A PERIL TO THE VESSEL AND CARGO.

 

RANSOM PAYMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE EXPENDITURE REASONABLY CONTEMPLATED IN THE FULFILMENT OF THE INTENDED VOYAGE.

 

A RANSON PAYMENT IS VOLUNTARY INCURRED AS THERE IS NO  LEGAL DUTY TO PAY RANSOM.

 

THE PAYMENT ALLOWS FOR THE RELEASE OF VESSEL AND CARGO, IN ADDITIONAL TO THE CREW SO THAT THE VOYAGE MAY BE FULFILLED IN COMMON INTEREST OF BOTH VESSEL AND THE CARGO.

 

THE PREPONDERANCE OF JURISPRUDENTAIL COMMENTARY SUPPORTS THE PRECEPT THAT THE PAYMENT OF A RANSOM PROPERLY FORMS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF GENERAL AVERAGE.

 

HOWEVER GENERAL AVERAGE APPLIES TO PIRACY IS FAIRLY LIMITED.

 

WHERE CARGO GIVEN TO PIRATES BY WAY OF RANSOM WAS TREATED AS A GENERAL AVERAGE SACRIFICE.

 

THE RATIONALE UNDER ENGLISH LAW FOR SUCH PRACTICE IS PREMISED ON THE IDEA THAT ANY REASONABLE PAYMENT MADE TO HIJACKERS TO SECURE THE RELEASE OF THE SHIP AND CARGO , RESRESENTS A GENERAL AVERAGE SACRIFICE IN THE COMMON INTERST BOTH.

 

RULE A OF THE YORK ANTWERP RULES IS A DEFINITION OF GENERAL AVERAGE AND READS AS FOLLOWS;

 

“THERE IS AGENERAL AVERAGE ACT WHEN AND ONLY WHEN ANY EXTRA ORDINARY SACRIFICE OR EXPENDITURE IS INTENSIONALLY AND REASONNABLY MADE OR INCURRED FOR THE COMMON SAFETY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING FROM PERIL THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN A COMMON MARITIME ADVENTURE.”

 

THIS MEANS THERE ARE 5 ESSENTIAL FEATURES NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE GENERAL AVERAGE ACT. AS

 

- THERE MUST BE A COMMON ADVENTURE, MUST  BE  FOR COMMON SAFETY, THE SACRIFICE OR EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARILY MADE AND MUST BE EXTRAORDINARY IN KIND, AND MUST BE REASONABLY MADE.

 

THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERY UNDER GENERAL AVERAGE THEORY, WITH THE LOW ODDS OF A VESSEL BEING TAKEN BY PIRATES WHEN TRANSITTING

THE GUF OF ADEN, MAY TEMPT THE SHIP OWNER TO DECLINE K&R COVERAGE, ESPECAILLY WHEN CASH FLOW IS TIGHT.

 

UNDER ENGLISH LAW, PAYMENT OF A RANSOM IS NOT ILLEGAL PER SE AND, ACCORDINGLY, CAN BE ADMITTED IN GENERAL AVERAGE, ALL 5 FEATURES BEING PRESENT IN TREMS OF RULE A OF THE YORK ANTWERP RULES AS I MENTIONED ABOVE.

 

GENERAL AVERAGE DOES PROVIDE AN AVENUE FOR RECOVERY FOR THE SHIPOWNER WHICH PROBABLY MAY TAKE MOTHS AFTER A VOYAGE IS COMPLETED FOR THAT RECOVERY TO BE HAD TO MAKE MATTER WORSE , IT MAY BE A DISPUTE ABOUT IT.

 

IT IS THE IMPORTANT DECISION FOR THE OWNER WHICH ONE HE WILL CHOOSE.

 

 

HOWEVER UNDER MODERN ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION, FUNDING TO SUPPORT  TERRORISM DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IS LEGAL.

 

 IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION THAT RANSOM PAYMENTS IN THE CURRENT SOMALIA PIRACY CASES ARE FINDINGS ITS WAY TO TERRORIST OR POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS TO FUND TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, THERE BEING GENERALLY THE VIEW THAT SOMALIA PIRACY IS FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

 

UNLESS THE SHIPOWNER HAD K&R INSURANCE, ANY CLAIM MADE TO COVER RANSOM FOR THE CREW WOULD ONLY BE AT THE DISCREATION OF THE P&I CLUBS’BOARD.

 

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PIRATES’ DEMAND FOR A RANSOM WAS ONLY TIED TO THE HOLDING OF THE CAPTAIN ON THE DRIFTING LIFE BOAT, IT WOULD THEREFORE BE DIFFICULT FOR A SHIPOWNER TO RECOVER AN INSURANCE CLAIM FOR RANSOM, WHEN THE HOSTAGE WAS BEING HELD AWAY FROM THE VESSEL ITSELF.

 

IF THE RANSOM WAS PAID,THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT  THE CLAIM TO THEIR P&I CLUB, LIKELY UNDER THE DISCRETION AFFORDED BY THE OMNIBUS RULE.

 

THE USUAL P&I LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF INCIDENTS OF PIRACY WILL, PROVIDED THE “WEAPONS OF WAR” EXCLUTION IS NOT TRIGGERED ,BE COVERED BY P&I CLUBS.

 

RANSOM IS NOT A RISK WHICH IS EXPRESSLY COVERED AND ONE CLUB HAS AN EXPRESS EXCLUTION OF LIABILITY FOR RANSOM PAYMENTS.

 

BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT RANSOM MIGHT BE RECOVERABLE FROM CLUBS AT THE DISCREATION OF BOARDS UNDER SUE & LABOUR  OR OMNIBUS PROVISIONS IF THIS IS NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER ANY OTHER INSURANCE AND CANNOT BE RECOVERED FROM OTHER SOURCES.

 

ON THE OTHER SIDE; SHIPOWNERS’RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO CHARTERERS’S ORDERS TO TRANSIT THE GULF OF ADEN REGION WILL DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF THE CHARTER PARTY ( VOYAGE OR TIME CHARTER) AND THE RELEVANT CHARTER PARTY TERMS.

 

THERE ARE RECENTLY DEVELOPED PIRACY CLAUSES IN USE WHICH SEEK TO PRESERVE OWNER’S RIGHT TO EITHER REFUSE ORDERS TO PROCEED TO PIRACY RISK AREAS OR TO SEEK ALTERNATIVE ORDERS IN APPROPRIATE CASES.

 

IN EACH CASE IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE RELEVANT CONTRACTS TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE SHIPOWNERS RIGHT AND OBLIGATIONS AND TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREED ALLOCATION OF RISK BETWEEN SHIPOWNERS AND CHARTERERS.

 

 

WHO WILL PAY THESE EXTRA INSURANCE COSTS ?

 

ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFICATION OF COSTS IS ARGUABLY MORE ONEROUS IN BOTH THE STANDARD CONWARTIME 2004 AND THE BIMCO PIRACY CLAUSE  9TH OF MARCH 2009 , FUNDING THESE COSTS ARGUABLY PROVIDES MORE CERTAINTY AND THE BALANCE IS FOR COMMERCIAL ASSESSMENT BY BOTH SHIPOWNER AND CHARTERER.

 

THE INCLUSION OF A REIMBURSEMENT OF “ANY CLAIMS FROM HOLDERS OF BILL OF LADING OR THIRD PARTIES CAUSED  BY SUCH ORDERS” IN THE BIMCO PIRACY CLAUSE 9 TH OF MARCH 2009 IS PROBABLY AN EXTENSION OF THE EXPECTABLE RESPONSIBILITIES AND AS SUCH MUST BE SPECIFICALLY AGREED BY THE CHARTERERS’ LAIBILITY INSURER AS BEING PROTECTED BY THIER COVERAGE.

 

SO,THERE ARE 2 POPULAR FORMAL ADDITIONAL CHARTER CLAUSES FOR TIME CHARTERS RELEVANT TO PIRACY “ CONWARTIME 2004” AND THE PIRACY CLAUSE FOR TIME CHARTER PARTIES DATED 9TH OF MARCH 2009 BOTH FROM BIMCO.

 

OTHER TIME CHARTERPARTY FORMS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS ,WHILE VOYAGE  CHARTERS HAVE BIMCO’S EQUIVALENT VOYWAR 2004 OR SIMILAR.

 

THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE OF THESE CLAUSES IS TO ALLOCATE THE EXPENSE OF ADDITIONAL INSURANCE TO CHARTERERS. THE 2009 CLAUSE ALSO SAYS “THE CHARTERERS SHALL INDEMNIFY THE OWNERS FOR ANY CLAIMS FROM HOLDERS OF BILL OF LADING OR THIRD PARTIES  CAUSED BY SUCH ORDERS  (FROM UNDERWRITERS OR FROM FLAG OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY OR UNITED NATIONS)

 

CONWARTIME 2004 DEFINES “WAR RISKS” TO INCLUDE “ ACTS OF PIRACY” BUT OTHERWISE IS A WIDELY LITANY OF WAR AND ASSOCIATED RISKS.

THE 2009 CLAUSE IS SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE “ RISK OF PIRACY”

AND BY IMPLICATION IS TO BE ADDED TO CHARTERS WHICH ALREADY HAVE A “ WAR RISK” DEFINITION BUT WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE PIRACY SPECIFICALLY.

 

IN COMMON FOR THE VOYAGE AND TIME CHARTERS  EXCEPT BAREBOAT THE PROVISIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY ABOUT ALLOCATING EXPENSES BETWEEN SHIPOWNER AND CHARTERER.

 

THE CHARTERER IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR NAMING SAFE PORTS AND BERTHS AND FOR PROVIDING THE CARGO, BUT IN TIME CHARTERS THE CHARTERER ALSO PROVIDES BUNKERS AND OTHER                                  

PROPULSION CONSUMABLES.

 

 

THE OWNER PROVIDES THE SHIP AS SEAWORTHY AND AS CARGO WORTHY AND ACT  AS A BALIEE OF CARGO AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MOST DAMAGE TO IT THROUGH VOYAGE, BUT NOT ALL RISKS.

 

THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENSIONS KNOWNS AS “HAGUE VISBY” OR “HAMBURG” PROVISIONS HAVE  BEEN TRANSLATED INTO “CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA” (COGSA) LAWS, AND TYPICALLY EACH TIME CHARTER WILL STIPULATE THAT THE BILL OF LADING SHOULD CONTAIN THE HAGUE VISBY RULES WHICH PARTICULARY EXCLUDE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERILS OF THE SEA, ACTS OF WAR OR PUBLIC ENEMIES OR ARREST OR RESTRAINT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE WITHOUT THE FAULT OR PRIVITY OF THE CARRIER.

 

SOMETIMES , MANY CHARTES STIPULATE THAT THE OWNER WILL ONLY BE LIABLE FOR DELAY.. AND FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO GOODS ON BOARD.,

 

IF SUCH DELAY OR LOSS HAS BEEN CAUSED BY WANT OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE OWNERS OR THEIR MANAGER IN MAKING THE VESSEL SEAWORTHY AND FITTED FOR THE VOYAGE OR ANY OTHER PERSONAL ACT OR OMISSIONS OF THE OWNERS OR THEIR MANAGERS (BALTIME 39/2001).

 

-         VOYAGE CHARTERS WILL TYPICALLY PROVIDE FOR CHARTERERS TO REIMBURSE ANY INCREASE IN PREMIUMS OR ADDITIONAL PREMIUMS BETWEEN THE DATE OF FIXTURE AND THE SHIP’S ARRIVAL AT AN “ AREA OF ENHANCED THE RISK” WHERE WAR UNDERRWITERS DEMAND ADDITIONAL PREMIUM.

 

 

-         TIME CHARTERS WILL TYPICALLY PROVIDE FOR CHARTERERS TO

      REIMBURSE THE ENTIRE COST OF ADDITIONAL PREMIUMS

 

 

TIME AND VOYAGE CHARTERS ARE  SILENT ON INSURANCES WHICH THE CHARTERER IS TO PROVIDE   , LEAVING IT TO THE PRUDENCE OF INDIVIDUAL CHARTERERS TO INSURE WHATEVER RESPONSIBILITY THEY HAVE FOR HULL DAMAGE  THROUGH UNSAFE BERTHS AND PORTS OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES THIS MEANS THE CHARTERERS WILL INSURE “CHARTERERS LAIBILITY TO THIRD PARTIES AND FOR FULL DAMAGE WHICH PERHAPS AS A CORPORATE PROTECTION FOR BOTH MARINE AND WAR RISKS.

 

NOWADAYS TIME CHARTERER FORMS INCLUDE     IN THEIR “WAR CLAUSE”

PROVISIONS ENABLING THE OWNER OR MASTER TO DECLINE TO ENTER WAR AREAS OR TO ENTER ONLY WITH LIBERTY TO NAVIGATE UNDER LOCAL ORDERS OR DROP CARGO SHORT DESTINATION ,WITHOUT BREACHING THE CHARTER.

 

BOTH CONWARTIME 2004 AND THE PIRACY  CLAUSE 2009 PROVIDE THAT CHARTERERS SHOULD PAY THE ACTUAL BONUS OR ADDITIONAL WAGES PAID BY THE OWNERS UNDER THE CREW CONTRACTS FOR EACH AREA OF WAR RISK OR PIRACY RISK RESPECTIVELY.

 

ON THE OTHER SIDE;THE SHIP OWNER’S MARINE AND WAR RISKS INSURANCES SHOULD IDEALLY REFLECT ONE ANOTHER AND BOTH WILL COVER GENERAL AVERAGE SO THAT THE CLAIM WILL FALL ON WHICHEVER COVERS THE ACTIVE PERIL.

 

 

SINCE P&I INSURERS HABITUALLY EXCLUDE WAR RISKS ,WAR INSURERS HAVE ACCEPTED P&I RISKS ON THEIR HULL POLICIES.

 

MOST OF INSURERS WILL AGREE WITHIN THEIR POLICY TO ACCOMMODATE CLAIMS FOR GENERAL AVERAGE IN FULL WITHOUT    THE NEED TO DEMAND CONTRIBUTION FROM CARGO OR CHARTERERS.

 

 

SO THE BEST WAY FOR THE OWNERS IS TO CHOOSE WHICH COVER THEY NEED AND BUY IT, THE  CHARTERERS CHOOSE COMMERCIALLY AND REQUEST THE OWNER NAME THEM AS CO –ASSURED WHICH MEANS JOINTLY ASSURED UNDER THE MARINE AND WAR RISK POLICIES BUT THIS MEANS THEY ARE FORCED BY INSURERS TO INSURE CHARTERERS LAIBILITY SEPERATELY.

 

AS IN ALMOST ANY SITUATION WHERE ONE IS EXPOSED TO RISK;  MORE INSURANCE IS BETTER THAN LESS AND K&R COVERAGES IS BEST WHEN THERE ISA RISK OF PIRACY.