A Danish court recently found a freight forwarder to be vicariously liable to a Danish company for fire damage caused to cargo carried by a subcontractor. The judgment suggests that a contracting carrier may incur liability where a general average situation is deemed to have occurred if it fails to provide information to its customer about the concrete circumstances that give rise to the general average situation, even when the contracting carrier holds no information about said circumstances.
This article provides options for companies which have a claim against a bankrupt tortfeasor and discusses Section 95 of the Insurance Contracts Act, which gives creditors the right to raise a claim directly against a tortfeasor's insurer. However, this right is forfeited if the applicable deadlines are not met.
The execution of 'hot work' (ie, work which carries the risk of fire) often results in fires. Therefore, anyone who executes or arranges for the execution of hot work should be aware of how damages and possible liability for damages can be avoided. Hot work insurance policies should also be thoroughly examined. This article highlights the rules that craftspeople, contractors and clients must consider before and during the execution of hot work, as well as the associated liability issues.
A new ruling determines that prorogation of jurisdiction can be validly agreed in a yacht insurance contract, even where consumer interests are concerned and the contract requires that legal proceedings be brought in a court in the insurer's home country. Pursuant to the ruling, a private policyholder who is an EU citizen and purchases boat insurance in another EU country is bound by the jurisdiction agreement in the insurance contract.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court case examined a claim for damage to goods during unloading under the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR). The court found that a CMR carrier is not liable for damage in connection with the unloading of goods irrespective of whether the unloading was performed by a driver, as drivers in such instances may be deemed to act on behalf of consignees.
The Danish High Court recently addressed whether legal proceedings against a Danish shipping company, which had contracted to carry containers from China to Copenhagen, could proceed in Denmark irrespective of the fact that the claimant and the shipping company had agreed that the dispute should be heard exclusively by the UK High Court. The Danish High Court decided that the case could nevertheless be heard in the substance by the Danish courts.
The Maritime and Commercial Court recently examined whether the theft of tobacco products was covered under the cargo policy agreed between a wholesaler and a carrier and whether the wholesaler's insurer was liable. It is clear from the judgment that cargo insurance coverage under the Danish Extended Conditions requires that the transport of insured goods commences immediately after loading onto the means of transport has taken place.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court decision concerned carrier liability for temperature damage to a consignment of pharmaceuticals. The court's judgment signals that carriers must make quick decisions and implement actions to respond to temperature alarms in order to avoid unlimited liability.
The Maritime and Commercial High Court recently examined a direct action claim against a Dutch freight liability insurer in a carriage of goods by road dispute involving a bankrupt carrier and a Danish manufacturer of cigarettes. The premise relied on by the court in this matter, if not appealed, may seem ripe to undermine some insurance policies between liability insurers and international carriers, including proper law provisions and time limitation under a policy.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court decision in which a carrier was found liable for a missing delivery underlines the importance of getting transport documents signed as a receipt for goods delivered. A signed transport document is the carrier's proof of delivery. Hence, in case of doubt as to whether delivery has taken place, the transport document serves as compelling evidence.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court ruling highlights that a carrier may be exposed to unlimited liability for loss resulting from a failure to adhere to a shipper's demands regarding special precautions, even when these demands do not follow from the parties overall cooperation agreement. The case concerned PS4 consoles which were stolen during transportation after the exporter failed to inform the carrier that the consignment was theft sensitive.
The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage introduced a strict liability regime for bunker oil pollution damage. However, the Maritime and Commercial Court recently ruled that shipbrokers, chartering brokers and commercial managers that provide cargo, commercial contracts or commercial agreements but are not involved with a ship's technical operation may fall outside the scope of liable parties under the convention.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court decision demonstrates that in order to obtain compensation after cargo has been delivered without the presentation of a bill of lading, it must be proven that the release of said cargo resulted in financial loss. Therefore, in order to pursue compensation from a carrier or agent, a seller that has received no payment from the buyer for the delivery of a consignment may need to prove that the buyer had not already obtained title to the goods delivered before their release.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court case concerned two Danish OW Bunker companies that had given a foreign bank security against their ordinary claims and subsequently became subject to insolvency proceedings. The judgment stressed that parties facilitating financing in the shipping industry must consider the law of the transferor's domicile and undertake due diligence in accordance with this law in order to protect their interests in the event of the transferor's insolvency.
In a recent Maritime and Commercial Court case concerning liability for unpaid bunkers following a charterer's insolvency, the bunker supplier submitted that the question of whether a vessel can be arrested outside Danish jurisdiction must be decided as a general rule in accordance with the laws and by the courts of the jurisdiction where the arrest is made.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court decision concerned the liability under Article 17 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road of a road carrier and a sub-carrier following the theft of high-value tobacco products. The court found that although the road carrier was liable for the theft, the sub-carrier was free of any liability as the road carrier had failed to provide it with details of the slot time for delivery.
A manufacturer of wind turbine equipment instigated court proceedings before the Maritime and Commercial Court against a port terminal for damage to wind turbine blades. It follows from the judgment that a contract for the performance of stevedore work, including storage, can be deemed to exist irrespective of the fact that no written instructions or booking from a principal has been issued or received.
The High Court of Western Denmark recently decided in favour of a Danish cost insurance and freight (CIF) seller in a jurisdiction dispute involving a Czech buyer. The court found that the CIF clause agreed under the International Commercial Terms 2010 stipulated that the place of delivery under the contract was located in Denmark and that the Danish court seized had enjoyed jurisdiction under the EU Brussels I Regulation.
The Supreme Court recently decided a case on appeal from the Maritime and Commercial Court concerning whether the latter had jurisdiction to hear proceedings that a Danish seller had brought against a Dutch terminal and a Danish carrier following a lost food consignment pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Supreme Court reversed the Maritime and Commercial Court's decision and found that the conditions for applying Article 8(1) had been fulfilled.
A recent Maritime and Commercial Court case concerned liability for damage to a container transported from Denmark to the United States. The bill of lading included a network liability clause which limited liability to $500 per package when damage or loss occurred during sea carriage or where the damage occurred could not be localised. The court found that the damages had been caused during the land transport leg in the United States and therefore the carrier's liability could not be limited.