Author Topic: "no cure, no pay" question (relative to Rena)  (Read 2774 times)

Offline Derell Licht

  • Just can't stay away
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
"no cure, no pay" question (relative to Rena)
« on: January 16, 2012, 03:38:51 AM »
I'd like some of the experienced folk here, to clarify how salvage rules will be applied in the case of Rena... I'm assuming that when the salvors were first brought in, it was on a standard Lloyd's Open Form contract, given how short the notice was.  Well, they've put a *lot* of time and effort into this project, but at least from bird's-eye view of the case, it wouldn't really count as a "cure" I don't think??  I mean, alot of oil went into the water, as well as a significant number of containers (though not over 50% in either case), and they did *not* refloat her before she broke up. 

Most discussions on the New Zealand websites, including Antipodean Mariner, are assuming that the salvors will get paid, and certainly I think they should... but it doesn't entirely look to me as though the existing situation could be called a "cure" in a legal sense...

So I'm just asking for insights into how a situation like this is evaluated in real life...
Not all those who wander are lost...

Offline Robert McDonald

  • Home away from home
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
    • http://www.oil-electric.com
Re: "no cure, no pay" question (relative to Rena)
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2012, 06:37:02 AM »
Situations like this have no "easy" answer.

1.  Ship hull covered by an insurance company.
2.  Owner of vessel covered by an insurance company.
3.  Agent covered by an insurance company.
4.  Management company, if separate from Agent,
covered by an insurance company.
5.  Crew covered by an insurance company.
6.  Cargo covered by an insurance company.

With each entity vowed to protect themselves from writing
a loss check, this is ugly at best; Gothic horror story at worst.

Robert in Port Townsend
www.oil-electric.com

Offline Bart Hakze

  • Top Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
  • Master Mariner / SDPO.
    • View Profile
    • www.dutchmariner.com
Re: "no cure, no pay" question (relative to Rena)
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2012, 10:34:45 AM »
I doubt Svitzer came in on a "no cure-no pay" contract, after the ship was grounded she was obviously already heaviliy damaged, possible too damaged to salvage in one go. I think they have negotiated a fixed price-contract, possible working from day to day.

The present "no cure-no pay" contracts are no longer "no pay". The salvage companies have to do a load of investements in equipment, manpower, are always on short notice st-by to go all over the world. Nowadays the contracts always award the salvor with a certain amount if he manages to save stuff, protect the enviroment etc etc.

More info here: http://shipsbusiness.com/salvage-contract.html but can also be found readily available on the internet, use the famous Google & you'll find mor einfo then you'll be able to read or comprehend. ;-D
aka SeaBart

Offline Derell Licht

  • Just can't stay away
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: "no cure, no pay" question (relative to Rena)
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2012, 09:24:55 PM »
That's a cool article, Bart; thanks for the link.  It quickly and understandably explains the issues and the basic options for LOF claims now, without making my head spin (I'm not an attorney!!).

It will be interesting to see how both this and Concordia play out over time.
Not all those who wander are lost...

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk