Protection & Indemnity

Liability in respect of personsBirgitta Hed

The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers1The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers

Liabilities in respect of persons

Who is covered under the P&I insurance?

The nature of the cover provided under the P&I insurance

What determines the extent of cover?

Preventative actions both in respect of claims in relation to personal injury and illness

The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 3

PI, Illness - Claim cost & frequency per vessel

PI, Injury - Claim cost & frequency per vessel

Who is covered under the P&I insurance?

Crew Passengers Others; other than crew and passengers Stowaways and refugees

The nature of cover provided - Crew

Compensation and damages for personal injury illness death

Costs and expenses for hospitalisation medical fees other expenses

Maximum medical cure

The nature of cover provided - Crew

Repatriation and travelling costs actual costs, air fare etc. escort substitute

Sick wages

Loss of or damage to personal effects

Repatriation based on the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention

The nature of cover provided - Passengers

Personal injury Illness Death Delay Loss of or damage to luggage and vehicles

The nature of cover provided - Others

Other than crew and passengers; longshoremen, stevedores, pilots, agents,

port officials, repair crews, visitors etc.

Compensation for; personal injury illness death

on board or in relation to the entered ship

Diversion expenses

Extra fuel Port charges Extra wages etc.

What determines the extent of cover?

“Legal liabilities incurred, or deemed likely to be incurred, under any legislation, contract or

agreement applicable to the case.”

Contractual liabilities are subject to special conditions

What determines the extent of cover? - Crew

Individual contracts of employment / service

Collective Bargaining Agreements, CBA

National Legislation including Employees’ Compensation Ordinance

Other Insurance

JurisdictionRule 3 Section 1 (a)

“…crew of the entered ship who is on board or proceeding to or from that ship”

What determines the extent of cover? - Passengers

The applicable contract of carriage

Athens Convention 1974

Protocol 1976 (SDR)

Protocol 1990 (increased levels of limitation)

Athens Convention 2002

EC Regulation No. 392/2009

Other Insurance

Jurisdiction

What determines the extent of cover? - Others

National Legislation including Employees’ Compensation Ordinance

Terms of employment / service

Other Insurance

Jurisdiction

Preventative actions

Duty of care Safe working environment / safe environment Training/education Management MRM PEME, Pre Engagement Medical Examination for crew

Preventative actions

Crew

Actions to be taken if an accident occurs

Attention and attitude towards an injured person

Notify and report to appropriate shore organisation and the Club immediately

Collect and secure evidence

Incident report, entry in the logbook

Statements

Keep broken or malfunctioning equipment or any other evidence in a safe place

Make explanatory drawings, take photographs ofthe scene of the accident

Investigate the cause as soon as possible

Forum Shopping

Level of compensation awarded

Costs

Contingency fee

Liability

Jury

Time bar

Ambulance chasing

Jurisdiction

Stoways

Streams of refugees

Containerisation

Ro-Ro vessels – ramps

Brief calls/limited crewing capacity

Stowaway prevention

Gangway and access watch

Search before sailing

Restricted areas

Equipment/alarms

Charterparty clauses, Bimco Clause 1993

revised in 2009

ISPS Code 2004 (The International Ship and Port

Facility Security Code)

Stowaway – actions to be taken

Establish identity (incl. photographs, fingerprints etc.)

Travel documents/Embassy

International regulations

Human treatment

Stowaways

Tools used for cutting the protection barsPiece of the bar

Stowaways

Protection bars

cut off

The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 24

(1) Workshop - Practical application of Contracts of Employment

On her route from Rotterdam to Port Elisabeth, New York the container vessel M/V VICTORIA encountered severe weather conditions resulting in a stack of containers collapsing, four containers were lost overboard and since several twist locks and lashings were broken it became necessary to secure the remaining containers in the relevant stack as soon as possible. It was later discovered that the cause of the stack collapsing was that an empty container had been incorrectly stowed in the bottom of the stack. As soon as the weather allowed the second officer and two ABs were instructed by the master to inspect the lashings of the remaining containers in the collapsed stack. During the course of their work the second officer, who was regrettably intoxicated, climbed up on one remaining container in order to secure the same. Due to the rolling of the vessel he lost his balance and fell between two containers injuring his leg so badly that it later had to be amputated by the knee. One of the AB’s coming to his rescue was hit by falling lashing equipment which resulted in him losing all toes on his right foot.

All crew onboard are Polish and employed under ITF contracts. The vessel is registered in Bermuda and owned by Cypriot interests, at the time of the accident she was under time charter to a Swedish company. A NYPE C/P with an unamended clause 8 was in place at the time of the voyage.

Are there any special considerations to be aware of based on the jurisdictions possibly involved? What jurisdictions could be involved if the accident occurred on international waters?

For how long would the two injured seafarers be entitled to sick wages?

Since we can assume that they are both entitled to compensation for permanent disability what amount of compensation would they in your opinion be contractually entitled to?

Who would be liable for that compensation, the owner of the vessel or the charterer who in accordance with the applicable C/P was responsible for the stowing and lashing of the cargo onboard?

The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 25

The product tanker M/V CORNELIA was employed to carry benzene from China to Rotterdam for five consecutive voyages during the autumn of 2008. Eleven months later one of the ABs working onboard at that time was diagnosed with leukemia. He had at that time been working onboard the vessel for three consecutive years but never before or since been exposed to this particular cargo. His medical condition was diagnosed during the vessel’s call at Southampton where he was hospitalized for three weeks before he was declared medically fit for repatriation to Manila.

His contract of employment is attached for your reference.

Is he entitled to medical attention, sick wages and compensation under the ITF contract if he cannot resume his duties onboard due to his medical condition?

If he dies 140 days after being submitted to hospital in Southampton would his heirs, widow and six minor children, be entitled to compensation for loss of life under the ITF contract? If not, under which contract could they seek compensation?

If this seafarer is not actually diagnosed to be suffering from leukemia but his condition is weak due to experienced symptoms of an undiagnosed illness and this weakness causes him to fall and sustain injuries which result in an assessed permanent disability, would he then be entitled to compensation under the ITF contract.

If there are two contracts or agreements referred to in the terms of employment which contract will prevail?

(2) Workshop - Practical application of Contracts of Employment

The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 26

Why is it not recommendable to engage a stowaway in work onboard the vessel?

(3) Workshop - Stowaways

The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 27

Thank you!