P&I Claims Analysis Web PDF
P&I Claims Analysis Web PDF
P&I Claims Analysis Web PDF
2016
www.swedishclub.com
P&I Claims Analysis
Contents
1 Executive summary 2
1.1 Cargo 2
1.2 Injury 4
1.3 Illness 4
1.4 Overall causes 4
2 Frame of reference 5
3 Introduction 5
4 General statistics 6
5 Cargo 8
5.1 Introduction 8
5.2 Bulk carriers 12
5.2.1 Statistics 12
5.2.2 Bulk carrier cargo claims 14
5.2.3 Case studies 15
5.2.4 Self-heating 19
5.2.5 Hatch covers 19
5.2.6 Prevention 20
5.3 Container vessels 21
5.3.1 Statistics 21
5.3.2 Container vessel cargo claims 23
5.3.3 Case studies 23
5.3.4 New weight verification requirements
for containers 26
5.3.5 Design 26
5.3.6 Prevention 27
www.swedishclub.com
P&I Claims Analysis
5.4 Tankers 28
5.4.1 Statistics 28
5.4.2 Tanker cargo claims 30
5.4.3 Case studies 30
5.4.4 Prevention 32
6 Injury 34
6.1 Introduction 34
6.2 Statistics 35
6.3 Injury claims 40
6.4 Prevention 43
7 Illness 44
7.1 Introduction 44
7.2 Statistics 45
7.3 IIlness claims 50
7.4 PEME (Pre-Engagement Medical Examination) 52
7.5 IIlness – how to treat crew members 52
7.6 Prevention 53
8 Overall preventative measures 54
8.1 Causes 54
8.2 Implementing a safety culture 55
8.3 Safety culture 55
9 Conclusion 56
10 Appendices 57
www.swedishclub.com
1 Executive summary
1 Executive summary
www.swedishclub.com 2
1 Executive summary
3 www.swedishclub.com
1 Executive summary
Tankers
Shortage – mainly caused by:
1.2 Injury
• Loaded or unloaded cargo not properly calculated
We have observed that slips and falls are the biggest concern
• Incorrect cargo handling shipside or shore-side
over all three types of vessel.
www.swedishclub.com 4
2 Frame of reference
Types of vessel:
• Bulk carriers
• Container vessels
• Tankers
3 Introduction
The Swedish Club closely monitors the frequency of different show a much higher severity on average. Fortunately, these
types of claim and prioritises identifying the patterns and claims are infrequent and their scarcity makes it difficult to
trends derived from loss statistics. Another priority of establish a trend or pattern. They are often connected to a
course is sharing this important data with our members and catastrophic navigational claim, such as a collision, contact
business partners. Merely observing is not good enough or grounding.
– we need to analyse why things happen and how we can Another important decisive factor as to whether or not
help our members prevent them from happening again. In a “like-for-like” comparison between the vessel and claim
this publication you will find a number of measures you can types can be made, is whether the vessels’ trading patterns
adopt to prevent casualties from occurring. and number of crew on board are similar. For bulk carriers,
To make this study and analysis conclusive, we limited containers and tankers we can make this comparison.
the types of vessels to bulk carriers, container vessels and Costs have risen over the last ten years, with this rise
tankers which represent 80% of our insured vessels. mainly affecting the frequency of claims above USD 5,000
For the same reason, we have restricted the number of after the deductible. For claims below USD 5,000 there is
claim categories in order to be representative of the Club’s actually a drop in frequency.
overall claims experience. The chosen claim categories We also believe that more intense trade with less time
are cargo, illness, and injury, which represent the highest on board to prepare for critical operations has resulted in a
frequency of claim. Other categories, such as pollution higher number of crew-related incidents.
and other P&I claims (including wreck removal liabilities)
5 www.swedishclub.com
4 General statistics
4 General statistics
Below are statistics combining the most frequent P&I claims, (cargo, illness and injury) on bulk carriers, container vessels
and tankers.
Graph 4.1: Average claims costs & frequency Graph 4.2: Average claims costs & frequency
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 1 – 3,000,000 (USD)
110,000 70,000
0.55 0.9
100,000 65,000
0.50 60,000 0.8
90,000 55,000
0.45 0.7
80,000 50,000
0.40
70,000 45,000 0.6
0.35 40,000
60,000 0.5
0.30 35,000
50,000 0.25 30,000 0.4
40,000 25,000
0.20 0.3
20,000
30,000 0.15 15,000 0.2
20,000 0.10 10,000
0.1
10,000 0.05 5,000
0 0.00 0 0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 PERIOD
PERIOD
Cost Cost
Freq Freq
The conclusion from Graph 4.1 and Graph 4.2 is that the frequency for claims above USD 5,000 is increasing.
Graph 4.3: Claims costs and frequency Graph 4.4: Claims costs and frequency
per type of vessel per category
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Period: 2005 - 2014 Period: 2005 - 2014
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
Type of claims: Cargo, illness and injury Type of claims: Cargo, illness and injury
As per 25/9/2015 As per 25/9/2015
24,000 30,000
0.022
22,000
0.020 0.25
20,000 25,000
0.018
18,000
0.016 0.20
16,000 20,000
0.014
14,000
0.012 0.15
12,000 15,000
0.010
10,000
0.008 0.10
8,000 10,000
6,000 0.006
2,000 0.002
0 0.000 0 0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
www.swedishclub.com 6
4 General statistics
Graph 4.3 shows the cost per insured vessel by vessel type. The frequency and cost for tankers is the lowest of the three types
of vessel, however, the frequency and cost for containers is rising. For bulk carriers the frequency has been rising since 2009.
It should be understood that due to time lag in recording the claims costs for 2014 the picture may be different in time. This
is unavoidable with statistics of this nature.
Graph 4.4 shows the frequency and cost for the three claim categories. For all three categories the frequency has increased
significantly over the last couple of years. This is a worrying trend which we are monitoring.
Cargo 36.73%
Other PI 14.20%
Injury 13.62%
Pollution 12.54%
Illness 10.88%
Collision 7.80%
Contact 2.61%
Stowaways 1.57%
Advisory 0.04%
Graph 4.5 shows the cost when claims are capped at USD
3,000,000. If uncapped the cost for ‘Other PI’ will have the
largest share.
7 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
5 Cargo
5.1 Introduction
We can see from Graph 5.1 that the average cargo claims cost across all three vessel types is more than USD 100,000 over the
past ten years. Costs fell in 2014 but the frequency continued to rise. There has been an overall rise in frequency over the past
10 years but that rise is seen for claims above USD 5,000 which indicates that the claims costs are rising.
Graph 5.1: Average claims costs & frequency Graph 5.2: Average claims costs & frequency
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 1–3,000,000 (USD)
The frequency for claims above USD 5,000 is rising. Graph 5.1 shows that over the past ten years the frequency and cost
increased constantly. Graph 5.2 shows however that the frequency for claims below USD 5,000 is falling.
www.swedishclub.com 8
5 Cargo
Graph 5.3: Cargo – Distribution of cost (USD) Graph 5.4: Cargo – Number of claims (USD)
2013-2014 2013-2014
60% 70%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1-5,000 5,000-50,000 50,000-500,000 500,000+ 1-5,000 5,000-50,000 50,000-500,000 500,000+
It is interesting to note that claims in the USD 1-5,000 cost interval fell by almost 50% between 2013 and 2014. Those in the
USD 5,000-50,000 cost interval rose by around 30%. There are only about 1% of expensive claims above USD 500,000 but this
is 50% of the overall cost for 2013 and 30% for 2014.
Graph 5.5: Claims costs and frequency Graph 5.5 highlights the increase in frequency for cargo
per type of vessel claims on all types of vessel. The combination of expensive
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) cargo claims and an increase in frequency is a worrying
trend. Managers must prioritise the implementation of
Period: 2005 - 2014 preventative measures within the company.
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
Type of claim: Cargo
As per 25/9/2015 Costly cargo claims are often due to catastrophic claims like
0,12
total losses, fires or navigational claims, which we define as
20,000
0,11
collisions, contact or groundings.
18,000
0,10
Fortunately, these claims are not frequent as we can see
16,000 0,09
from Graph 5.7, but when they do occur the consequences
14,000 0,08 are severe as per Graph 5.6.
0,07 See Appendix (i) for further information on ship fires and
12,000
0,06 how to prevent them.
10,000
0,05 Apart from catastrophic claims, the most expensive
8,000
0,04 cargo claims are contamination. This means that cargo was
6,000
0,03 contaminated or not in a proper condition when loaded,
4,000
0,02 which is usually defined as an inherent defect or water
2,000 0,01 leaking through cargo hatches.
0 0,00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Cost bulker Freq bulker
Cost container Freq container
Cost tanker Freq tanker
9 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
Graph 5.6: Cost per loss code – claim categories The top three most expensive categories are inherent vice,
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) collision and grounding. Inherent vice is caused because
the cargo is not in proper condition when it is loaded.
Period: 2005-2014
This emphasises the importance of having proper testing
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
Type of claim: Cargo procedures to ensure the cargo is within the specifications.
As per 29/9/2015 Cargo claims caused by collisions and groundings show how
catastrophic claims will have a ripple effect. The reasons
and preventative measures to why collisions and groundings
occur can be found in our publication: Navigational Claims.
www.swedishclub.com 10
5 Cargo
Graph 5.7: Frequency per loss code – The most frequent claims are for improper cargo handling,
claim categories usually caused by procedures not being followed. To prevent
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) this, crews need to monitor cargo operations and collect
evidence of any damage to the cargo that occurs. Having
Period: 2005-2014 proper testing procedures will most likely prevent future
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
Type of claim: Cargo
cargo claims.
As per 29/9/2015
11 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
Graph 5.8: Average claim cost and frequency Graph 5.9: Average claims costs and frequency
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 1–3,000,000 (USD)
The frequency for claims above USD 5,000 is rising. The frequency for claims below USD 5,000 is falling.
www.swedishclub.com 12
5 Cargo
Graph 5.10: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 5.11: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Bulk carriers Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Cargo Type of vessel: Bulk carriers
As per 30/9/2015 Type of claim: Cargo
As per 30/9/2015
The most costly immediate cause is inherent vice which The most common immediate cause is improper cargo
is mainly caused by not checking cargo properly before handling, which also emphasises how important it is for
loading. crews to monitor entire cargo operations to secure as much
evidence as possible about damaged cargo.
13 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
www.swedishclub.com 14
5 Cargo
15 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
up to force 10. The heavy weather lasted for a couple of compared to the same top section of the other overboard
days causing the vessel to pitch and roll heavily. Afterwards discharge pipelines. The shipyard had missed welding the
the crew carried out tank soundings. All cargo hold bilges pipe and this was not noticed prior to delivery.
reportedly showed a maximum sounding of about 5cm in
the bilge well, whereas all topside water ballast tanks were
empty. The cargo hold bilges were not equipped with a bilge Contamination
high-level alarm system. Contamination case study 1
During good weather the Chief Officer opened up the The bulk carrier was discharging grain. After almost half of the
cargo hatches to inspect the condition of the wheat for cargo hold had been emptied some caked cargo was found.
any signs of water ingress following the ship’s earlier heavy The cargo in the immediate vicinity of two pipes at the aft
weather encounter. None was observed to the surface of the bulkhead of the hold was wet and a strong oily odour was
cargo situated below the hatch cover coaming and hatches. detected. The cargo receiver refused to accept the cargo and
However, following closer inspection, the Chief Officer claimed that all cargo now was unfit for human consumption.
reportedly discovered that a section of the wheat situated
just below the overboard discharge pipeline outlet of the Causes:
topside water ballast tank had become wet. The pipeline, After an investigation by the crew it was found that fuel oil
leading into the said water ballast tank was also wet. The vapour from one of the fuel tanks had leaked from a broken
Chief Officer checked the ballast tank and it was empty. He air vent and sounding pipe. This caused oil to enter the cargo
observed that any water filled into the ballast tank would hold resulting in the contamination.
leak into the cargo hold.
www.swedishclub.com 16
5 Cargo
17 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
Heat damage case study 2: to the rice was also reported. The double bottom tanks
The bulk carrier had loaded wheat and at time of discharge for cargo holds 2, 3, 4 and 5 were subdivided into ballast
the top layer of the cargo was found to be in good condition. and fuel oil tanks. The cargo receiver accused the vessel of
However, cargo at the aft bulkhead, adjacent to the engine excessively heating bunker fuel.
room was damaged. The damaged cargo was dry and caked. Excessive temperatures can lead to non-enzymic browning,
It could not be established what the exact temperature of which can cause discolouration in rice cargo. It is important to
the bunker fuel had been. know the temperature and moisture levels when deteriorative
changes occur in milled rice. It seems that non-enzymic
browning, such as the Maillard reaction, requires temperatures
Heat damage case study 3: above 60°C. In this case the recorded cargo temperatures were
The bulk carrier had loaded sunflower seed meal, with within normal parameters for this trade. These temperatures
burned cargo found by the aft bulkhead adjacent to the would not cause discolouration or browning.
engine room during discharge. Subsequently, heavy fuel oil The damage caused to the rice is more likely because
tanks in the engine room were in direct contact with the aft of pre-shipment temperature abuse or a problem inherent
bulkhead. The surveyor was unable to find records showing in the rice. Caking of bags was caused principally by
what temperatures the heavy fuel oil had been heated to. condensation in the vessel, which was aggravated by an
inherently high moisture content in the rice. The moisture
content caused the rice to become microbiologically
Heat damage case study 4: unstable, and as such, unsafe for shipment, a factor that
The bulk carrier had loaded soybean meal. Loading had undoubtedly led to localised spoilage in random areas, as
been interrupted several times due to rain. On completion was the case of this cargo.
of loading the cargo was fumigated. During the voyage the The claim was settled and it was determined that heating
vessel had experienced some heavy weather. Upon discharge of the bunker fuel was not the cause of the cargo damage,
mouldy cargo was found in the top layer. Furthermore, but the inherent moisture content of the rice before loading.
some heat damaged cargo was found by the aft cargo hold
bulkhead, adjacent to a heavy fuel oil tank. During the
voyage this tank was heated to 60°C. Alleged heat damage case study 2
The bulk carrier had loaded yellow corn in southern USA.
During the voyage the crew measured the temperature and
Alleged heat damage ventilated the cargo holds. The vessel also experienced two
Inspection of casualties where the owner has been blamed days of heavy weather, registering force 8, and seas covering
for causing heat damage to the cargo have shown that it the cargo hatches. Damaged cargo was found on the top
is more likely that the cargo was not in proper condition layer when the cargo hatches were opened during discharge
when loaded. The shipper had not ensured that the cargo and was found to be mouldy and discoloured. This was
was properly prepared for shipment. This emphasises the similar for almost all cargo holds. At the end of discharge
importance of crews keeping good records to prove that all some damaged cargo was found on the tank top. The cargo
procedures were followed. receiver claimed that the vessel had excessively heated the
bunker fuel. The temperature of the bunker fuel had never
been above 40°C according to the Chief Engineer. Loading
Alleged heat damage case study 1 was stopped at the loading port about seven times because
The bulk carrier had loaded bagged parboiled rice in a of rain, and could have affected the moisture content of
Southeastern Asian port. During loading the moisture the cargo. Before loading, the cargo should have been dried.
content of the rice was very close to the allowed limit. The In this case it seems that the cargo was not dried before
sea temperature in the port was 32°C. When loading was loading. Major differences were also recorded between
complete the cargo holds were fumigated with phosphine. night and day temperatures at the loading port, which can
The cargo holds were under gas for the first four days of cause condensation in the cargo hold. The cargo was also
the voyage and then the hatch covers were opened and loaded almost to the cargo hatch cover, so there was no
ventilated as per best practices. The fuel in the double air circulation in the hold. The claim was settled and the
bottom bunker tanks, below cargo holds 3, 4 and 5, accusation that damage was caused by heating bunker fuel
registered a temperature of 29°C during the voyage. was dismissed.
During discharge it was found that some cargo had
become discoloured. Some moisture damage and caking
www.swedishclub.com 18
5 Cargo
5.2.4 Self-heating condition of the transverse joints, but the horizontal seals
In some cases self-heating can lead to a fire, but this is on the coaming are far more difficult to address. It is quite
relatively uncommon. Vigilance and good working practices obvious that the pressure of the sea on the covers cannot be
when loading are the key to fire prevention of this kind of simulated using a fire hose.
cargo; this should extend to any hot work carried out near It is more effective to use an ultrasonic device, which
part filled or full cargo holds. Self-heating in cargo such as is designed for this purpose. The advantages of using this
coal, can potentially lead to a fire. By far the most effective type of equipment are evident, since sealing tests can be
means of preventing such fires is to rigorously adhere to carried out in a loaded condition without risking cargo
the requirements of the International Maritime Solid Bulk damage and also allow for the possibility of an assessment
Cargoes Code (IMSBC) during and after loading. in sub-zero temperatures.
To address this issue it is important there are SMS
(Safety Management System) procedures detailing the
5.2.5 Hatch covers checks required to ensure the hatch covers are in a proper
A great deal of cargo damage on bulk carriers is caused by condition. It is even more important that these checks
leaking hatch covers, particularly when vessels encounter are included in the PMS (Planned Maintenance System),
heavy weather. To prevent this, weather conditions must in combination with extensive maintenance tasks. It is
be monitored very carefully so that severe weather can be imperative that there are specific action points regarding
avoided. Leaking hatch covers are unfortunately causing lots the seals, coamings and pads. A risk assessment needs to be
of wet damage claims. in place regarding the different issues concerning leaking
One of the most common tests prior to loading to hatch covers.
ensure that cargo hatches are not leaking, is the water hose
test. The crew put fire hoses under pressure and spray the
hatches. Unfortunately, it seems that the hose test is of
little value for ensuring proper sealing on a vessel at sea. It
is possible that the Master can obtain an indication of the
19 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
5.2.6 Prevention
To monitor if water enters any tank or cargo hold, bulk avoided. The clause “wet before shipment” should be
carriers have a Water Ingress Monitoring System (WIMS). inserted on the bills of lading if such goods are loaded.
However the WIMS is a safety requirement and not • Condensation must be considered when carrying
suitable for cargo monitoring purposes, and so it is certain cargo. Ventilate if the dew point in the air is
therefore important to install a proper bilge alarm in lower than the dew point in the cargo space.
every cargo hold. • Cargo classified as Class A under the IMSBC code are
This is because the alarm panels for the WIMS are very capable of liquefaction. Before loading it is essential
often on the bridge and linked to the alarm monitoring that the moisture content of the cargo is tested.
system in the engine control room. If the WIMS alarm has • The crew should keep detailed records on board,
already been activated because a hold is already filled up recording;
it will not trigger the alarm in the engine control room, • Temperatures in cargo holds.
but will only trigger the alarm on the bridge. If the cargo • If the cargo holds have been ventilated and for how
operation is not being monitored on the bridge there is long.
a major risk that flooding will not be discovered in time. • If bunker tanks have been heated - this
The SMS and PMS should require that the bilge system be information is often missing when the surveyor
inspected before cargo operations commence as per the tries to establish the cause of damage.
company’s SMS and PMS. • Temperature of all bunker tanks.
• If the vessel is carrying heat sensitive cargo. This
Prevention for bulk carriers has to be considered when heating the bunker.
• Agree on a stowing plan. Proper planning and bunker management is the best
• Stow in accordance with the IMSBC code. prevention.
• Cargo holds should be clean, dry and odourless before • It is essential that all shut off valves, steam traps etc.
loading commences. for heating coils in fuel tanks are well maintained and
• Hatch covers and seals must be in a good and fully operational. Records of maintenance and tests
watertight condition. should be available in the vessels’ PMS systems.
• Ventilators and other means of entry into cargo holds • Maintenance of temperature sensors in bunker tanks
should be in good operating order and capable of should be carried out periodically and always be
being closed. fully operational and regularly tested. Records of
• If any damaged cargo is loaded, always clause the bill maintenance and tests should be available in the
of lading and mate’s receipts accordingly. vessel’s PMS system.
• Conduct a survey of the cargo condition throughout • A Master has some measure of control over the
the entire loading operation and take samples. loading of bulk cargo and can take steps to prevent
• Have your own surveyor carry out a draught survey any fires. The most common causes of fire in
during loading and always insert “weight and quantity agricultural and general product cargo are the
unknown” in the bill of lading and mate’s receipts, if careless disposal of smokers’ materials, often by
not already stated. stevedores who are notorious for both open and
• Conduct a draught survey at the discharge port clandestine smoking, and problems with fumigants.
before opening the hatch. • It is important that a pressure test is carried out after
• Accurate and reliable tallying should be carried out any maintenance carried out on any pipes, otherwise
when loading bagged goods. this can cause leaks, which can damage the cargo.
• Refrain from loading during snow or rain. • The PMS and SMS should include procedures
• Install a proper bilge alarm in every cargo hold. ensuring that cargo lights are switched off after
• Wet cargo or snow/rain during loading will result in cargo operation, because of the substantial risk of
high humidity levels inside the holds and should be overheating
www.swedishclub.com 20
5 Cargo
Graph 5.12: Average claim cost and frequency Graph 5.13: Average claim cost and frequency
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 1–3,000,000 (USD)
The frequency for claims above USD 5,000 is increasing. The frequency for claims below USD 5,000 is decreasing.
21 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
Graph 5.14: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 5.15: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Container Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Cargo Type of vessel: Container
As per 30/9/2015 Type of claim: Cargo
As per 30/9/2015
Catastrophic events like collisions, fires and groundings have The most common claims include improper cargo handling
caused the most costly claims over the past ten years. and water entering the cargo hold by either pumping water
into the cargo hold or leaking through hatch covers.
www.swedishclub.com 22
5 Cargo
5.3.2 Container vessel cargo claims • Crews ignoring bilge alarms in the cargo holds
Catastrophic navigational claims have a large impact on the • Bilge alarms not maintained and tested properly
cost for cargo claims on container vessels. The frequency for • Not avoiding heavy weather
collisions and groundings are around 3% of the cargo claims • Excessive speed in heavy weather
but the cost is more than 20% and 15% of the total cost
respectively.
For more information about preventative measures regarding 5.3.3 Case studies
navigational claims please refer to our Navigational Claims
publication. Wet damage
Two of the most common container claims are physical The average claim cost for wet damage on container vessels
damage and wet damage to the container cargo and these is significantly higher than the average cargo claim. As we
claims are usually caused by the following: can see below, the usual causes are leaking – pipes, valves
and manholes – but also ballast lines, which have become
Physical damage – mainly caused by: corroded, cracks in ballast tanks and cases where bilge
• Incorrect cargo handling shore-side alarms have been ignored causing water to enter the cargo
• Heavy weather hold. These issues occur mainly because crew members have
ignored procedures or they have not carried out proper
Wet damage – mainly caused by: maintenance on pipes, valves and pumps. There are other
• Leaky cargo hatches occasions when the bilge pumps have been full of debris,
• Flooding of holds indicating that the systems have not been properly tested
• Pipes and valves in poor condition and maintained.
Leaking manholes from either ballast or bunker tanks are
Concerns on container vessels also a recurring problem, causing cargo hold flooding. This
• Not securing containers as per the cargo manual is common after a yard visit or scheduled tank inspection,
• Charterers’ loading plan is not as per the vessel’s cargo plan when tank inspections have been carried out. It is essential
• Cargo manifest is not correct and does not include that crews are aware of this greater risk and ensure that all
all cargo covered under the International Maritime manholes are secured.
Dangerous Goods Code It is essential that the company reviews its cargo
• Reefer containers need to be monitored during the voyage procedures and addresses these issues.
because small changes in the temperature can ruin the cargo
23 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
www.swedishclub.com 24
5 Cargo
Causes: Causes:
The Chief Engineer informed the Master that the “bilge The water flooding was from a broken ballast water pipe,
water high level” alarm had been activated several times, which was heavily corroded. Once again the bilge well alarm
that the duty engineer had acknowledged the alarm, but didn’t work.
had not investigated the cause or informed anyone else. The
engineer thought the alarm was due to rain. Why he did not
investigate was unclear. Wet damage case study 5
It was found that the water from the wash down had leaked The container vessel was at sea and the Chief Officer told
into the void spaces adjacent to the cargo holds. The void space the Bosun to carry out a ballast tank inspection. The Bosun
next to the affected cargo hold had an opening connecting completed the inspection with an AB. They secured the
it to the cargo hold. The void spaces had no bilge alarm manhole and told the Chief Officer that all was satisfactory
indicating water presence and when the void space was full, in the tank. The day after, the Chief Officer began to ballast
water poured into the cargo hold. The water pressure damaged the tank. A couple of hours later the AB on watch reported
the rubber gaskets placed between the pipelines’ flanges that there was water in the cargo hold.
and started to flood other void spaces. The water then filled
the void spaces adjacent to the cargo hold and once water Causes:
reached the level of the lower edge of manholes (openings) in It was found that the nuts of the ballast tank manhole had
longitudinal bulkheads, it started to flood the hold. not been tightened correctly, causing water to pour out.
25 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
was wrong. He ran over to the other side and saw that the AB rolling in the heavy weather. This may also be attributed to
was drenched in heavy fuel oil and that oil was pouring onto poor lashing arrangement. When the vessel was rolling 30°
the deck in the cargo hold, contaminating the containers. The the wires parted and the machinery shifted.
Bosun helped the AB to close the manhole and reported the
accident to the Chief Officer.
5.3.4 New weight verification
Causes: requirements for containers
The AB had not read the markings properly, which were The IMO (International Maritime Organization) will be
welded into the manhole and clearly stated that the manhole adopting new requirements from 1 July 2016, requiring every
lead to a fuel tank. The AB removed all the bolts for the packed export container to have a verified container weight
manhole and then removed the manhole. When oil started as a condition for being loaded.
pouring out of the tank it was impossible for the AB to The IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), at its 93rd
close the manhole himself. The AB did not verify that he was session (May 2014), approved changes to the Safety of Life
opening the correct tank. at Sea (SOLAS) convention regarding a mandatory container
weight verification requirement on shippers.
As stated, these requirements apply to shippers, but
Heavy weather will also require all parties such as freight forwarders and
Heavy weather case study 1 shipowners to also prepare for these new requirements.
The container vessel received reports of anticipated It is important to prepare for this as soon as possible and
heavy weather but was unable to avoid it. The vessel was to update the ISM (International Safety Management) code
maintaining 15 knots with 4m waves in a force 8, causing where applicable.
the vessel to roll 30° at times. 11 containers came loose and This should improve safety for container vessels and
were lost overboard, with another 12 containers suffering reduce cargo claims.
damage, but not lost overboard. The Chief Officer said the The World Shipping Council has excellent information if
containers were secured as per the cargo securing manual you want to read more on this subject.
and that they were also checked every day.
Causes:
The securing wires for the machinery were chaffing against
the lashing points on the unit itself when the vessel was
www.swedishclub.com 26
5 Cargo
5.3.6 Prevention
It is obvious that small mistakes e.g. forgetting a gasket • Lashing equipment and securing points must be
or not tightening the nuts correctly can cause costly maintained regularly and inspected for wear.
cargo claims. It is important that tasks are completed • Try to reduce the vessel’s GM when not fully laden.
by following checklists and procedures. It is generally • If possible, check that the container seals are intact
a requirement for the Chief Officer to verify that jobs and that serial numbers concur with numbers in
have been completed correctly. We have seen that cargo documents.
this is often not the case, and the Chief Officer simply • Do not mix high cube containers with standard
assumes that tasks have been correctly undertaken. This height containers in stacks. This does not allow
can mean the difference between an accident and no bridging pieces to be fitted between stacks.
accident. • Ensure that weights are declared and that maximum
Misdeclaration of a container’s contents is also very stack mass and height limits are not exceeded.
common and, of course, the containers misdeclared are • Consult IMDG code for characteristics of
often the ones most likely to cause a problem on board. commodities.
Regrettably, there is much less that a Master can do • Crews need to investigate bilge alarms in the cargo
in relation to containerised cargo compared to bulk or holds as even a small amount of water can cause
tank cargo. serious damage.
It is often the case that a Master is provided with • Weather routing should be used to avoid heavy
the Dangerous Goods Manifest only, and, indeed, it is weather.
unreasonable to expect him to review and verify the • In heavy weather, adjust course and speed to ease
declared contents of every container on the vessel. In the ship’s motion.
practice there is little more a Master can do other than • Have bilge alarms in all cargo holds, which both the
to ensure that those dangerous goods he does know bridge and engine room receive.
about are carried in accordance with the IMDG Code • It is not always easy to find the time to clean the
and that proper checks of the containers are carried out bilges on a container vessel but it is something that
during the voyage. has to be done or there is a high risk of pumps and
valves becoming damaged. Many accidents are the
Specific prevention for container vessels result of bilge pumps and sensors becoming heavily
• Check and verify that the lashing methods follow corroded. The inspection of the bilges needs to be
the requirements as outlined in the vessel’s cargo completed at least every month.
securing manual. • Make sure the lashings are as per the cargo securing
• The cargo securing manual should be applicable for material if heavy weather cannot be avoided and it
the stowage arrangements and lashing equipment is essential that crews carry out extra rounds and
used, written in a language readily understood by check that any out of the ordinary cargo is properly
the crew and other people employed for securing the secured.
cargo.
27 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
5.4 Tankers
5.4.1 Statistics
There has been a significant increase in the frequency of
1. Leaking vents
cargo claims since 2009, which needs to be monitored as a
2. Improper cargo handling, shore-side
high frequency can negatively affect the overall claims cost.
3. Multiple reasons
The top 10 most expensive cargo claims over the past 10
4. Insufficient cleaning
years were in the following claim categories:
5. Damage prior to loading
6. Improper cargo handling, shore-side
7. Improper cargo handling, shipside
8. Improper cargo handling, shipside
9. Leaking vents
10. Improper cargo handling, shipside
Graph 5.16: Average claim cost and frequency Graph 5.17: Average claim cost and frequency
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 1–3,000,000 (USD)
0.22 65,000
120,000 0.40
0.20 60,000
110,000 55,000 0.35
100,000 0.18
50,000
90,000 0.16 0.30
45,000
80,000 0.14 40,000 0.25
70,000 0.12 35,000
60,000 30,000 0.20
0.10
50,000 25,000
0.08 0.15
40,000 20,000
0.06 0.10
30,000 15,000
20,000 0.04 10,000
0.05
10,000 0.02 5,000
0 0.00 0 0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 PERIOD
PERIOD
Cost Cost
Freq Freq
The frequency for claims above USD 5,000 is increasing. The frequency for claims below USD 5,000 is decreasing.
www.swedishclub.com 28
5 Cargo
Graph 5.18: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 5.19: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Tanker
Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Cargo
Type of vessel: Tanker
As per 30/9/2015
Type of claim: Cargo
As per 30/9/2015
Improper cargo handling, shore-side 21.15% Improper cargo handling, shipside 19.85%
Improper cargo handling, shipside 19.85% Insufficient cleaning 19.12%
Insufficient cleaning 19.65% Improper cargo handling, shore-side 18.38%
Leaking vents 13.65% Damage prior to loading 13.24%
Damage prior to loading 8.54% Poor tally 7.35%
Multiple causes 8.15% Inherent vice 5.15%
Leaking cargo 2.91% Leaking vents 2.94%
Damage post discharge 1.64% Damage post discharge 2.94%
Poor stowage 1.45% Leaking cargo 2.94%
Poor tally 1.37% Multiple causes 2.21%
Inherent vice 1.12% Error in calculation 1.47%
Error in calculation 0.17% Contact 0.74%
Fire 0.11% Grounding 0.74%
Flooding of hold 0.06% Fire 0.74%
Grounding 0.06% Heavy weather 0.74%
Contact 0.06% Poor stowage 0.74%
Heavy weather 0.05% Flooding of hold 0.74%
The most costly immediate causes include improper cargo The most common immediate causes include improper cargo
handling and insufficient cleaning, which are all caused by handling, insufficient cleaning and damage prior to loading
not following proper procedures and ensuring the cargo and can be prevented by following proper procedures.
tanks are ready to receive cargo.
29 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
www.swedishclub.com 30
5 Cargo
Cargo tanks were blinded off from the cargo system (piping discharge the cargo tanks were washed according to
system) on the common line by valves and a spectacle procedures. When tank cleaning was complete all tanks were
flange. These changes were not updated in the discharge vented and made inert.
plan, which stated that the FAME should not be discharged Pre loading inspection was completed before loading
through the common line. commenced but because all tanks were made inert, this
After discharge the vessel drained the line’s drain pump inspection simply involved checking that all tanks were dry.
individually and pumped to a slop tank segregated from the A single loading arm was connected to the manifold and
cargo system and each cargo tank was super stripped, one loading commenced. After the first foot had been loaded,
by one. samples were taken, and landed for analysis. The result of
In the next loading port the vessel loaded Jet-A1 cargo the samples failed due to low flash point and a second set
on the common line. After cargo tests had been completed it of samples were taken. The sampling on both occasions was
was found that the Jet-A1 had been contaminated by FAME. carried out using the vessel’s closed sampling equipment. The
second samples also failed the analysis.
Causes:
The initial cargo plan was not followed. The vessel had an Causes:
experienced crew on board that should have known that a A surveyor came on board to investigate and the vessel’s
limited amount of FAME would contaminate Jet-A1 fuel. If a cargo line system appeared to be in good order. There was no
cargo is loaded on a certain line to a specific tank, it should undrained residue of previous cargo left in the cargo lines.
be clear to all staff involved. This factor should be considered It was also confirmed that all other cargo lines were blown
during discharge, in order not to spread the specific cargo clear after tank cleaning was complete.
more than necessary in the line system, which may then Samples taken from both the vessel’s manifold and shore
require a more accurate cleaning method than draining. The loading boom were at levels consistent with that recorded
procedures regarding proper cleaning procedures on board on the Certificates of Quality. The differing flash point of
the vessel should be reviewed by the manager. samples from shore-side and the pipes compared to the
cargo tanks showed that the contamination happened in the
vessel’s cargo tanks. The cause is believed to be because of
Contamination case study 3 insufficient tank cleaning.
The tanker was loading Jet-A1. The previous cargo was
unleaded gasoline. This cargo was loaded and discharged
through a single arm connected to the manifold. After
31 www.swedishclub.com
5 Cargo
5.4.4 Prevention
www.swedishclub.com 32
5 Cargo
Specific prevention for chemical/ the cargo arrives in at the vessel’s manifold. It is not
product tankers unusual that the cause of the contamination is because
Contamination of contaminated shore lines.
Even if cleaning has been completed and a certificate of It is assumed that all chemical/product tankers are
cleanliness issued, cargo can still be contaminated. This fitted with sampling cocks at the cargo manifold. If
is often because water is left in the lines and they have these are not fitted, it is a simple modification.
not been blown and cleaned properly. Before sampling, the sampling cock must be properly
Other common reasons are ingress of seawater, flushed in order to obtain a representative sample. The
cracks between cargo tanks, insufficient cleaning of sampling cocks must be completely clean.
tanks and lines, incorrect valve operation and failure For sampling the cargo when it arrives at the ship’s
of mechanical devices such as pumps and pipes and manifolds, there are three crucial stages.
also vapour and migration of cargo. The cost of a claim The first stage is the condition of the cargo when
differs vastly depending on whether the off-spec or loading commences. Any remnants of previous
contaminated cargo is discovered at full tank or during cargoes and/or any other contaminants (water) in the
the initial cargo sample. It is not only the cost for shore line, liable to affect the cargo adversely, will
spoiled or even worthless cargo that affects the total appear in a manifold sample drawn immediately upon
cost of the claim. Delay and demurrage costs will also starting loading.
contribute significantly to the overall cost. The second stage is to ascertain whether
contaminants may have found their way into the
Sampling of cargo cargo in the shore line in the course of loading. This
It is imperative to always take comprehensive cargo can be done by drawing samples from the manifold at
samples. Analysis of cargo samples is vital in any regular intervals.
investigation into the cause of contamination. The The third stage is when the terminal is reporting that
common practice by some terminals to provide only they are shifting from one shore tank to another.
cargo samples from shore tanks and samples from the Finally, cargo samples from each cargo tank have to
vessel’s tanks after loading is not sufficient. It does not be taken after the loading is completed.
provide the essential information about the condition
33 www.swedishclub.com
6 Injury
6 Injury
6.1 Introduction
Graph 6.1 shows that the frequency for injuries has increased The top 10 individual most expensive injury claims over the
substantially since 2012. The average cost, in common with past 10 years were in the following claim categories:
some of the other claims categories accounted for above, has
been relatively stable.
Again, it is the frequency that is a warning sign. The 1. Burns and explosions Container
increased frequency may be explained by a greater 2. Slips and falls Container
awareness of the right to make a claim and secondly the 3. Slips and falls Container
level of the potential financial compensation. 4. Struck by falling object Bulker
There are, however, many other factors in operation. 5. Struck by falling object Container
These include greater demands on the individual on board 6. Caught in machinery or equipment Bulker
the vessel, an increase in stress-related conditions and the 7. Slips and falls Container
erosion of social interaction in the lifestyle at sea. Seafarers 8. Struck by falling object Container
are under pressure to deliver high performance for sustained 9. Slips and falls Container
periods and they have fewer outlets for the vital social and 10. Slips and falls Container
leisure activities enjoyed by their counterparts ashore.
www.swedishclub.com 34
6 Injury
6.2 Statistics
Bulk carriers, container vessels and tankers
Graph 6.1: Average claim cost and frequency Graph 6.2: Average claim cost and frequency
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 1-3,000,000 (USD)
Period: 2005-2014 Period: 2005-2014
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
Type of claim: Injury Type of claim: Injury
As per 5/10/2015 As per 5/10/2015
The frequency for claims above USD 5,000 is increasing. The frequency for claims below USD 5,000 is decreasing.
Graph 6.3: Injury – distribution of cost (USD) Graph 6.4: Injury – number of claims (USD)
2013-2014 2013-2014
70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1-5,000 5,000-50,000 50,000-500,000 500,000+ 1-5,000 5,000-50,000 50,000-500,000 500,000+
The trends here are similar to illness where we can see that most claims are in the interval USD 5,000 – USD 50,000.
35 www.swedishclub.com
6 Injury
Graph 6.5: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 6.6: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Injury Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
As per 7/10/2015 Type of claim: Injury
As per 7/10/2015
www.swedishclub.com 36
6 Injury
Bulk carriers
Graph 6.7: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 6.8: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Bulker Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Injury Type of vessel: Bulker
As per 7/10/2015 Type of claim: Injury
As per 7/10/2015
37 www.swedishclub.com
6 Injury
Container vessels
Graph 6.9: Cost per loss code –claim categories Graph 6.10: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Container Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Injury Type of vessel: Container
As per 7/10/2015 Type of claim: Injury
As per 7/10/2015
www.swedishclub.com 38
6 Injury
Tankers
Graph 6.11: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 6.12: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Tanker Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Injury Type of vessel: Tanker
As per 7/10/2015 Type of claim: Injury
As per 7/10/2015
39 www.swedishclub.com
6 Injury
www.swedishclub.com 40
6 Injury
his legs and right wrist. He was conscious and in great pain. of the cadets climbed onto the grab to release the wires. The
The vessel made contact with Maritime Rescue Coordination Superintendent shouted to the cadet to get down at once. It
Centre and a helicopter was dispatched to the vessel. At this could be seen that when the grab was on the trailer it was
time the vessel was about 200 miles from land and it took the approximately 10 metres high, which was above the height
helicopter about 4 hours to arrive. restriction at the shipyard and on the roads, and so it was
necessary to change the plan.
Causes: The decision was made to lay the bucket in the closed
The hook on the Bosun’s chair had broken and the Bosun fell. position with one side resting on the trailer bed.
The safety harness had not been secured correctly. The bucket was closed and the grab was lifted and swung
to reposition the bucket in an athwart ship direction. When
the grab was landed it was secured by thick wooden planks
Injury claims case study 3 below the bucket sides. Once the grab was stable the cadet
The vessel was alongside waiting to prepare for dry- once again climbed up on the grab to release the two hoisting
docking. The vessel carried cranes with grabs that weighed wires from the crane. At this time the Superintendent was
10 tonnes and were more than 4m high which were used focusing on another task and the other ABs and cadet were
during cargo operations. During the daily safety meeting working with tensioning wires on the trailer and so did not
the superintendent informed personnel that four grabs that the cadet had once again climbed up.
were to be taken ashore. The Chief Officer had carried out The cadet removed the wires from the grab. He had
a risk assessment of the operation and was monitoring the secured his safety harness to the grab but then released
operation from the vessel. The plan was to land the grabs in the safety harness when he was climbing down, relying on
the open position onto a trailer on the quay. the fact that he had secured a rope to the top of the grab
An AB was operating the crane for lifting the grabs. to assist him while climbing down. The grab appeared to be
Two cadets, the Third Officer, two ABs and the vessel’s stable but in fact was top heavy with a centre of gravity
Superintendent were on the quay. The Chief Officer had about one third the way down from the top of the grab, as
instructed the two cadets to help only if specifically it was in the closed position. While the cadet was climbing
needed. The ABs were instructed to remove the wires down from the grab it suddenly moved and fell into the
when the grab was safely secured on the trailer. water with the cadet. The Third Officer threw a lifebuoy to
The AB operating the crane landed the grabs on the trailer the cadet in the water. He was taken to the hospital where
in the open position with the bucket in a forward and aft he was diagnosed with serious injuries and internal bleeding.
direction. As soon as the grab was landed on the trailer one
41 www.swedishclub.com
6 Injury
Causes: and Third Officers were working six on - six off watches,
The cadet had been told not to climb onto the trailer but with one AB assisting in the cargo operation and another AB
had apparently not understood the risks involved. It is with ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) duty
essential to ensure that only crew members are involved in on the gangway. The loading plan was presented to the Chief
difficult and dangerous jobs and that all on board are made Officer by the terminal supervisor and two gantry cranes
thoroughly aware of the risks. were planned to assist in the cargo operation. The Chief
Officer presented the lashing plan to the terminal supervisor.
When a container was lifted from the quay the stevedores
Injury claims case study 4 working at the front and rear of the container fitted the twist
It was morning, the weather was good with a northerly lock to the container’s corners. When this was done the gantry
force 3-4 wind and the vessel was proceeding at 14 knots. crane lifted the container to its allocated position. At the
The Chief Engineer, First Engineer and Third Engineer were required location the crane operator adjusted the alignment
scheduled to carry out routine maintenance on one of the before setting down the container onto the container below.
ballast pumps. They dismantled the pump and removed the The twist locks automatically locked to the container below
shaft and impeller, while the nuts on the pump case had when it was put in position. At this time there were two
also been removed. This had been prepared in advance. The stevedores attaching lashings to containers and they were
shaft had been secured in a threaded hole with a chain to standing underneath the containers as they were being loaded.
an eyebolt. The engineers used a five-ton SWL chain block, The Second and Third Officers were carrying out the
which was secured in a monorail, and the shaft was raised handover of the cargo watch when they heard a scream. The
so the engineers could work on it more easily. The shaft officers saw a stevedore lying on one of the hatch covers. They
was to be moved so another chain block could be attached. quickly gave him first aid and raised the alarm. The Second
While waiting for the chain block the engineers began to Officer went to the vessel’s hospital for the stretcher and the
inspect the shaft and rotated it a couple of times. Suddenly Master informed the terminal about the accident. About ten
the shaft dropped from the eyebolt and the Third Engineer’s minutes later the terminal’s own emergency response team
hand was severed. The First Engineer was also seriously arrived and gave the stevedore first aid while waiting for an
injured and his hand was crushed. ambulance. The ambulance shortly arrived and the stevedore
The vessel diverted to the nearest harbour. Medical was taken to hospital. It took about 50 minutes from the time
assistance was established with an MRCC and a helicopter of the accident until the stevedore was in the ambulance.
was dispatched, which arrived three hours later. At the time The stevedore was conscious and had a gash on his head.
of the accident the injured crewmembers were wearing Close to him was a twist lock and his safety helmet which
safety shoes, gloves, boiler suits and helmets, but this was not broken, but was scratched. The gantry crane still had
obviously did not protect them in the circumstances they the container attached and the Second Officer saw that one
encountered. It could not be completely established why of the twist locks was missing. The twist lock had dropped
the eyebolt was unscrewed. The lifting appliances were from a height of about eight metres.
certified and approved for the lifted weight and they were
not damaged. Causes:
The twist locks had not been secured correctly by the
Causes: stevedores and the stevedore was standing underneath the
The engineers stated that they had secured the bolt tightly. container, which is very unsafe.
The immediate cause of the accident according to the
company’s own report suggests that the bolt unscrewed
because it was not tightened correctly, the engineers were in Injuries to stevedores in the USA
a hurry and more than one person was rotating the shaft. Over the years there have been a number of expensive cases
Because of the accident’s severity, the injured involving stevedores. Appendix (iii) Specific issues in the
crewmembers could not continue working at sea. USA from Keith Letourneau explains why this is, and what
issues a shipowner should consider.
www.swedishclub.com 42
6 Injury
6.4 Prevention
Many accidents can be prevented if vessels keep good housekeeping and ensure that maintenance is carried out
as required. The following procedures will assist the officers in identifying hazardous areas before the accident
happens. These suggestions should be implemented into the managers ISM (International Safety Management) Code.
• Follow a checklist, which identifies potentially hazardous conditions, including a simple vessel diagram showing
the main deck, cargo holds and other areas where the stevedores are scheduled to work.
• Before arrival, the Chief Officer should inspect each hazardous area including, but not limited to the
condition of hatchways, latches, ladders, lighting, twist locks, wires, cables, cargo equipment, cranes and rusty
conditions of deck.
• Stevedores should be informed about any planned or ongoing maintenance in the area they will be operating.
• The Chief Officer should take digital pictures of inspected spaces.
• The Chief Officer should present the stevedores with the checklist before cargo operation commences.
• If the vessel provides any equipment for the cargo operation e.g. twist locks, lashing chains, or hooks, this
equipment should be regularly inspected, serviced, and replaced as necessary. Any inspection and maintenance
should be recorded in the vessel’s PMS (Planned Maintenance System).
• The Master should ensure that critical equipment such as cranes are regularly inspected and working properly.
43 www.swedishclub.com
7 Illness
7 Illness
7.1 Introduction
The frequency of illness was somewhat stable between The top 10 individual most expensive illness claims over the
2009 and 2014. However we have seen a steady rise in the past 10 years were in the following claims categories:
average cost of illness over the past ten years and are now
seeing a sharp increase in frequency. This high frequency is Conditions of:
a warning sign and this category must be closely monitored
going forward.
The ever-increasing problem for the industry in finding 1. Nervous system Tanker
experienced, properly trained seafarers, is another reason 2. Digestive system Container
for keeping a close watch on this issue, as this seems to be a 3. Cardiovascular system Container
problem that is here to stay. 4. Cardiovascular system Container
For owners, it is essential that they know that their crew 5. Cardiovascular system Bulker
members are fit and healthy before they are employed. 6. Cardiovascular system Container
A serious illness can cause many other issues besides the 7. Cardiovascular system Bulker
person’s own illness - the vessel can be delayed in arriving 8. Genito-urinary system Container
at the next port; delayed in port and there can be problems 9. Cardiovascular system Tanker
finding replacement crew. The stress this will cause on board 10. Nervous system Bulker
and ashore is difficult to measure in monetary terms.
To help prevent these problems the owner can promote a
healthier diet, ensure there are exercise facilities on board,
discourage smoking and drinking; support crew members
who wish to change their lifestyle, and offer a PEME (Pre-
Employment Medical Examination) to their crew members
before being employed.
www.swedishclub.com 44
7 Illness
7.2 Statistics
Bulk carriers, container vessels and tankers
Graph 7.1: Average claim cost and frequency Graph 7.2: Average claim cost and frequency
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) Claims 1–3,000,000 (USD)
Period: 2005-2014 Period: 2005-2014
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
Type of claim: Illness Type of claim: Illness
As per 5/10/2015 As per 5/10/2015
56,000 0.16
54,000 38,000 0.26
52,000 36,000
50,000 0.24
0.14 34,000
48,000
46,000 32,000 0.22
44,000 30,000
42,000 0.12 0.20
40,000 28,000
38,000 26,000 0.18
36,000
34,000 0.10 24,000
0.16
32,000 22,000
30,000 20,000 0.14
28,000 0.8
26,000 18,000 0.12
24,000 16,000
22,000 0.10
20,000 0.6 14,000
18,000 12,000 0.08
16,000 10,000
14,000 0.4 0.06
12,000 8,000
10,000 6,000 0.04
8,000
6,000 0.2 4,000
4,000 0.02
2,000
2,000
0 0.00 0 0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 PERIOD
PERIOD
Cost Cost
Freq Freq
The above statistics show that over the last ten years the The frequency for claims below USD 5,000 is fluctuating and
frequency and cost for claims more than USD 5,000 is was actually falling until 2013, but then started to increase.
increasing. Costs have been constantly increasing over the past ten years.
Graph 7.3: Illness – distribution of cost (USD) Graph 7.4: Illness – number of claims (USD)
2013-2014 2013-2014
70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1-5,000 5,000-50,000 50,000-500,000 500,000+ 1-5,000 5,000-50,000 50,000-500,000 500,000+
It is interesting to note that claims in the 1-5,000 interval have fallen, but those in the 5,000-50,000 interval have risen. Costs
have risen in every category. The reason for this might be because of increased medical cost and older crew, which need more
medical assistance.
45 www.swedishclub.com
7 Illness
Graph 7.5: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 7.6: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Illness Types of vessel: Bulk carriers, containers and tankers
As per 5/10/2015 Type of claim: Illness
As per 5/10/2015
Conditions of the cardiovascular system 42.89% Conditions of the cardiovascular system 27.05%
Conditions of the digestive system 8.06% Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 10.82%
Conditions of the nervous system 7.38% Conditions of the genito-urinary system 10.38%
Infectious and parasitic diseases 5.89% Conditions of the digestive system 10.09%
Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 5.83% Appendicitis 7.60%
Conditions of the genito-urinary system 5.22% Infectious and parasitic diseases 7.02%
Conditions of the respiratory system 5.06% Mental disorders 4.82%
Appendicitis 4.73% Conditions of the respiratory system 4.68%
Mental disorders 2.84% Conditions of the nervous system 3.36%
Multiple causes 2.74% Conditions of the skin 3.22%
Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 2.44% Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 2.36%
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 1.68% Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 2.05%
Neoplasms 1.45% Multiple causes 1.75%
Eyes 1.45% Neoplasms 1.61%
Conditions of the skin 1.44% Eyes 1.32%
Ears 0.72% Ears 0.88%
Oral health 0.13% Oral health 0.58%
Hernia 0.05% Hernia 0.15%
Cardiovascular illness is considerably more costly than any other category for all types of vessel and also reports the
highest frequency.
www.swedishclub.com 46
7 Illness
Bulk carriers
Graph 7.7: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 7.8: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Bulker Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Illness Type of vessel: Bulker
As per 5/10/2015 Type of claim: Illness
As per 5/10/2015
Conditions of the cardiovascular system 44.80% Conditions of the cardiovascular system 23.90%
Conditions of the nervous system 10.17% Appendicitis 12.20%
Conditions of the digestive system 8.14% Conditions of the digestive system 11.22%
Conditions of the respiratory system 7.44% Conditions of the genito-urinary system 10.24%
Appendicitis 6.64% Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 7.32%
Infectious and parasitic diseases 6.03% Infectious and parasitic diseases 6.83%
Conditions of the genito-urinary system 4.86% Conditions of the nervous system 5.85%
Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 2.35% Mental disorders 5.37%
Mental disorders 2.26% Conditions of the respiratory system 5.37%
Eyes 1.71% Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 2.93%
Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 1.71% Neoplasms 1.95%
Neoplasms 1.64% Eyes 1.95%
Multiple causes 1.27% Multiple causes 1.46%
Conditions of the skin 0.42% Conditions of the skin 1.46%
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 0.33% Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 0.98%
Ears 0.15% Ears 0.49%
Oral health 0.08% Oral health 0.49%
Cardiovascular conditions are the most expensive category of claim and are also the most common.
47 www.swedishclub.com
7 Illness
Container vessels
Graph 7.9: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 7.10: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Container Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Illness Type of vessel: Container
As per 5/10/2015 Type of claim: Illness
As per 5/10/2015
Conditions of the cardiovascular system 46.88% Conditions of the cardiovascular system 29.63%
Conditions of the digestive system 10.06% Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 14.48%
Infectious and parasitic diseases 6.96% Conditions of the digestive system 10.10%
Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 6.30% Conditions of the genito-urinary system 9.09%
Conditions of the respiratory system 5.67% Infectious and parasitic diseases 6.73%
Conditions of the genito-urinary system 4.87% Conditions of the respiratory system 4.38%
Appendicitis 3.78% Appendicitis 4.38%
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 3.18% Conditions of the skin 4.04%
Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 2.37% Mental disorders 3.70%
Neoplasms 2.26% Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 3.03%
Conditions of the skin 2.10% Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 2.63%
Conditions of the nervous system 1.90% Neoplasms 2.63%
Mental disorders 1.63% Conditions of the nervous system 2.02%
Eyes 1.09% Oral health 1.01%
Ears 0.71% Eyes 1.01%
Oral health 0.23% Multiple causes 1.01%
Ears 0.67%
www.swedishclub.com 48
7 Illness
Tankers
Graph 7.11: Cost per loss code – claim categories Graph 7.12: Frequency per loss code –
Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD) claim categories
Period: 2005-2014 Claims 5,000–3,000,000 (USD)
Type of vessel: Tanker Period: 2005-2014
Type of claim: Illness Type of vessel: Tanker
As per 5/10/2015 Type of claim: Illness
As per 5/10/2015
Conditions of the cardiovascular system 35.99% Conditions of the cardiovascular system 26.37%
Conditions of the nervous system 13.84% Conditions of the genito-urinary system 12.64%
Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 8.76% Conditions of the musculoskeletal system 8.79%
Conditions of the genito-urinary system 6.35% Conditions of the digestive system 8.79%
Mental disorders 5.48% Infectious and parasitic diseases 7.69%
Multiple causes 5.14% Appendicitis 7.69%
Conditions of the digestive system 4.99% Mental disorders 6.04%
Appendicitis 4.57% Conditions of the respiratory system 4.40%
Infectious and parasitic diseases 4.22% Conditions of the skin 3.85%
Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 3.38% Multiple causes 3.30%
Conditions of the respiratory system 1.85% Endocrine, nutritional, metabolic and immunity 2.75%
Eyes 1.84% Conditions of the nervous system 2.75%
Conditions of the skin 1.44% Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 1.65%
Ears 1.34% Ears 1.65%
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs 0.62% Eyes 1.10%
Hernia 0.18% Hernia 0.55%
49 www.swedishclub.com
7 Illness
www.swedishclub.com 50
7 Illness
Causes:
The Master had a ten-year history of diverticulitis episodes and
it was known that his present condition had commenced prior
to this incident as he had seen a doctor in a previous port.
51 www.swedishclub.com
7 Illness
www.swedishclub.com 52
7 Illness
physician and the Club. In most instance the Club respects the is against expert medical advice and
cases, where this delicate issue arises, decision of the seafarer, at this stage recommendations given, and further
the Club will utilise the network it may be necessary for the Club to that he releases the member from any
of medical experts available, to protect the member’s interests by liability regarding the consequences
make certain that the seafarer is obtaining a declaration from the of his decision.
fully informed of the consequences seafarer, in which he confirms that Appendix (v) examines the issue of
any decision he may make e.g. to he is fully aware of the risks he is medical confidentiality consent and
refuse treatment. While in the first assuming by making a decision that disclosure in detail.
7.6 Prevention
Illness claims are somewhat different in nature to injury and cargo claims. To prevent illness it is essential that the
company has established preventative measures, before the crew member joins the vessel, and that the company
promotes healthy living on their vessels. It is also very important to have comprehensive new-hire procedures, to
ensure that the new crew member is healthy. It is unfortunate that the normal health certificate appears to be
insufficient and the Club believes that a more extensive health certificate is required. The best prevention is to
carry out a PEME.
Of course there is also a need for procedures that ensure that all the crew in the company are healthy.
Illness can strike at any time but by trying to identify problem areas and risks before they occur is good loss
prevention and minimises the exposure in this respect.
• If possible complete a PEME on the crew member
• Promote healthy food and diet on board the vessel
• Help crew members to stop smoking
• Ensure alcohol consumption is limited
• Promote both physical activity on board and when home on vacation
• Have a functional gym on board the vessel
53 www.swedishclub.com
8 Overall preventative measures
8.1 Causes
So why do accidents happen? This • Lack of experience. • Lack of communication between
is always the question. While every • Complacency. crew members.
accident is of course different, the • Ignoring best practices and • Poor communication between crew
statistics show that there are always approved procedures. and office staff.
some common mistakes and problems. • Lack of belief in safety and over • Not acknowledging cultural
• Lack of training, both regarding confidence in one’s own ability. differences between nationalities,
company procedures and practical • Generic company procedures which company and profession.
skills. are not suitable for the vessels • Not being assertive when spotting
• Taking unnecessary risks. trade and operation. mistakes have been made.
www.swedishclub.com 54
8 Overall preventative measures
55 www.swedishclub.com
9 Conclusive
9 Conclusion
We have seen that there are usually establish a safety culture on board overall costs significantly and we are
several reasons why accidents happen that emphasises the importance and monitoring the statistics closely.
and the complexity of the underlying benefits of approved procedures. In this publication one of the
causes sometimes makes it difficult to We can also see that over the past recurring problems we have identified
carry out a proper analysis. Accidents ten years claim costs increased in is that proper procedures have not
are generally caused by human error all the three categories. The claims been put in place or those procedures
and often occur in conjunction cost interval for illness between USD that do exist have not been followed
with technical or equipment failure. 50,000-500,000 represents 60% of the correctly. It is beneficial to continuously
Injuries and cargo claims usually occur cost, but the frequency is about 20%. It verify within your organisation that all
because the crew did not follow SMS is similar for injuries, with a frequency high-risk operations have been properly
procedures. Alternatively, procedures of about 10%, but the costs represent identified and that preventative
were inadequate or simply did not 45% in the 50,000-500,000 interval. measures have been implemented.
address the situation in hand. The The claim interval from USD 1-5,000, You must ask yourself whether your
SMS includes work permits and for both illness and injury, amounts to crew members and office staff believe in
risk assessment procedures that, if about 15%, but the cost is only 2%. your loss prevention programme or do
followed correctly, should be able to Expensive cargo claims over USD they just tick the boxes? It is a difficult
prevent accidents and mistakes. 500,000 have been found to represent and time consuming job to implement
When accidents occur it is often the over 30% of the total cost but have a an efficient safety culture in your
case that crew members have ignored low frequency of 1%. company, but as we highlight in this
procedures or did not identify the risks. It comes as no surprise that there publication, safety improvements are not
This may be that the crew member did are some extremely expensive claims, about spending great amounts of money,
not see the benefit in following the but there is a worrying trend that but prove cost efficient when compared
procedures. This clearly demonstrates the number of expensive claims is with a catastrophe, not to mention the
that the company has failed to increasing. This will increase the avoidance of human tragedy.
www.swedishclub.com 56
10 Appendices
10 Appendices
Appendix (i)
Ship fires – causing large cargo claims
Introduction
The risk of fires on board vessels is fortunately not very common as we can see from the statistics, but when fire does break
out the consequences can be severe, and this can lead to tragic outcomes such as loss of life and also large cargo claims. The
risk of a fire happening is something every seafarer is aware of and trained to respond to. When at sea there is no fire brigade
that can assist and it is only the knowledge of the crew and the equipment on board that will protect the vessel and crew from
disaster.
57 www.swedishclub.com
P&I Claims Analysis
Prevention
The paper, Ship fires from the late Dr Eric Mullen container cargo, a situation which concerns the entire
highlights the most common immediate causes, but also industry. However, at the time of any incident it doesn’t
what needs to be done to prevent fires from happening. matter who was at fault - the fire needs to be extinguished.
These causes are nothing new, but fires still happen, and in The importance of following good working practices is
recent years there have been some extremely serious fires. essential in preventing fires.
Some of these fires have been caused by wrongly declared
www.swedishclub.com 58
P&I Claims Analysis
Ship fires
Eric Mullen
As with any fire, ship fires can happen almost anywhere and at any time. Sometimes a Master has little or no control of a
fire breaking out; imagine, for example, a fire following a collision or pirate attack. The most common areas where fires occur
are engine rooms, accommodation blocks and in cargo, which will be mentioned in turn.
59 www.swedishclub.com
10 Appendices
3. Cargo fires only the Dangerous Goods Manifest and, in any event, it
A Master has some measure of control over the loading of is unreasonable to expect him to review and verify the
bulk cargo and can take steps to prevent any fires. The most declared contents of every container on the vessel. In
common causes of fire in agricultural and general product practice there is little more a Master can do other than
cargoes are the careless disposal of smokers’ materials, ensure that those dangerous goods he does know about are
often by stevedores who are notorious for both open carried in accordance with the IMDG Code and that proper
and clandestine smoking; cargo lights being left on; and checks of the containers are carried out during the voyage.
problems with fumigants.
Oil and chemical tankers
Self-heating These present their own challenges, as many of the cargoes
In some cases self-heating can lead to a fire, but this is are flammable and hence liable to fires and explosions. It
relatively uncommon. Vigilance and good working practices is no secret that the greatest risks are when loading and
when loading are the key to fire prevention of these cargoes; unloading, as it is then that there is the greatest likelihood
these should extend to any hot work carried out in the of there being spillage of liquid or vapours from the cargo
way of part filled or full cargo holds. Self-heating in cargo or there being a flammable mixture of cargo vapours in the
such as coal, can potentially lead to a fire. By far the most tanks, equipment running and crewmen working on deck.
effective means of preventing such fires is to rigorously Sources of ignition include running motors and pumps
adhere to the requirements of the International Maritime that can provide both electrical and mechanical sparks and
Solid Bulk Cargoes Code (IMSBC) during and after loading. heating, static electricity, mechanical sparks as a result of
dropped tools or inappropriate footwear and the use of
Containerized cargo unauthorised or damaged equipment.
Regrettably, there is much less that a Master can do
in relation to containerized cargo. Misdeclaration of a Tank cleaning
container’s contents is very common and, of course, the Tank cleaning, especially if being carried out manually,
ones misdeclared are often the ones most likely to cause presents its own risks, as there is a potential for ignition
a problem. It is often the case that a Master is given by static electricity during water hose washing, steaming,
mechanical sparks or the use of inappropriate lighting.
www.swedishclub.com 60
10 Appendices
61 www.swedishclub.com
10 Appendices
Appendix (ii)
Bulk liquid chemicals and fuels: Insight into specifications and contaminations.
Detrimental changes to liquid chemicals and fuels during transport.
Dr Wesley Tucker, Consultant Scientist, TSC Scientific.
The problem
Liquid cargoes are inherently vulnerable to changes in thus making an investigation a complex assessment of the
composition through interaction with their surroundings entire process from production lot to receiver.
as they have the potential to become damaged or absorb When it comes to changes in a liquid cargo during a
contaminants. This is especially true at the interface between voyage, it may be important to first make a distinction
cargo and tank, with many issues arising from things such as between a contamination and an off-specification. A
coatings, temperature, compatibility, cleaning and inerting. contamination is a tainting of the cargo with a foreign
Problems can occur for inorganic (i.e. ammonia), organic (i.e. material, and may or may not reveal itself in the panel of
benzene) and aqueous (i.e. hydrochloric acid) cargoes alike, tests that define product specifications. Alternatively, an
but are much more prevalent for purified organic chemicals off-specification is the failure of a material to fall within a
and fuels which are strong solvents, corrosive, predisposed set range of test values, and may or may not be related to a
to oxidation, or shipped in non-dedicated tanks. Importantly, contamination. In other words, failure to meet specification
the issue can arise from the shore tank, piping, or vessel, is not always related to contamination and vice versa.
www.swedishclub.com 62
10 Appendices
The cause
Because of this, contamination may possibly go unnoticed, The cause of contamination or off-specification can be
while an off-specification likely will not, unless there is a influenced by many factors and often more than one is
problem with the testing, as will be described in this article. relevant in an investigation. Contamination is sometimes
The amount of contaminant (i.e. from coatings or caused by things such as rust, coatings, residuals in piping,
seawater) or damaged product (i.e. from degradation or remnants of previous cargoes in the tank, water ingress, and
oxidation) required to cause off-specifications or become biological growth. Off-specifications that are not due to
otherwise noticeable varies greatly depending on the cargo contamination, on the other hand, can be caused by changes
and its context. For example, to cause a hypothetical in the chemistry of the material such as degradation,
cargo of 1000 MT pure vinyl chloride monomer, or VCM, oxidation, and polymerization.
a plastics ingredient, to fail specification for non-volatile Helping to determine cause, contractual specifications
residue (often set at 15 ppm), 15 kg of residue from sources for chemicals are designed to be specific to the properties
such as rust or paint would need to be suspended in the of that material and are often geared towards monitoring
tank while representative sampling occurred. Similarly, for suspected vestiges of production, storage, and transport.
the same hypothetical cargo of pure vinyl mono chloride Additionally, specifications for fuels often include parameters
to fail specification for the precursor compound ethylene relating to performance and emissions. Regardless, most of
dichloride, or EDC (often set at 5 ppm), around four litres of the root causes of off-specifications and contaminations
EDC would need to be introduced into the cargo. In perhaps are shared between the two cargo categories of fuels and
a more alarming example, it is possible that less than one chemicals, and whatever the commodity and cause of
litre of fuel oil could cause a hypothetical 1000 MT of damage may be, careful sampling and laboratory tests are
benzene to fail specification for sulphur (often set at 1 ppm). required to understand the situation, so a fair conclusion can
be reached.
63 www.swedishclub.com
10 Appendices
Cargo sampling
When it comes to liquid cargo disputes, it is easy for cargo interests to have the upper hand due to their access to shore tank
samples from loading and discharge ports. In order to protect the ship from false judgments, it is always highly advised for crews
to take samples from the manifold, first foot, and final tank during loading, and manifold and tank samples at discharge. The
information gained from these samples can protectively aid in the fair determination of cause. Clean closed sampling systems and
cargo appropriate sample vessels should be used, and tank samples should be taken in zones. Sample sizes exceeding one litre are
most often sufficient for repeated testing, but because of the cargo specific nature of specifications, due diligence regarding the
sum of test sample volumes is advised. Finally, it goes without saying that crews should be trained and aware of details such as
careful labelling, recorded storage, and judicious invitations for other parties to join in the sampling.
Cargo testing
Once samples are obtained, parties look to major analytical worthwhile to retest, and specialist interpretation may be
laboratories to serve their testing. What is often overlooked, required to decide what the reported values really indicate.
however, are the many nuances associated with the tests for 3. Not all labs are created equal. While it is unfair to prejudge
which results are too often taken at face value. Several key a laboratory based on geographical location, it can be
points should be realised by parties that seek judgment of said that it is sometimes better to ship samples to another
their cargo samples: place with a more reputable lab. In fact, it may be said that
1. Different test methods used to test the same parameter laboratories vary wildly in their quality and capacity, with
are not considered interchangeable. The values produced language and cultural factors further complicating the
by the different protocols are therefore not meant to be choosing of labs. When it comes to lab vetting, it may be
directly comparable. This is due to the fact that not only wise to consider having a specialist perform due diligence
can test methods differ in their technique and technology, for sourcing a quality lab, or sending them as a witness if
but also vary greatly in their specificity, scope, sensitivity, quality cannot be verified remotely.
and precision. For the values produced by two different As seen here, the qualification of commodities has many
test methods to be comparable, a study must be performed features that lend themselves to interpretation and decision-
to evaluate how much the results from shared samples making. If we assume that sampling was representative, then
agree with each other. The importance of transparency in we may say that testing is the most important tool in judging
the methodologies reported on test certificates can easily a dispute objectively.
be understood from this, and it is easy to see why a final To bring together some of the above points, let us refer
round of joint testing is often required. back to the two cargoes exemplified in the opening of the
2. All test methods have inherent error. When test methods article, Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) and Ethylene Dichloride
are developed and validated, the inter-laboratory precision, (EDC), which were chosen as examples because they are
or reproducibility, is often characterised. This is important commonly shipped and related in properties and origin. As
because test values that happen to fall near a specification seen in the below table, the two chemicals have a similar but
threshold have an associated repeatability, which brings in different panel of associated specifications.
to question the ‘true’ value. In such a situation it may be
VCM EDC
Purity 99.98 % Purity 99.99 %
Water 100 ppm Water 50 ppm
Appearance Clear Colourless N/A Colour 10 Alpha
Acidity 1 ppm Acidity 2 ppm
Iron 0.5 ppm Iron 1 ppm
Non-volatile Residue 15 ppm Non-volatile Residue 20 ppm
Methyl Chloride 80 ppm Total High Boilers 450 ppm
1.3 - Butadiene 10 ppm Total Low Boilers 450 ppm
Ethylene Dichloride 5 ppm Density 1.258-1.268 g/ml
www.swedishclub.com 64
10 Appendices
When we compare the two cargoes we see that they What is the reproducibility of the methods used at
share some contamination related specifications such as loading and discharge?
appearance, iron, non-volatile residue, and acidity, while Perhaps if tested again the discharge samples would be
some are chemical specific and related to precursors and within specification. Similarly, maybe the cargo would fail
degradation such as methyl chloride and ethylene dichloride. specification if the loading samples were re-tested. Test
One may also notice that colour or appearance is an methods that do not have their reproducibility determined
important specification on many chemical cargoes, which is are not fully developed.
intended as a way of alerting the presence of contamination.
We can exemplify a problem by revisiting our hypothetical How specific is the test method?
situation of a VCM cargo becoming off-specification for In the above table we see that methyl chloride, another
EDC, and propose that test certificates at discharge report chemical of similar properties, is included in the tests and
EDC levels of 7 ppm while those at loading report 1 ppm. could conceivably be ‘picked up’ by the test for EDC as
Let’s also propose that methods used to derive these values a source of error. A quality test method would include a
are only mentioned in the discharge certificates and are characterization of specificity so this could be better judged.
national in origin. When referring to the parameter of EDC in
the VCM specifications above, we find that a change in the What is the sensitivity of this method?
cargo is implied to have taken place during shipment. Even Detection levels must be within an acceptably repeatable
so, situations such as these often raise more questions than range for the method, otherwise a quantitative result is
answers and may require a more authoritative round of joint not valid. Again, a quality test method would include a
testing to settle dispute. For instance, this proposed situation description of sensitivity.
begs the following questions:
What laboratory will be used?
What methods were used at loading? Phone calls with the analyst(s) handling the samples or in-
Results obtained from discharge listed national test methods, person test witnessing can be conducted by a specialist to
which implies that different methods were used at loading, verify the quality of the procedure.
making the values from the two locations non-comparable
without a careful assessment.
Conclusion
Ultimately, it is the environment around the cargo that decides if changes occur, and therefore many off-specifications or
contaminations can be prevented if ideal conditions are always provided. Careful adherence to inerting procedures, strict
observance of epoxy curing protocols, meticulous tank cleaning, due diligence for cargo compatibility, and other precautions
help to prevent incidences. Nevertheless, many situations are not under the control of crews and their management, and
a fair determination of cause is a must once a dispute arises. As we have illustrated here, problems associated with cargo
specifications are nuanced and require careful consideration. Involved parties should be critical of the way bulk liquids are
judged without being assuming or dismissive. When a problem does occur in spite of crew foresight, and when in doubt about
the above mentioned dispute features, a specialist may be necessary to help in interpreting the situation.
65 www.swedishclub.com
10 Appendices
Appendix (iii)
Specific issues with stevedores in the USA
Keith Letourneau
Stevedore work in the United States can easily create This result follows because joint and several liability principles
personal injury liability exposure for an unwary shipowner. under U.S. maritime law shift the risk of uncollectibility from
The leading United States Supreme Court case setting forth an innocent plaintiff to a culpable tortfeasor. The LHWCA’s
the obligations of a vessel owner is Scindia Steam Navigation compensation bar essentially transforms the stevedore into
Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981). Scindia stands for a judgment proof defendant. Additionally, the stevedore’s
two important propositions. worker’s compensation carrier generally intervenes in any
Firstly, as a general matter, the shipowner may rely suit against shipowners or charterers to recover medical care
upon the stevedore to avoid exposing stevedores to costs expended on the stevedore’s behalf. Consequently, the
unreasonable hazards. However, under U.S. maritime law and shipowner, rather than the stevedore employer, bears the brunt
the U.S. Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act of fault attributable to the stevedore, despite Scindia’s first
(“LHWCA”), a shipowner cannot recover against a stevedore proposition. Secondly, Scindia holds that the shipowner, the
employer for any injuries that occur to a stevedore. stevedore employer, and his stevedore employees the duty of
Moreover, in the event that the shipowner breaches one of exercising due care under the circumstances. Thus, while the
its duties to the stevedore resulting in injury, the stevedore primary responsibility for the stevedore’s safety ostensibly
can sue the shipowner for negligence. Under joint and rests with the stevedore’s employer, the shipowner also owes a
several liability principles that apply pursuant to U.S. standard of care to the stevedore. That standard encompasses
maritime law, if we hypothesize that the shipowner is 10% at three duties to stevedore servicing the vessel:
fault, the stevedore 20%, and the stevedore employer 70%, 1. The ‘Turnover Duty’
the shipowner nonetheless would be responsible for 80% of 2. The ‘Active Control Duty’
the damages awarded. 3. The ‘Duty to Intervene’
www.swedishclub.com 66
10 Appendices
the pre-arrival walk through. To complete the turnover Often times, the charter agreement allocates responsibilities
process, upon arrival in port, the chief mate could present for cargo stowage to the charterer “under the Master’s
the checklist to the stevedore foreman, and the two could supervision,” and sometimes the vessel owner and charterer
walk the vessel where the stevedores will work noting any have entered into an Inter-Club Agreement, or incorporated
areas of concern. it by reference into the charter. These arrangements may
If the vessel provides any equipment employed during affect how a case brought by the stevedore against both
stevedore work, for example, twist locks, lashing chains, the shipowner and charterer will be defended, but do not
hooks, etc., such equipment should be regularly inspected, necessarily alter whether the stevedore may bring suit
serviced, and replaced as necessary, with documentation against both parties in the first instance. To avoid assisting
provided (or perhaps at least made available) to the the stevedore by pointing fingers at each other, it is
stevedores evidencing the condition of such equipment at important at the inception of such a suit, to work out the
the start of stevedore operations. defence arrangements between shipowner and charterer if
at all possible. The shipowner’s duty to intervene does not
extend to open and obvious transitory conditions:
2. The ‘Active Control Duty’ 1. created entirely by the stevedore
The ‘Active Control Duty’ is breached if the shipowner 2. under its control, or
“actively involves itself in the cargo operations and 3. relating wholly to the stevedore’s own gear and
negligently injures a stevedore” or “if it fails to exercise due operations
care to avoid exposing stevedores to harm from hazards they
may encounter in areas, or from equipment, under the active
control of the vessel during the stevedoring operation. Summary
In summary, while the stevedoring company is purportedly
Preventative measures the party primarily responsible for the safety of the
Before stevedore activities commence, the Master or Chief stevedore in the USA, in the event of an accident resulting
Mate may wish to instruct the crew to stay completely clear in personal injury or death, owners face considerable liability
of loading or unloading operations, leaving such work to exposure should the vessel breach one of the three Scindia
the stevedore gangs. By doing so, shipowners may avoid the duties (Turnover, Active Control, or Duty to Intervene),
‘Active Control Duty’ in its entirety. especially because any liability of the stevedore company is
attributable to the culpable defendant(s) under U.S. maritime
law. The best method to obviate such liability is to institute
3. The ‘Duty to Intervene’ regular procedures to satisfy or avoid breaching these
Lastly, under the ‘Duty to Intervene’, a shipowner owes duties: inspect vessel equipment and spaces; document any
a duty to intervene if “contract provision, positive law, potentially hazardous conditions; convey this information to
or custom” dictates “by way of supervision or inspection the stevedore prior to commencing cargo operations; stay
[that the shipowner] exercise reasonable care to discover out of active cargo operations; and service and inspect the
dangerous conditions that develop within the confines of the ship’s cranes regularly.
cargo operations that are assigned to the stevedore.”
The ‘Duty to Intervene’ may be implicated if the Master
or Chief Officer is contractually obligated to supervise Preventative measures specific for USA
cargo operations, or if vessel equipment used during such • The Master or Chief Officer may wish to instruct the
operations is not operating properly, for example, ship’s crew to stay completely clear of loading or unloading
winches or cranes. operations, leaving such work to the stevedore gangs so
the ‘Active Control Duty’ is not breached.
Preventative measures • The ‘Duty to Intervene’ may be implicated if the Master
Numerous accidents have occurred over the years or Chief Officer is contractually obligated to supervise
involving vessel cranes while operated by stevedores. cargo operations, or if vessel equipment used during such
Generally, such cases have involved the failure to properly operations is not operating properly, for example, ship’s
maintain crane components and equipment in good winches or cranes.
operating order. Shipowners should consider tasking their
technical superintendents to ensure that ship’s cranes are
regularly inspected and serviced, and current on all class
certifications.
67 www.swedishclub.com
10 Appendices
Appendix (iv)
Why PEME?
The following is an extract from a bachelor thesis by Marcus Waserbrot at Chalmers University regarding Pre-Engagement
Medical Examination (PEME). From this thesis we can see that having a PEME will save cost and prevent illnesses. The thesis
compared regular government required medical examinations in the Philippines compared with The Swedish Club’s PEME
carried out at two approved clinics in the Philippines.
In one case a crew member suffered from unspecified intestinal obstruction along with other conditions such as dehydration
and hypertension and was air lifted from the vessel. The doctor stated that it was likely that the crew member would have died
if he had stayed one more day on the vessel. Furthermore the doctor believed that a thorough PEME would have found that
the crew member had a serious medical condition. As a result, the claim’s total cost arose to approximately USD 600,000.
Graph 10.1 Most common medical conditions for From the graph to the left, the most common reasons for
not complying with PEME not being in compliance with The Swedish Club’s PEME is
Limit: USD claims 1 - uncapped related to gallstone or gall polyps and kidney conditions such
Period: 2011-2014
as kidney stones or kidney disease. The third most common
Type of vessel: All vessel types reason, called other, includes various types of medical
Type of claim: Illness conditions with low frequency that could not be categorised
in remaining categories. In this case, cardiovascular disease
could be seen as the second largest category if it would be
combined with hypertension, which also is a condition of
the cardiovascular system. Furthermore, claims related to
conditions of the cardiovascular are the claim category with
the highest frequency for illness claims, which also has a
higher average claim cost at USD 47,115 in relation to other
illness claim categories.
Gallstone/polyps 25%
Kidney 13%
Other 13%
Cardiovascular disease 10%
Diabetes 8%
Hepatitis 7%
Elevated BMI 5%
Liver function 5%
Hypertension 5%
Hearing defect 3%
Hyperuricemia 2%
Positive drug test 1%
Dental issues 1%
Pulmonary tuberculosis 1%
Bronchial asthma 1%
www.swedishclub.com 68
10 Appendices
Graph 10.2 Not complying with TSC PEME but Graph 10.3 Not complying with TSC PEME
would pass a government required medical ex- but would pass a government required
amination medical examination
Limit: USD claims 1 - uncapped Limit: USD claims 1 - uncapped
Period: 2011-2014 Period: 2011-2014
Type of vessel: All vessel types Type of vessel: All vessel types
Type of claim: Illness Type of claim: Illness
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$-
Claim costs avoided Extra costs for PEME
Gallstone/polyps 36%
Kidney 17% The graph above shows claim cost avoided and the cost
Diabetes 9% for PEME. The claim cost avoided is the cost saved because
Liver function 7% PEME would have detected the medical condition and the
Elevated BMI 7% government examination would not.
Hypertension 7% The calculation is the following,
Other 6% Claim costs avoided more than = USD 1,550,000
Hepatitis 5% Extra costs for PEME is about = USD 300,000 (this is the
Hyperuricemia 3% extra cost for the PEME compared to the government
Positive drug test 2% examination)
Cardiovascular disease 1% Total cost benefit for the period 2011-2014 = 1,550,000 –
300,000 = USD 1,250,000
The graph above describe the most common conditions that
would not be in compliance with The Swedish Club’s PEME, As a result, the avoided claims costs are greater than
but which would have passed a government required medical the increased PEME costs. In addition, the total avoided
examination. The most common conditions are gallstones deductible is greater than the increased PEME cost, which
followed by kidney conditions and diabetes. means that the enhanced PEME has a direct cost beneficial
impact to the member alone.
This once again emphasizes the importance and benefit of
having PEME.
69 www.swedishclub.com
10 Appendices
Appendix (v)
Medical confidentiality, consent and disclosure
Nigel Griffiths
All the classic codes of medical practice imply some 2. Sharing of information with others providing care, or
qualification of an absolute duty of professional secrecy, for the continuation of care. It is generally accepted
that medical matters disclosed in confidence, should not that medical information will need to be passed to those
be disclosed generally. Depending on the country in which organising ongoing or follow-up care in the patient’s own
the seafarer is hospitalised, jurisdictional issues surface as country, or those associated with organising the seafarer’s
to how confidentiality is addressed. A general common law repatriation to his homeland. Whilst treating doctors may
duty is imposed on a doctor to respect the confidences of obtain consent to disclose from the patient directly if
his patient. possible, inter-disciplinary dialogue is seen as appropriate
In an age of computerisation, progression of medical and necessary for the continuity of care. In the UK the
information to be regarded as ‘data,’ subjects it to data laws. General Medial Council recognises this in permitting
Further, disclosure may be seen as breaching the ‘right to the sharing of information with other practitioners
respect for private life’ as contained in, for example Article 8 who assume responsibility for clinical management of
of the European Convention on Human Rights. the patient, and to the extent that the doctor deems it
Specific statutes exists in many countries whose laws have necessary for the performance of their particular duties,
originated from the Napoleonic Code (France, Benelux, etc.), with other care professionals who are collaborating with
and there, medical information is treated as sacrosanct by the doctor in his patient’s management.
the medical professional with an almost absolute imperative 3. Other reasons for disclosure:
on non-disclosure. It is in these countries that clubs perhaps • When communicable/infectious diseases are diagnosed
encounter the most resistance to disclosure and have the in accordance with public health law, including
most difficulty in establishing what is wrong with the mandatory reporting
seafarer and his clinical management. • On the direction of a Judge for judicial proceedings
There are three exceptions, so let us look at the • When direct identifiable threat to life or serious harm
exceptions to the rule and how confidentiality can be is made evident to medical professionals by mentally
addressed in the context of the hospitalised seafarer. ill patients
1. Clearly, if a seafarer has given his consent to disclosure There are cases when the patient refuses medical
of medical information then it is reasonable for such treatment. It could be that a foot has to be amputated for
information to be passed on. The first instrument in the well-being of the patient but that the patient refuses. If
obtaining the consent to release is to request that emergency surgery or other life-saving treatment is required,
the patient himself (if he is able, or the next of kin every attempt should be made to reason with the patient
if not) signs a declaration that he has no objection and obtain the proper consent in writing. There will be times
to the passing of information to specified parties, when consent cannot be obtained, for example when the
which may include the correspondent, ship owner, patient is unconscious. In such instances the doctor is bound
club or their medical adviser. With this release, a copy to follow the best interest factor in determining treatment,
retained by the patient, a second by the hospital and from which a substituted judgment must serve as the
the third by the agent, medical information may be basis of consent. The weight of the family’s opinion, whilst
forthcoming. However, in some instances, even though valuable, if they are thousands of miles away may not be
the consent to disclosure is obtained, that hospital sufficiently informed to override the best interest.
may well be reluctant to pass on the information to If a seafarer refuses to follow medical advice, it is very
non-professionals and it is at this juncture that clubs important that this is documented and is brought to the
should appoint their medical advisers to intercede on member’s/ Club’s attention immediately. If seafarers request
their behalf. This is especially so in the jurisdictions an alternative treatment to that recommended by the doctor,
mentioned, if the patient is extremely ill (when the this should be carefully considered and brought to the
concern is that an agent would be unable to handle the Club’s attention. Terms of treatment, whilst not wishing to
information), if the information is sensitive, and even encroach on the patient’s autonomy, treatment must also be
more so if it involves a diagnosis such as HIV or AIDS. in keeping with terms of the Club for reimbursement to the
www.swedishclub.com 70
10 Appendices
Conclusion
It is prudent to have consent to release documents to be signed by the patient (or next of kin) in the first instance, and if
difficulty is still encountered, then the Club’s medical adviser should be appointed, to obtain the necessary information and
handle in accordance with his own professional code of ethics.
• Obtain the consent to release information about the patient himself (or the next of kin if he is not able).
• The patient signs a declaration that he has no objection to the passing of information to specified parties, which may
include the correspondent, shipowner, the Club or their medical advisor.
• If a seafarer refuses to follow medical advice, it is very important that this is documented and is brought to the member’s/
Club’s attention immediately.
• If seafarers request an alternative treatment to that recommended by the doctor, this should be carefully considered and
brought to the Club’s attention.
• Treatment must also be in keeping with terms of the Club for reimbursement to the member. Generally speaking, a patient
should be stabilised in the port of incident and treated in his own country for ongoing care and not long term in the port of
incident.
• Unnecessary and costly investigations should also be avoided, and doctors reassured that stabilisation is their goal and not
long-term care.
71 www.swedishclub.com
P&I Claims Analysis
Loss Prevention
The Loss Prevention unit is placed within the Strategic Business Development & Client Relations department and
provides active loss prevention support, analysis and reports, as well as advice to members.
Lars A. Malm
Director, Strategic Business Development & Client Relations
Anders Hultman
Loss Prevention Coordinator
Joakim Enström
Loss Prevention Officer
www.swedishclub.com 72
Contact
Head Office Gothenburg
Visiting address: Gullbergs Strandgata 6,
411 04 Gothenburg
Postal address: P.O. Box 171,
SE-401 22 Gothenburg, Sweden
Tel: +46 31 638 400, Fax: +46 31 156 711
E-mail: [email protected]
Emergency: +46 31 151 328
Piraeus
5th Floor, 87 Akti Miaouli, 185 38 Piraeus, Greece
Tel: +30 211 120 8400, Fax: +30 210 452 5957
E-mail: [email protected]
Emergency: +30 6944 530 856
Hong Kong
Suite 6306, Central Plaza, 18 Harbour Road,
Wanchai, Hong Kong
Tel: +852 2598 6238, Fax: +852 2845 9203
E-mail: [email protected]
Emergency: +852 2598 6464
Tokyo
2-14, 3 Chome, Oshima, Kawasaki-Ku
Kawasaki, Kanagawa 210-0834, Japan
Tel: +81 44 222 0082, Fax: +81 44 222 0145
E-mail: [email protected]
Emergency: +81 44 222 0082
Oslo
Dyna Brygge 9, Tjuvholmen
N-0252 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 9828 1822, Mobile: +47 9058 6725
E-mail: [email protected]
Emergency: +46 31 151 328
London
New London House, 6 London Street
EC3R 7LP, London, UK
PR-Offset, Sweden
E-mail: [email protected]
Emergency: +46 31 151 328
Printed by: