Gard News 203

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Types, Magazines/Newspapers | Downloads: 80 | Comments: 0 | Views: 539
of 32
Download PDF   Embed   Report

P&I Club magazine

Comments

Content

GARDNEWS

ISSUE 203 August/October 2011

The state of environmental crime enforcement in the US PAGE 8 Heavy lift cargoes – Contractual issues and risk allocation PAGE 14 Charterers’ Loss of Use Cover PAGE 18

Delivering consistency

Claes Isacson Chief Executive Officer

2
The spring of 2011 saw us report on the final results for the group for the year ending 20th February 2011. We are pleased to say that we have delivered another strong set of results – a robust overall performance meant a surplus after tax of USD 175 million and an increase in our free reserves to USD 818 million. Total assets on the group’s balance sheet at the end of the last financial year totalled USD 2.4 billion. relatively benign claims picture across some areas. Gross written premium decreased by two per cent from the previous year, partly as a result of market pricing remaining soft. The marine book performed well, while P&I and energy were slightly behind budget. The P&I mutual book now has 130 million GT and, for the last five years, our retention rate has averaged 99 per cent of mutual tonnage. This level of customer satisfaction is a great compliment to the service that our Members receive from everyone at Gard. The 2010 year for claims was particularly noticeable for a few significant casualties late in the policy year. In addition, we saw more claims above USD 10 million than we would expect – as well as an increase in the underlying claims trends – particularly in areas such as cargo and personal injury. In terms of the investment returns, interest rates at historically low levels affected the performance of the financial markets last year. However, we were still able to achieve a return of 9.3 per cent. development of the group. Sharing that expertise with Members and clients is also vital to our building long-term relationships with them. In terms of technical understanding, last year Gard Academy introduced a new course – an Introduction to Marine Insurance – which provides a thorough grounding in the basics of our business. The course was run twice with over 40 internal and external attendees. Other technical subjects on which we have run training have included pollution, lay-up, piracy and charterparties.

“We will always look to reduce the insurance cost for the mutual Members to below the estimated total call when the results and capital position allow.”
In June we were also able to announce a reduction in the deferred call for 2010 from 25 per cent to 15 per cent of the advance call, returning USD 28 million to the mutual members of the Club. Gard’s premium policy is to be as fair – and as predictable – as possible with Members and offer P&I insurance at rates which ensure that the Club has adequately rated insurance portfolios. For this reason we will always look to reduce the insurance cost for the mutual Members to below the estimated total call when the results and capital position allow.

“We will use the experience and expertise that we have accumulated over the years to navigate our way through what continue to be quite turbulent times.”
The high point of our Gard Academy year is always the Summer Seminar, which was held this year on 9th and 10th June. Lectures focused on two very topical themes – piracy off Somalia and developments in China. As always, the event offered delegates the opportunity to hear from some leading external market figures, as well as Gard experts. A report on the seminar appears on page 27 of this issue of Gard News. We will use the experience and expertise that we have accumulated over the years to navigate our way through what continue to be quite turbulent times – so I would like to wish you all the best and hope for a restful and reinvigorating summer break. 

“One of the key components of Gard’s vision and values is investment in our staff, their expertise, knowledge and competence.”
Continuous investment in expertise
One of the key components of Gard’s vision and values is investment in our staff, their expertise, knowledge and competence, and this has been a vital component in the

Customer satisfaction
In terms of the technical result, Gard achieved a combined ratio (on an ETC basis) across the group of 94 per cent. This result highlights our risk selection processes, and was helped by a

Gard News August/October 2011

In this issue:

2 4 7

Message from the Chief Executive Officer – Delivering consistency USCG VRP Marine Fire-fighting and Salvage Regulations – The aftermath of filing US law – London arbitration provision in P&I Club policy binds plaintiff in Louisiana direct action proceeding

8 14 16 18 19 19 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 27 28 28

The state of environmental crime enforcement in the US Heavy lift cargoes – Contractual issues and risk allocation Lloyd’s Open Form continues to adapt and change: LOF 2011 Charterers’ Loss of Use Cover Piracy discussed at Gard seminar for charterers and traders Wider Caribbean Region Special Area under MARPOL Annex V in force Save our Seafarers campaign Perfecting pollution prevention? – The State of Washington enacts a new statute NIS and NOR-registered vessels: mandatory registration with MSCHOA and UKMTO Gard’s new Claims Management US law – CARB Regulations update Frequently asked questions on calcium hypochlorite SOLAS amendments concerning lifeboat release hooks and retrieval systems Guidelines to shipping companies on behavioural safety systems The 2011 Gard Academy Summer Seminar Loss Prevention and P&I Member Circulars, spring 2011 Staff news

Gard News interviews LCDR Ryan Allain, the US Coast Guard official in charge of the compliance programme regarding the incorporation of marine fire-fighting and salvage provisions into vessel response plans. Page 4.

3

Gard News summarises changes incorporated into the new LOF 2011, launched on 9th May 2011. Page 16.

A step in the right direction regarding lifeboat safety. Page 26. and more...

© Gard AS. Gard News is published quarterly by Gard AS, Arendal, Norway. Editorial Committee: Claudia Storvik (Editor), Leif Erik Abrahamsen, Peter Chard, Knut-Morten Finckenhagen, Terje Paulsen, Nick Platt, Geir Sandnes. Production: Claire Osborne. Disclaimer: The information contained in Gard News is provided for general information purposes only. Whilst we have taken every care to ensure the accuracy and quality of the information provided, Gard can accept no responsibility in respect of any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever which may arise from reliance on information contained in Gard News, regardless of whether such information originates from Gard, its correspondents or other contributors.

Gard News welcomes contributions from external authors. Articles must not have been published previously or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Contributors may submit articles for consideration for publication to [email protected].

USCG VRP Marine Fire-fighting and Salvage Regulations – The aftermath of filing

4

Gard News interviews LCDR Ryan Allain, the US Coast Guard official in charge of the compliance programme regarding the incorporation of marine fire-fighting and salvage provisions into vessel response plans.

Introduction
Since 1993 the US Coast Guard had been attempting to formulate and then promulgate a set of regulations specifically for preplanning of response for marine fire-fighting and salvage in marine casualties involving tank vessels (as discussed in the article “USCG marine salvage and fire-fighting regulations for tank vessel response planning” in Gard News issue No. 197). The USCG released final regulations on the last day of 2008, with a compliance deadline of 22nd February 2011. This placed a significant burden on the operators of tank vessels trading to the US, as well as Gard and the International Group, which worked to review and make recommendations regarding various contracts and contractors that were vying to be included in such plans to provide such emergency services as needed. But did all of these efforts succeed? In order to find out, Gard News interviewed the US Coast Guard official charged with the compliance programme, Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Ryan Allain, to see what his views might be as to the level and quality of compliance, and also what the future might hold as to such regulations. GARD: The US Coast Guard put a lot of care and effort into the promulgation of the

recent regulations regarding the incorporation of marine fire-fighting and salvage provisions into vessel response plans. The deadline for filing of such revisions by vessel operators was 22nd February 2011, and now that a few months have passed, you have had the opportunity to assess how the process came out. Are you satisfied with the rate of compliance? About how many plans were submitted by the deadline, and did that meet your expectations? Did the volume of plans filed pose any difficulties? USCG: The US Coast Guard’s Vessel Response Plan Program is very satisfied with the rate of compliance with Salvage and Marine Firefighting regulations achieved by the international tank vessel community. We received salvage and marine fire-fighting updates for 562 Tank Vessel Response Plans (TVRPs) by 5pm on 22nd February 2011. These plans represent 7,743 tank vessels. All but four of these TVRPs were issued Interim Operations Authorizations by the close of business that day. Since 22nd February we have received 33 additional TVRP submissions, representing 396 more tank vessels. The tank vessel industry met our expectations and overcame many challenges to do so.

The volume of plans submitted was a challenge for the VRP Program, but our review staff worked the two weekends leading up to the deadline to ensure that all tank vessels with plans submitted as required by regulation would be able to continue operations on 23rd February and beyond. Mechanisms were in place to track, review, and issue compliance documentation so vessels could continue operations seamlessly. 23rd February 2011 was remarkable for the deafening silence that heralded success! The Vessel Response Plan Program is not aware of any foreign tank vessels being held out of port for non-compliance. Coast Guard field units were trained and ready to enforce the new requirements where necessary, and a large part of the successful implementation period is due to their smooth adaptation to new rules. Only a few domestic tank barges were impacted with ‘no sail’ restrictions for failure to submit TVRP updates. GARD: What challenges or issues did you anticipate with the filing process, and were any of those realised? Did unexpected problems or issues arise, and, if so, how did you solve these? USCG: Based on comments from the industry, the VRP Program expected vessel owners

to submit many TVRPs during the last quarter of 2010. We knew that the planning community wanted to avert late submission as a possible risk for vessels being denied entry to the US. As the compliance date approached, however, it became apparent that several problems prevented early TVRP submissions. These issues included a lengthy contracting process, lack of uniform resource information, underuse of the VRP Express plan submission capability, and the sheer number of required plan changes. Contracting issues delayed submissions. Contracts and funding agreements between vessel owner / operators and salvage and marine fire-fighting resource providers were required to be submitted with VRPs. Working out acceptable forms of contracts consumed time and effort, including P&I Club contract review. Once the form of contract was established, contracting between the parties took much longer than anticipated due to several factors including the continuing development of resources positioned to meet regulatory planning standards, and owners/operators inability to obtain resource information on which to base their resource provider selection. Lack of uniform resource information delayed contracting. Vessel owners/operators are responsible for selecting adequate resource

providers according to established criteria and they require good information for decision making. In late 2010 it was apparent that there was an information impasse that inhibited contracting. As a result, and in order to provide vessel owners/operators with information enabling comparisons, the VRP Program collaborated with resource providers, vessel owners, and plan preparation companies to establish a standardised core geographic specific appendix format for voluntary use by resource providers. This enabled apples-to-apples comparisons.

“VRP Express accelerates plan submissions, reviews, and communications.”
Our industry partners in this collaborative process asked that the VRP Program create a mechanism whereby resource providers could voluntarily submit these standardised core geographic specific appendices to the VRP Program for incorporation into TVRPs by reference. As a result, core geographic specific appendices were submitted to the VRP Program by the beginning of January 2011. To facilitate TVRP review prior to February 22nd, the VRP Program enlisted the aid of local Coast Guard field units to preview and verify core geographic specific appendix information by 31st January as a component of VRP review.

We expected more plan submitters to use VRP Express to submit plans, which would radically reduce review time. The Coast Guard developed VRP Express, an electronic plan filing capability available through our Homeport website, over a period of more than two years and timed its release for use in salvage and marine fire-fighting TVRP submissions. VRP Express accelerates plan submissions, reviews, and communications. Many common errors and compliance issues are resolved before the VRP Express ‘SUBMIT’ button is pressed. Successful submission ensures the planner meets regulatory requirements as long as the contract and funding agreement, pre-fire plans, and certifications submitted with or attached to the plan are adequate. We expected wide adoption of this mechanism by the tank vessel community but found that several professional plan preparation companies prefer to use their own templates instead of VRP Express. Due to this development, the VRP Program introduced a modified electronic submission process that takes advantage of some of the VRP Express features, but allows the vessel owner/operator to use their own format. The VRP submitter enters some data using the VRP Express data entry system, and uploads the VRP electronically.

5

The USCG VRP Program is satisfied with the rate of compliance with Salvage and Marine Fire-fighting regulations achieved by the international tank vessel community.

6

Plans submitted by the modified electronic upload process or sent through the post require much more time to process than plans submitted using VRP Express. Due to extensive regulatory changes, single plans submitted by these means engage an experienced reviewer for at least four hours for a plan with only a few vessels. Knowing this, the VRP Program worked with vessel owners and plan preparation companies to iron out most compliance issues in their core TVRPs during the months leading up to 22nd February. Streamlined plan review checklists were developed for reviewing standard plans from the plan preparation companies, which speeded up plan review. One unexpected problem has arisen with dispersant planning compliance under a separate regulation that shared the 22nd February compliance date with salvage and marine fire-fighting. It was expected that the two major nationwide oil spill removal organisations, or OSROs, would be able to obtain Coast Guard classification for dispersant coverage before the compliance date. This is not the case. Because of this problem, TVRPs may need to function under an extended Interim Operating Authorization to allow time for the resources to be developed to meet regulatory requirements. GARD: Are there items that you now wish were included in the regulations, and can you identify those? What process would occur to create those additional revisions, and would industry input again be solicited? USCG: The regulation requires that a pre-fire plan be submitted for each vessel, and provided to all marine fire-fighting resource providers who then certify plan acceptability for use during response. These pre-fire plans must be prepared according to SOLAS requirements or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1405, or an international standard. One outstanding response enhancement resulting from this requirement is that vessel drawings have been submitted in easily transmittable electronic format. Responder use of common drawings is advantageous for obvious reasons. Although it is not on the US Coast Guard’s regulatory agenda, development of a pre-fire plan standard that is focused on incorporating external fire-fighters in shipboard fire-fighting would be a very good thing. GARD: The recent events involving the DEEPWATER HORIZON in the Gulf of Mexico

last year would seem to amply justify the need for marine fire-fighting and salvage planning – is your office looking to assess what might be learned from that casualty? USCG: Although the DEEPWATER HORIZON incident was beyond the offshore geographical limit where regulatory response timeframes would apply, and the salvage and marine fire-fighting regulations do not apply to offshore rigs, in-place salvage and marine fire-fighting resource networks would have potentially helped the response effort. There is now much more awareness and marine fire-fighting preparedness than ever before. Real time response resource tracking as developed by some of the salvage and marine fire-fighting resource providers sets a benchmark for use of technology to plan and track response resources. Had it been in place for DEEPWATER HORIZON this capability would have potentially optimised resource usage throughout the response. If you have not already seen their websites, you should take a look at their remarkable achievements in response resource planning. GARD: How are changes in salvage and marine fire-fighting technology being monitored, and is there anything developing that now we may see that will

be included in subsequent regulations in the future? USCG: One development in the “incorporation of core geographic specific appendices by reference” process is that there is a quarterly update and review of planned resources at a Captain of the Port zone level. It is anticipated that changes in readiness will be reflected in review findings, and alternate planning criteria could be developed as technology changes. At a minimum, gaps will be identified and mitigated through this process. GARD: How does the US approach as embodied in these regulations mesh with any similar regulations in other countries? USCG: These regulations stem from OPA 90 and have been in the process of development for many years. The contracting provisions of the regulations challenged age-old salvage industry practices by requiring that funding agreements be set up prior to any salvage event happening, with the intent to eliminate pressurised negotiations at the time of incident. At the same time, the vessel specific pre-fire planning requirement recognises international SOLAS requirements and establishes a means to avoid duplication of planning efforts. 

Lieutenant Commander Ryan Allain
Lieutenant Commander Ryan Allain assumed his current position as the Vessel Response Plan (VRP) Program Manager at Coast Guard Headquarters in May 2008. As the VRP Program Manager, LCDR Allain oversees the processing and approval of response plans covering over 18,000 vessels in more than 3,000 response plans. Prior to his current duties, LCDR Allain was the Program Manager for the Coast Guard Port State Control Program. LCDR Allain has been in the Coast Guard for over 19 years and is a qualified Marine Inspector, Marine Casualty &

Pollution Investigator and Port Contingency Planner. His field assignments include Marine Safety Office Tampa, Florida and Marine Safety Detachment Fort Myers, Florida.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October 2011

US Law – London arbitration provision in P&I Club policy binds plaintiff in Louisiana direct action proceeding
On remand, a Louisiana district court has determined whether a seaman should be compelled to arbitrate in the case of Todd v. S.S. Mut. Underwriting Ass’n (Berm.) Ltd. 7

Following the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Todd v. S.S. Mut. Underwriting Ass’n (Berm.) Ltd.,1 a Louisiana district court has now determined that a seaman seeking to enforce a judgment against a bankrupt vessel owner, Delta Queen Steamboat Co. by suing the vessel owner’s P&I Club, Steamship Mutual (Steamship), under Louisiana’s Direct Action statute2 is required to arbitrate his claim under the arbitration agreement contained in the P&I Club’s policy. 3 The seaman had argued that as a nonsignatory to the policy’s arbitration provision he could not be compelled to arbitrate as a matter of law. The district court considering the matter had initially denied Steamship’s motion to compel arbitration, stating that the law was so clear that it would be wasteful to issue a written opinion. The Court of Appeals, relying on a recent decision of the US Supreme Court,4 reversed the district court decision, holding that an arbitration agreement may be enforced against a nonsignatory if permitted by state law, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Louisiana’s Direct Action statute
The district court then turned to Louisiana’s Direct Action statute, which permits suit to be brought against the insurer of an insolvent assured, and provides that such actions “…shall be subject to all of the lawful conditions of the policy or contract and the defences which could be urged by the insurer to a direct action brought by the insured, provided the terms and conditions of such policy or contract are not in violation of the laws of this state”.6 The court noted that Louisiana’s Supreme Court has held that the Direct Action statute does not create an independent cause of action against the insurer, but rather grants a procedural right of action where the plaintiff has a substantive cause of action against the assured. Based on this, the district court concluded: “…direct-action plaintiff Todd merely stands in the shoes of Delta Queen and is bound by the terms of its policy with Steamship – provided the conditions of the policy do not violate Louisiana law”.7

Ferguson Act does not apply, and which supersedes Louisiana law. In short, the court found that the New York Convention’s Article II provision for recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements could not be “reverse pre-empted” by Louisiana law. Once the court concluded that plaintiff could be compelled to arbitrate its direct-action claim, it had little difficulty deciding that the P&I policy’s arbitration provision, which referred to “any difference or dispute”, was sufficiently broad as to require the court to stay the action in Louisiana and allow the London arbitrators to determine whether the claims being asserted fall within the arbitration clause.

Conclusion
The well-reasoned opinion of the district court is consistent with recent decisions of the US Supreme Court in which the court has signalled its support for rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements – a favourable trend for P&I Clubs seeking to invoke policy arbitration provisions in proceedings brought under Direct Action statutes. 

McCarran-Ferguson Act
However, plaintiff argued that the conditions of the P&I policy did indeed violate Louisiana law because Louisiana law voids arbitration agreements in insurance contracts,8 as permitted by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act,9 which allows states to pass laws regulating insurance that would otherwise be superseded by federal law. Thus, plaintiff argued, Louisiana law voiding arbitration agreements in insurance contracts is a permissible “reverse pre-emption” of the Federal Arbitration Act’s provision for the enforcement of arbitration agreements. The district court rejected this argument because the arbitration agreement in the Steamship P&I policy was governed by the New York Convention,10 a treaty, to which the McCann601 F. 3d 329 (5th Cir. 2010). See article “US law – Motion to compel arbitration under P&I policy’s arbitration clause“ in Gard News issue No. 199. 2 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Secs. 22:1269 & 655 (2009). 3 Todd v. S.S. Mut. Underwriting Ass’n (Berm.) Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38638 (E.D. La., 2011). 4 Arthur Anderson LLP v. Carlisle, 129 S. Ct. 2009. 5 The arbitration provision in the Steamship policy included “any difference or dispute…between a Member and the Club”. 6 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 22:1269 (2009). 7 Todd v. S.S. Mut. Underwriting Ass’n (Berm.) Ltd., supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38638, *20. 8 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. S. 22:868(2009); Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 587 F. 3d 714, 719, n. 11 (5th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 9 McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1012(b). 10 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Article II, as implemented by 9 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.
1

Remand
On remand, the district court reviewed Steamship’s Rules for the relevant period and concluded that they were “silent” on whether the arbitration provision could be applied to a non-signatory.5 This silence meant that the court was required to engage in a choice-oflaw analysis to determine what law should be applied to determine this issue. Although the P&I policy was governed by English law, the court ended up applying Louisiana state law, on the basis of expert testimony that, under English law, the issue would be considered procedural and should be determined by the law of the forum (Louisiana).

8

The state of environmental crime enforcement in the US
By Steven P. Solow and Anne M. Carpenter, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, D.C. A survey of recent developments in vessel pollution enforcement and prosecution in the US.

Introduction1
It has been over a year since the 20th April 2010 explosion on the DEEPWATER HORIZON drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting oil spill (the Gulf spill) has been the subject of multiple investigations and analyses. According to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, created on 20th May 2010, the ‘‘immediate cause’’ of the spill was a ‘‘series of identifiable mistakes’’ by the companies in charge of the rig.2 A hundred spills could be similarly described. The significance of the Gulf spill, given its size and the tragic human losses that occurred, will be analysed in many different ways. For the purposes of this article, we first look at the spill in terms of what it may mean for the criminal prosecution of environmental violations. This article then moves to an analysis of current international projects that highlight

cross-national co-operation in vessel pollution enforcement. Finally, we provide a review of significant vessel pollution enforcement cases from 2010, and the start of 2011.

that judges order restitution to victims of criminal violations of the Clean Water Act.5 The bill does not propose to authorise the order of restitution to communities as a whole.6

The Clean Water Act: proposals to expand restitution and increase sanctions
Legislation introduced in the wake of the Gulf spill seeks to expand the scope of restitution that may be imposed following a criminal conviction of an environmental crime. At present, a federal judge has the discretion to impose restitution to an identifiable victim, but not, for example, for harm caused to natural resources.3 In 1996, the U.S. Senate attempted to revise the federal sentencing statutes to expand the scope of restitution in criminal cases by allowing judges to order restitution to communities harmed by environmental crimes.4 That attempt failed. The proposed post-spill legislation would expand the scope of restitution by mandating

Portions of this article previously appeared in: Steven P. Solow & Anne M. Carpenter, The State of Environmental Crime Enforcement: A Survey of Developments in 2010, Daily Env’t Report (BNA) No. 50 DEN B-1 (Mar. 15, 2011). 2 National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Report to the President, Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, p. vii (January 2011), available at http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/ final-report. 3 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553, 3663. 4 Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act of 1996, S. 2096, 104th Cong. (1996). 5 Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act of 2011, S. 350, 112th Cong. (2011) (proposing to amend 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)). See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS112s350is/pdf/ BILLS-112s350is.pdf. 6 See id.
1

The bill also would direct the United States Sentencing Commission to review the sentencing guidelines for Clean Water Act offences ‘‘in order to reflect the intent of Congress that penalties for the offences be increased [to] appropriately account for the actual harm to the public and the environment from the offences.’’7 If this effort goes forward, we may see similar efforts with regard to the other major environmental statutes, or a comprehensive effort, such as that proposed in 1996, to expand the scope of restitution to all environmental criminal convictions.

Gulf spill investigation, that would be more than 10 per cent of the section’s total. It is as yet unknown whether the department’s decision to move the Gulf spill case into the Criminal Division will inject new resources into the case and free resources from the Environmental Crimes Section. With regard to EPA, particularly in an atmosphere of budget cutting,11 it is similarly unknown whether another impact of the Gulf spill will be a reduction in the federal government’s ability to more broadly investigate environmental crimes. If EPA were so constrained it could impact more than federal cases. In recent years EPA has expanded and strengthened its role in training and supporting the work of state and local environmental investigators and police. Hundreds of state law enforcement officers have been trained by EPA at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. Cuts to training budgets and other forms of state assistance could impact these resources as well. As a means of comparison that may or may not be an artifact of resource allocation related to the spill, we can compare the reports of cases coming out of EPA Region 6 from 2009 to 2010. In 2009, a total of eight matters involved cases in Region 6.12 A review of 2010 indicates one.

prosecuting the spill case to that division may allow the Department’s Environmental Crimes Section to continue to play a leading role in investigating and prosecuting other environmental crime matters around the country.

Who’s in charge after a major incident?
Another issue receiving scant coverage is the remarkable, and remarkably confusing, number of agreements that address the federal government’s inter-agency co-ordination following a significant event such as the Gulf spill. There is insufficient space here to address each memorandum of understanding that exists between and among the various agencies responding to the spill. Indeed, several MOUs were created specifically to co-ordinate work involving the Gulf spill. Part of what is remarkable about these agreements is that they are generally the result of bilateral discussions between two government agencies and do not reflect other MOUs that exist between these same agencies and other agencies. To provide a shorthand way of visualising the MOUs between and among the federal agencies with authority to investigate environment and safety matters, we have provided the illustration on page ten.

Environmental crime investigation and prosecution as a zero sum game
Absent from the many analyses in the media has been any meaningful reporting on the impact of the criminal investigation of the Gulf spill on the rest of the government’s environmental crime enforcement efforts. This is especially of note with the news that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has transferred the criminal investigation of the Gulf spill from the Environmental Crimes Section in the Environment and Natural Resources Division to the Criminal Division.8 Given the relatively small amount of federal resources typically devoted to environmental criminal matters, the impact of investigating and (if appropriate) prosecuting cases arising out of the Gulf spill is significant. EPA recently touted the growth of its Criminal Investigation Division to a ‘‘full’’ complement of 200 special agents.9 To put this into perspective, the FBI has somewhere north of 13,000 special agents.10 While other agencies are involved in environmental crime investigations, EPA is unquestionably the lead agency in this area, and the commitment of numerous agents to the Gulf spill investigation inevitably raises questions about EPA’s ability to cover other matters. The same resource questions existed for the Environmental Crimes Section at DOJ. During the government’s investigation and prosecution efforts after the March 1989 EXXON VALDEZ spill, it has been said that, at one point or another, nearly all of the Justice Department’s environmental crime prosecutors were working on the case. While it has grown in the past 20 years, the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section has approximately 35 trial attorneys. Even if only four or five of those attorneys are spending a significant amount of time on the

9

“As in any major case, the government will have to decide just how much investigation of the Gulf spill it can afford.”
As in any major case, the government will have to decide just how much investigation of the Gulf spill it can afford. As one former Justice Department lawyer has observed, “A prosecutor is not obligated to take every possible step in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence. Rather, the prosecutor should consciously engage in an analysis of proportionality in choosing which investigative steps to pursue, and how aggressively to pursue them”.13 The availability of resources is a legitimate consideration in determining the scope and extent of a government criminal investigation.14 The underlying reason for the shift of the Gulf spill case to the Criminal Division is not publicly known. Whatever the reason, moving sole responsibility for

Id. ‘‘Justice Department Sets Up Task Force for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Investigation’’ (46 DEN A-11, 3/9/11). 9 ‘‘Giles Says EPA Pursuing High-Impact Cases, Adding Criminal Investigators to Staff’’ (184 DEN A-7, 9/24/10). 10 See http://www2.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm. 11 The President’s proposed budget for FY2012 cuts, among other things, the EPA budget for ‘‘Forensic Support’’ by thousands of dollars – a pittance in the deficit abyss, but potentially significant to EPA’s ability to provide functional support for investigations. See http://www.epa.gov/ planandbudget/annualplan/fy2012.html 12 EPA Region 6 covers Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and the areas covered by 66 Native American Tribes. 13 See Rory K. Little, Proportionality as an Ethical Precept for Prosecutors in Their Investigative Role, 68 Fordham l. Rev. 723, 770 (1999). 14 See ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations, 2.1(c)(vi), available at http:// w w w. a m e r i c a n b a r. o rg / g ro u p s / criminal_justice/policy/standards.html.
7 8

Federal Agencies with Memorandums of Understanding in Environmental and Safety Investigations

DOL OSHA

EPA

DHS USCG

10
DOT NTSB

DOI BOEMRE

CSB

Agencies identified above (clockwise starting from top): Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard; National Transportation Safety Board; Chemical Safety Board; Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement; Department of Transportation; Enviromental Protection Agency. From the perspective of those who must represent entities and individuals who are the subject of such inquiries, these MOUs create more questions than answers. If an individual or entity is approached by one agency to provide information or to be asked for an interview, it is often impossible to know whether the agency is the ‘‘lead’’ agency, or to whether and how its handling of this case impacts other cases involving multiple agencies and parallel safety, civil, and criminal investigations. various project-teams including the Clean Seas Project, led by an officer of the Australian Maritime Safety Administration. The Group developed a manual on investigating vessel pollution and plans to develop and deliver a training course to international law enforcement officers using the manual as a guide.16 In an effort to provide enforcement guidance, and publicise shipping companies and ships that violate pollution law, the Clean Seas Project also maintains a Ship Pollution Prosecution Database that contains information on completed prosecutions by various countries for the period 2001 to 2006.17

International co-operation in vessel pollution enforcement and prosecution
Over the last few years, governments have increased their co-ordinated efforts to investigate and prosecute vessel cases. Although many are familiar with these developments as they have occurred, we have summarised them below in an effort to provide an overview of what we see as a growing culture of international co-operation to investigate and bring enforcement actions involving maritime vessel pollution.

“Over the last few years, governments have increased their co-ordinated efforts to investigate and prosecute vessel cases.”
whether it is operating in co-ordination with, or independently from, other agencies. This situation not only creates issues for those outside the government, but also raises questions within the government because it can result in a lack of clear lines of authority and communication with regard to issues such as evidence preservation and forensic analyses. Without doubt, as the government’s criminal investigation of the Gulf spill moves forward, increasing attention should be paid

Aquapol
Aquapol is a self-governing association of maritime and inland navigation-related law enforcement authorities from the member

The Interpol Pollution Crime Working Group
As is widely known, Interpol’s Pollution Crime Working Group is a consortium of criminal investigators from Interpol’s 188 member countries, which shares information to develop new strategies to control global environmental crime.15 The Group includes
See Interpol, The Pollution Crime Working Group, available at http://www.interpol.int/Public/ EnvironmentalCrime/Pollution/WorkingGroup.asp. 16 Id. 17 Id.
15

states of the European Union and Switzerland.18 The organisation, founded in 2002 by the Dutch, German and Belgian Water Police Forces, is an effort to improve co-ordination of inland and maritime shipping-related law enforcement in Europe through the exchange of good practice, joint training, joint international control operations, and joint legislation and lobbying efforts.19

Black Sea MOU covers the Black Sea region; the Mediterranean MOU covers the Mediterranean; the Indian Ocean MOU covers the Indian Ocean; and the Riyadh MOU covers six Persian Gulf states.24 As time passes, and enforcement efforts rise, these documents are becoming increasingly meaningful. For example, it appears that vessel pollution enforcement training in the Arab countries that operate under the Riyadh MOU (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE) has increased in recent years. While the Riyadh MOU was enacted in 2004,25 the increases in enforcement training suggest that it may only be a matter of time before these countries begin to step up enforcement on vessels transiting their waters. An example of international co-operation to effectively and efficiently prosecute vessel pollution can be seen in United States v. Ionia Mgmt S.A.26 In Ionia, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the conviction of the shipping company Ionia Management S.A. for violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships for failure to maintain an accurate Oil Record Book for the M/T KRITON while in US waters. The crew of the M/T KRITON, a

proper pollution prevention equipment.  A Coast Guard inspection of the company’s ship M/V SYOTA MARU on 17th August 2010 revealed evidence of the violations.  The company was sentenced to pay a USD 750,000 criminal fine and USD 250,000 in community service payments for projects in American Samoa.  The company was also placed on three years’ probation. 

The North Sea Network
The North Sea Network of Investigators and Prosecutors (NSN), a group of coastal countries bordering the North Sea, works to enforce international rules and standards under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), and the numerous regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).20 Because of the density of ship traffic and close proximity of the coastal states, the NSN has facilitated joint efforts to investigate and prosecute The cases crossing national borders.21 participating coastal states include Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The NSN was begun by Norway in 2002, and facilitates the exchange of information between the member states regarding legal and evidentiary requirements, as well as surveillance data. 22 The NSN has created an international manual that offers guidance on the detection of maritime oil pollution offences, collection of evidence, and imposition of penalties for offenders.23

“A Coast Guard inspection of the company’s ship M/V SYOTA MARU on 17th August 2010 revealed evidence of the violations.” 
United States v. Cardiff Marine, Inc.31 – Cardiff Marine, Inc., a Liberian-registered shipping company, was sentenced in a Baltimore federal court for a felony violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships after the company pleaded guilty to making false statements to the Coast Guard, falsification of discharge records from the M/V CAPITOLA, and other acts of concealment. 

11

“The crew also made false entries into the Oil Record Book to conceal the discharges and hid the magic hose from US Coast Guard inspectors.”
600-foot oil tanker managed by Ionia, routinely discharged oily waste into the ocean through a “magic hose” at the direction of the ship’s Chief Engineers.27 The crew also made false entries into the Oil Record Book to conceal the discharges and hid the “magic hose” from US Coast Guard inspectors. The Netherlands Royal Military Police provided the US Coast Guard with evidence of illegal dumping which helped secure the conviction against the company for violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.28

Maritime MOUs
Under the leadership of the IMO, various MOUs have been established between consortiums of port states to co-ordinate compliance inspections under Marpol 73/78.

“It appears that vessel pollution enforcement training in the Arab countries that operate under the Riyadh MOU has increased in recent years.”
To date, MOUs have been signed covering all of the world’s oceans: the Paris MOU covers Europe and the North Atlantic; the Tokyo MOU covers Asia and the Pacific; the Acuerdo de Viña del Mar covers Latin America; the Caribbean MOU covers the Caribbean; the Abuja MOU covers West and Central Africa; the

Vessel enforcement cases of note29
United States v. Koo’s Shipping Company30 – Koo’s Shipping Company, a Taiwanese Corporation, pleaded guilty in federal court to charges of making false statements, knowingly failing to fully and accurately maintain an oil record book, and knowingly discharging oily bilge waste into Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa, without using

See Aquapol, International Police Cooperation on the Water, available at http://www.aquapolpolice.com/. 19 Id. 20 See The North Sea Network of Investigators and Prosecutors, available at http://www.ospar.org/ content/content.asp?menu=00580623000000_0000 00_000000. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 See International Maritime Organization, Port State Control, available at http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/ Implementation/Pages/PortStateControl.aspx. 25 See Riyadh Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, available at http://www.riyadhmou.org/. 26 555 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009). 27 555 F.3d at 306. 28 See Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Tanker Company Fined $4.9 Million for Falsifying Records and Obstruction of Justice (Dec. 14, 2007). 29 Like other sources, our data on environmental criminal cases is probably incomplete. Our sources, among others, include the websites of EPA and DOJ, as well as BNA’s Daily Environment Report, and the always useful Environmental Crimes Blog of Walter James, accessible at http://www.environmentalblog.typepad.com. 30 No. 1:11-cr-00034-GK-1 (D.D.C. guilty plea entered Mar. 31, 2011). 31 No. 1:11-cr-00058-MJG (D. Md. guilty plea entered Mar. 17, 2011).
18

12

A Coast Guard investigation of the company was launched on 3rd May 2010 after a crew member informed a clergyman, who was on board on a pastoral visit, about “monkey business in the engine room” involving a “magic pipe.”  The crew member gave the clergyman a flash drive containing a video taken of the ship’s engine room and asked him to alert the Coast Guard.  The investigation revealed that the “magic pipe” was a bypass hose that enabled the dumping of waste oil overboard.  The company was sentenced to pay a USD 2.4 million fine and three years’ probation, during which time third-party auditors will administer an environmental compliance plan for the company.   United States v. Stanships, Inc., et al.32 – Standships, Inc., Stanships, Inc., Standard Shipping, Inc., and Calmore Maritime, Ltd. pleaded guilty on 12th April 2011 to violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, Ports and Waterways.  Investigation into the defendants began on 29th November 2010 after a crew member reported to the Coast Guard that the ship M/V AMERICANA had a “magic pipe” that bypassed pollution controls to dump oily waste overboard.  The crew deliberately pumped engine waste overboard and created false Oil Record Books to conceal the illegal dumping.  Efforts were made to hide the pipe when the ship was in port.  The defendants were also charged with failing to report a situation hazardous to US waterways because the ship entered the

CAPITOLA.  Grifakis admitted he instructed subordinates to dump oily waste overboard via the pipe between March 2009 and 3rd May 2010.  Grifakis obstructed the investigation into the dumping by falsifying the M/V CAPITOLA’s Oil Record Books and failing to produce Daily Sounding Records for the ship, which could have helped pinpoint days when dumping occurred.  Cardiff Marine, Inc., the shipping company responsible for the

“Grifakis admitted he instructed subordinates to dump oily waste overboard via the pipe and obstructed the investigation into the dumping by falsifying the M/V CAPITOLA’s Oil Record Books.”
M/V CAPITOL, pleaded guilty on 3rd February 2011 to violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.  The company was fined USD 2.4 million and will serve three years’ probation. United States v. Fleet Management Ltd.34 – Fleet Management Ltd., a Hong Kong-based ship management firm, pleaded guilty to a criminal violation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as well as felony obstruction of justice and false statement charges. The firm was ordered to pay USD 10 million and sentenced to three years’ probation for its role in the COSCO BUSAN oil spill and related cover-up after the ship struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge in November 2007. Fleet Management concealed ship records and falsified and forged documents to influence the Coast Guard’s investigation. The collision killed at least 2,000 migratory birds including Brown Pelicans, Marbled Murrelets and Western Grebes. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Fleet Management was ordered to direct USD 2 million of the USD 10 million penalty to fund marine environmental projects in the San Francisco Bay. The firm was also ordered to implement a comprehensive compliance plan to heighten training and voyage planning for ships engaged in trade with the United States. United States v. Irika Shipping S.A.35 – Irika Shipping S.A., a ship management corporation, pleaded guilty to felony obstruction of justice charges and violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Irika was ordered to pay more than USD 4 million in fines and community service restitution for

deliberately concealing vessel pollution from the M/V IRANA, one of the company’s cargo ships that made port calls in US cities. The ship’s chief engineer directed the dumping of approximately 6,000 gallons of waste oil overboard through a bypass hose that circumvented pollution prevention equipment. Irika also received five years’ probation, during which the company is required to develop an enhanced environmental compliance plan covering all its ships, including any new vessels. United States v. Avaz,36 United States v. Mogultay,37 United States v. Atlas Ship Management Ltd.38 – Gunduz Avaz, a Turkish citizen and the chief engineer on the cargo ship M/V AVENUE STAR, operated by Atlas Ship Management Ltd., was sentenced to five years’ probation for failing to fully and accurately maintain an oil record book in violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Avaz failed to record illegal discharges of oil-contaminated waste from the engine room of the ship that was transferred to a ballast storage tank, and then disposed of at sea as the vessel travelled from Honduras to Tampa, Florida. Yavuz Mogultay, the second assistant engineer, was charged separately for the use of a bypass hose to discharge waste and the failure to record the discharges in the

“The crew deliberately pumped engine waste overboard and created false Oil Record Books to conceal the illegal dumping.” 
Mississippi River without a fully-functioning generator and the crew was unable to power the ship.  Under the terms of the plea agreement all defendants are banned from operating in the United States for a period of five years.  Defendants must also pay USD 1 million in restitution, of which USD 250,000 will be devoted to conservation and protection of wildlife in the area. United States v. Dimitrios Grifakis33 – Dimitrios Grifakis pleaded guilty to obstructing a federal Coast Guard investigation that was examining the use of a “magic pipe” to bypass required pollution controls on the M/V

“Avaz failed to record illegal discharges of oilcontaminated waste from the engine room of the ship that was transferred to a ballast storage tank, and then disposed of at sea.”
ship’s oil record book. Mogultay was sentenced to five years’ probation. Atlas Ship Management Ltd. separately pleaded guilty to making false statements and knowingly

No. 2:11-cr-00057-CJB (E.D. La. guilty plea entered April 12, 2011). 33 No. 1:11-cr-00011-MJG (D.Md. guilty plea entered May 5, 2011). 34 No. 3:08-cr-00160-SI (N.D. Cal. sentencing Feb. 19, 2010). 35 Nos. 1:10-cr-00403-JSM and 1:10-cr-00372-JSM (D. Md. sentencing Sept. 21, 2010). 36 No. 8:10-cr-00286-JSM (M.D. Fla. sentencing Sept. 7, 2010). 37 No. 8:10-cr-00264-JDW (M.D. Fla. sentencing Aug. 26, 2010). 38 No. 8:10-cr-00363-SDM (M.D. Fla. sentencing Dec. 2, 2010).
32

failing to accurately maintain an oil record book. The company was sentenced to three years’ probation and a USD 800,000 fine. The company was also ordered to pay USD 100,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and implement an environmental compliance programme covering inspection and audit of its ships that sail into the United States. United States v. Aksay Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S.39 – Aksay Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S., a Turkish corporation that operated the ship M/T KERIM, pleaded guilty to making a false statement and failure to fully and accurately maintain an oil record book. Between 2006

“Officers and crew of the M/T KERIM, under the direction of Aksay, used a pipe to bypass the ship’s oil pollution prevention equipment and discharge oil-contaminated waste directly into the ocean.”
and 2009 officers and crew of the M/T KERIM, under the direction of Aksay, used a pipe to bypass the ship’s oil pollution prevention equipment and discharge oil-contaminated waste directly into the ocean. Aksay was sentenced to three years’ probation and a USD 725,000 fine, and ordered to implement an environmental compliance programme. United States v. DRD Towing Co. LLC,40 United States v. Dantin41 – DRD Towing Co. LLC pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act. Randall Dantin, a co-owner of the company, also pleaded guilty to a separate charge of obstruction of justice. DRD Towing assigned employees to operate vessels without proper Coast Guard licensing, paid captains to operate without a relief captain, and created environmentally hazardous conditions by negligently discharging oil. The company admitted that the M/V MEL OLIVER was pushing a tanker barge of fuel oil when it crossed the path of the M/T TINTOMARA and caused a collision resulting in the discharge of 282,686 gallons of fuel into the Mississippi River. DRD Towing was sentenced to two years’ probation and a USD 200,000 fine, while Dantin was sentenced to 21 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and a USD 50,000 fine.

United States v. The China Navigation Co. Pte. Ltd.42 – The China Navigation Co. Pte. Ltd., a marine cargo vessels operation, pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships based on its failure to maintain an oil record book. The oil record book failed to note that the crew had discharged approximately 275 gallons of oilcontaminated waste collected by crew members after an on-board oil spill in violation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the company agreed to pay a USD 75,000 fine, serve two years’ probation, implement an environmental compliance plan, and pay USD 25,000 to the Columbia River Estuarine Coastal Fund. United States v. Cooperative Success Maritime S.A.43 – Cooperative Success Maritime S.A., the operator of the M/T CHEM FAROS, a cargo ship that regularly transported cargo between foreign ports and the United States, pleaded guilty to violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and making false statements. The crew of the M/T CHEM FAROS discharged approximately 13,200 gallons of oil-contaminated waste into the ocean, and falsified entries in the oil record book to conceal the amount of oil-contaminated bilge waste that was actually stored aboard the ship. The company was sentenced to a USD 850,000 fine, of which USD 150,000 was

at least one occasion, Sikharulidze directed subordinate crew members to bypass the ship’s oil-water separator, and pump oilcontaminated waste directly overboard. Approximately 13,200 gallons of oilcontaminated waste was discharged into the ocean. Sikharulidze received one year’s probation and seven days of home confinement for his conduct. United States v. Dimitrios Dimitrakis45 – Dimitrios Dimitrakis, chief engineer of the M/V NEW FORTUNE cargo ship, was sentenced to three years’ probation, and a USD 5,000 fine for aiding and abetting the failure to maintain an oil record book. Dimitrakis routinely ordered his crew to bypass the oil

13

“Dimitrakis routinely ordered his crew to bypass the oil pollution prevention equipment and discharge oil-contaminated materials directly into the ocean when entering US waters.”
pollution prevention equipment and discharge oil-contaminated materials directly into the ocean when entering US waters. Dimitrakis concealed these discharges via false entries into the ship’s oil record book. Volodymyr Dombrovskyy, another crew member, was sentenced to two years’ probation, and a USD 500 fine for aiding and abetting the failure to maintain an oil record book. Transmar Shipping Co. S.A., the ship’s operator, was separately sentenced for failure to maintain an oil record book and false statements made to a federal official, three years’ probation, a USD 750,000 fine, a USD 100,000 community service payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and was ordered to implement an environmental compliance programme. 

“The crew of the M/T CHEM FAROS discharged approximately 13,200 gallons of oil-contaminated waste into the ocean, and falsified entries in the oil record book to conceal the amount of oilcontaminated bilge waste that was actually stored aboard the ship.”
directed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, five years’ probation, and the implementation of an environmental compliance programme. United States v. Sikharulidze44 – Vaja Sikharulidze, former chief engineer of the M/T CHEM FAROS, operated by Cooperative Success Maritime S.A., pleaded guilty to violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships for failure to properly maintain an oil record book recording disposal of contaminated waste. On

No. 8:10-cr-00116-RAL (M.D. Fla. sentencing May 21, 2010). 40 No. 2:10-cr-00191-ILRL (E.D. La. sentencing Jan. 19, 2011). 41 No. 2:10-cr-00190-ILRL (E.D. La. sentencing Jan 19, 2011). 42 No. 3:10-cr-05181-BHS (W.D. Wash. sentencing Mar. 22, 2010). 43 No. 4:10-cr-00035-D (E.D.N.C. sentencing June 7, 2010). 44 No. 4:10-cr-00032-D (E.D.N.C. sentencing Aug. 17, 2010). 45 No. 4:10-cr-00552-DLJ (N.D. Cal. sentencing Sept. 30, 2010).
39

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October 2011

Heavy lift cargoes – Contractual issues and risk allocation
By Fiona Gavin, Ince & Co., London.

14

Fiona Gavin discusses some contractual considerations regarding heavy lift cargoes.

In May 2009, the International Council of Heavy Lift and Project Cargo Carriers (the Heavy Lift Club) was established in order to create a forum for exchanging ideas on industry issues that interest and concern carriers operating in the heavy lift and project cargo sector. The creation of the Heavy Lift Club reflected the concern by major players in this specialised area that technical, operational and safety considerations relating to their market were not always properly understood. Apart from the practical considerations that arise in relation to heavy lift cargoes, there are also diverse contractual needs in the heavy lift sector that need to be met. To assist those entering into charterparty contracts for heavy lift cargoes in identifying suitable terms to govern their contracts of carriage, BIMCO has produced two heavy lift forms, which are both classed as special voyage charterparties for the heavy lift trade. However, there are significant differences in their application and use.

knock contract, each contracting party bears the responsibility for its own personnel and property without recourse to its counterparty, irrespective of fault. By contrast, the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules impose on the carrier an obligation to exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel and to properly carry, keep and care for the cargo.

note for the heavy lift industry, its provisions were ultimately expanded beyond liner terms and the result was a specialist voyage charter rather than a booking note. HEAVYLIFTVOY operates on the basis of the Hague / Hague-Visby Rules liability regime and is designed for multiple shipments both above and below deck. A standard bill of lading was also issued to accompany the HEAVYLIFTVOY form. Among the many comprehensive clauses in the HEAVYLIFTVOY form, standards have been set for the cargo in respect of its fitness to be transported, how it should be marked and how it should be

HEAVYCON 2007
BIMCO’s HEAVYCON 2007 voyage charterparty form is a re-issued and revised version of the original 1985 form and is accompanied by its own bill of lading. It is a knock-for-knock contract designed primarily for use by semisubmersible vessels in the super-heavy lift (float-on/float-off) market where cargoes are almost always loaded on deck and are usually sole cargoes. The HEAVYCON terms are flexible in that they cover a variety of loading and discharging methods as well as single or multiple loading and discharging ports. Whilst the HEAVYCON is also used to a certain extent in the midsized (lift-on/lift-off and rollon/roll-off) sector, it is less appropriate for that market. This is partly due to the fact that its knock-for-knock liability regime is considered unsuited to cargo in the midsized sector, which is often split 50/50 between cargo carried both on and below deck. Such conventional cargo is generally more suited to the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules regime. As a result, BIMCO developed the HEAVYLIFTVOY.

“HEAVYLIFTVOY operates on the basis of the Hague / Hague-Visby Rules liability regime and is designed for multiple shipments both above and below deck.”
lifted (i.e., lifting points/centres of gravity). Provision has also been made for the carrier to have the option of requesting transport drawings for items of sizeable physical dimensions.

“BIMCO’s HEAVYCON 2007 is a knock-for-knock contract designed primarily for use by semi-submersible vessels in the super-heavy lift market where cargoes are almost always loaded on deck and are usually sole cargoes”.
One primary difference is the applicable liability regime and whether the form incorporates a knock-for-knock regime or the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules. Under a knock-for-

Issuing bills of lading
Whilst both the HEAVYCON and the HEAVYLIFTVOY forms are intended to be used in conjunction with their specifically drafted bills of lading, certain issues may nonetheless arise. For example, the HEAVYLIFTVOY envisages that a different form of bill of lading may be used and incorporates a standard indemnity provision to protect the

HEAVYLIFTVOY
The HEAVYLIFTVOY form was adopted by BIMCO in early 2007. Whilst it was originally developed from the BIMCO CONLINEBOOKING Note and was intended to create a booking

carrier in cases where a different and more onerous bill of lading is issued than the HEAVYVOYBILL. Furthermore, where the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules apply to the bill of lading and the cargo in question is damaged, the carrier may argue package limitation. In circumstances where the cargo is a sole or entire cargo, the amount of damages recoverable may then depend on whether the cargo in question has been described in the bill of lading as a single package or unit or whether its weight has been recorded so owners/operators should consider carefully how the cargo is to be described and ensure that such information is recorded accurately in the contractual documents. 

Photo courtesy of Clipper Group AS.

15

“Where the Hague/HagueVisby Rules apply to the bill of lading and the cargo in question is damaged, the carrier may argue package limitation.”
Minimising risk
Shipowners should review their Safety Management Systems and perform a risk assessment before any heavy lifting operations are undertaken. It is important that lifting operations for heavy cargo are planned properly. The detailed planning should be done jointly by the shipper’s representative, a cargo superintendent and the carrier’s surveyor. Detailed information should be provided in relation to the cargo, including a description of the cargo, its gross weight and its principal dimensions (including drawings where appropriate). Where appropriate, vital information such as gross weight and centre of gravity should be marked individually on each unit so that it is clearly visible to the crew and stevedores. There should also be a careful assessment of the arrangements at both the load and discharge ports.

Heavy lift sector: diverse contractual needs have to be met.

“Voyage details, including the weather forecasts and worst case scenarios for stability conditions should be studied to promote safe conditions throughout the voyage.”
Voyage details, including the weather forecasts and worst case scenarios for stability

conditions should also be studied to promote safe conditions throughout the voyage. The lashing material should be checked to confirm that it is appropriate in strength and design for the cargo being secured. The crew should also be alerted to the need to halt any lifting operations in respect of which they have safety concerns. The vessel’s cargo-handling equipment (including its on-board cranes) and the cargo spaces should be checked to verify their adequacy. It may be necessary to consult with the vessel’s classification society and flag state to confirm this, particularly where the vessel may need to be modified in any way that requires class approval. The vessel’s

Cargo Securing Manual and the IMO’s Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing should also be consulted. Where a vessel regularly carries heavy lift cargoes, it may be useful to prepare a standard checklist for loading and discharging such cargoes which can be incorporated into the vessel’s Cargo Securing Manual. Finally, ensuring that the loading and discharging of heavy lift cargoes is conducted only during daylight and in suitable weather conditions should minimise the type of risks that arise where heavy lifts are handled during the night. One way of ensuring that this is done is to incorporate suitably drafted provisions in the charterparty. 

Lloyd’s Open Form continues to adapt and change: LOF 2011
Gard News summarises changes incorporated into the new LOF 2011, launched on 9th May 2011.

16

Introduction
The Lloyd’s Standard Form of Salvage Agreements (Lloyd’s Open Form or LOF) is well recognised as the leading international standard salvage agreement. Since its formal inception in January 1908, LOF has undergone several revisions in order to meet the intervening and changing law and circumstances, severity of maritime accidents, concern over damage to the environment and the needs and concerns of the shipping and salvage industries. LOF, Lloyds Standard Salvage and Arbitration (LSSA) Clauses and Procedural rules are all administered by the Lloyd’s Salvage Arbitration Branch (SAB), whose role is to provide a reputable and secure framework within which the LOF arbitration process can operate. Since 1908 the actual wording of LOF has been revised eleven times. The curious

can find the years of revision marked on the bottom left-hand corner of page two of LOF. 1

Accessibility of awards – another move towards transparency
LOF arbitrators’ awards or appeal awards and reasons have traditionally been confidential to the parties involved; however, in March 2011 the LSG agreed that arbitrators’ awards or appeal awards and reasons should be made more widely accessible via a subscription to the appropriate area of Lloyd’s website.3 A

New developments – LOF 2011
Following meetings held by Lloyds Salvage Group (LSG)2 in 2010 and March 2011, the following amendments to LOF 2000 and LSSA Clauses have been agreed. The new LOF is known as LOF 2011.

“In March 2011 the LSG agreed that arbitrators’ awards or appeal awards and reasons should be made more widely accessible via a subscription to the appropriate area of Lloyd’s website.”

1 See article “ Lloyd’s Open Form continues to adapt and change” in Gard News issue No. 197. 2 The Lloyds salvage Group (LSG) consists of representatives from Lloyds, International Salvage Union, Property Underwriters/IUMI, International Group of P&I Clubs, International Chamber of Shipping, Intertanko, Admiralty Solicitors Group, Association of Average Adjusters and Claims/Brokers. 3 Details of how to apply for subscription to the website can be obtained from the Salvage Arbitration Branch (www.lloydsagency.com).

new clause 3 has been added to LOF 2011 (on page two) under important notices, subject to the conditions set out in new clause 12 of LSSA Clauses. The Council of Lloyd’s is now entitled to make available awards or appeal awards and reasons on its website 21 days after publication of the award, unless: 1) An appeal has been entered against the award and, if so, the award and reasons will only be made available on Lloyd’s website either after the notice of appeal has been withdrawn or the appeal arbitrator has issued his appeal award; 2) If any party to the award has applied to the arbitrator to withhold the publication of the award on the Lloyd’s Agency website. If so, the arbitrator may withhold the award if he/she considers that there is good reason for deferring or withholding accessibility of the award. It is envisaged that this will be done where other litigation is in progress and reasons for the award may impinge thereon.

There was some concern that salvage security was being provided in a form that is not acceptable to Lloyd’s or has not been provided at all raising concerns on the level of arbitrators’ exposure to the potential non payment of fees. New clauses 6.6 and 10.8 have been added to LSSA Clauses providing the arbitrator (clause 6.6) and appeal arbitrator (clause 10.8) respectively with power to order one or more of the parties to provide security for arbitrators’ fees in a sum or sums and in a form to be determined by the arbitrator.

settlement and order that the agreement should be binding on the remaining cargo interests thus avoiding the need to arbitrate solely against a small minority of cargo interests. It is envisaged, however, that an arbitrator will have to be persuaded that settlement was reasonable before he makes such an order.

LSSA Clauses – New clause 15
In some cases, there were concerns that costs incurred in collecting salvage security from low-value container laden cargo interests

Container vessels – Special provisions in relation to salved cargo in containers LSSA Clauses – New clause 13
The Arbitration Act 1996 requires notices to be given to the owners of the salved property, which in container vessel cases can be several thousand. Some may not have insurance, or may otherwise be unrepresented. It has proved expensive and difficult to trace and

“In some cases, there were concerns that costs incurred in collecting salvage security from low-value container laden cargo interests.”
were disproportionate to their proportion of any salvage award or settlement. A new clause 15 has been added to LSSA Clauses providing that cargo with a salved value below a figure to be agreed can be omitted from the salved fund as the cost of including these cargoes is likely to be disproportionate to their liability.  The logic here  is to avoid extensive costs being incurred for what would be very little return. It will be interesting to see, if this clause is invoked by salvors, exactly where the level of the value will lie.

17

Notification to Council of Lloyd’s
It has generally been the case that LOF was agreed and services successfully rendered without any notification to the SAB. This was mainly because salvors and salved interests were able to reach a quick amicable settlement and therefore did not require the services of the SAB and the LOF arbitration system. However, it was felt that the number of such cases has increased over recent years and it has become very difficult to gauge the actual level of use of LOF. A new clause 4 has

“The Arbitration Act 1996 requires notices to be given to the owners of the salved property, which in container vessel cases can be several thousand.”
contact every unrepresented cargo owner of a laden container to keep them advised and as a result this has delayed any hearing and ultimately salvors receiving their remittance. A new clause 13 has been added to LSSA Clauses stating that it will now be sufficient for notice of arbitration etc to be provided to those that gave salvage security on behalf of cargo interests (usually the cargo insurers) as opposed to owners of each unrepresented cargo interest. It is hoped that this will significantly reduce the number of notices that are required to be sent.

Conclusion
The potential effect of LSSA Clauses 13, 14 and 15 is to reduce the cost of collecting salvage security and obtaining an award against the containerised cargo interests. The accessibility of arbitrators’ awards or appeal awards and reasons is another step towards making the LOF process more transparent and is likely to lead to more consistency between decisions in much the same way as reporting court cases assists users of the judicial system. The requirement of notification to Lloyd’s of every LOF case will assist in better gauging the actual level of use of LOF. Whilst it is hoped that salvage remuneration issues can be resolved without the parties resorting to arbitration, the requirement for the provision of security for arbitrators’ fees will help satisfy any concerns as to the arbitrators’ exposure to the potential non payment of arbitrators’ fees. The changes described above once again signify LOF’s ability to adapt and change to the needs and concerns of the shipping and salvage industries. 

“It has generally been the case that salvage security, which traditionally covers fees and/or costs of the arbitrator as well as Lloyd’s, was provided direct to the salvors.”
been added to LOF 2011 (on page two) under important notices. Salvors are now required to notify the Council of Lloyd’s within 14 days of their engagement and forward the signed LOF 2011 agreement or a true copy thereof to the Council of Lloyd’s as soon as possible.

LSSA Clauses – New clause 14
In several cases, salvors were able to reach an amicable settlement with “represented” cargo interests, but were left with no option but to obtain an award against remaining unrepresented cargo interests, thereby incurring additional costs. A new clause 14 has been added to LSSA clauses providing that if a settlement is reached between the salvors and at least  75 per cent by value of salved cargo, an arbitrator can approve that

Security for arbitrator’s and appeal arbitrator’s fees
It has generally been the case that salvage security, which traditionally covers fees and/or costs of the arbitrator as well as Lloyd’s, was provided direct to the salvors.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October2011

Charterers’ Loss of Use Cover
An introduction to the latest addition to Gard’s broad range of marine insurance products.

18

The Charterers’ Loss of Use Cover (CLU) will respond to a charterer’s ongoing contractual obligation to pay hire where the vessel can not be instructed or used for reasons other than physical damage to the vessel. This insurance product is designed to ease the charterer’s concerns around having to pay significant amounts of hire during long-lasting detentions, delays and arrests. Furthermore, as piracy continues to represent a significant threat to the maritime community, cover is extended to provide protection against the contractual liability to pay hire during a period when the vessel is detained by pirates. CLU is available to all vessels with underlying charterers’ P&I cover with Gard. The standard minimum deductible is seven days, or two days for piracy. The standard limit of cover is USD 5 million per event; higher limits are available. The scope of the cover is wide and is proving popular among Gard’s charterer clients. Firstly, CLU will respond to any continued obligation to pay hire arising as a result of P&I events where potentially severe delays are incurred,

Another example is a detention where the vessel is not damaged but has caused damage to port facilities or a jetty. As claimants, the local authorities may demand unreasonably high amounts as security and, in the process of reaching an amicable conclusion, the owner might agree to let the vessel remain detained during negotiations. A charterer who is contractually liable to pay hire while the vessel is detained may not be able to use the vessel for several months. The financial burden placed upon the charterer to pay hire will be lifted as CLU will respond by covering this liability. The product also covers the challenge of landing stowaways. There is always the risk of the vessel being denied

the chartered vessel. CLU would respond as the charterer might not be able to put the vessel off-hire due to a safe port warranty in the relevant charterparty.

“In piracy-related incidents one of the greater financial concerns of a charterer is the liability to pay hire during attacks and subsequent capture.”
In piracy-related incidents one of the greater financial concerns of a charterer is the liability to pay hire during attacks and subsequent capture. According to the BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charterparties 2009, the vessel is to remain on hire for the first 90 days after being seized by pirates. Even more onerous for the charterer is the INTERTANKO Piracy Clause – Time Charterparties, which states that the vessel will remain on hire for the whole duration of the capture. These clauses are commonly used in time charterparties and place a substantial burden on the charterer. The liability to pay hire is covered under CLU and will therefore ease the charterer’s risk of suffering financial losses. Finally, CLU may also include drug seizure add-on cover, which insures against charterer’s obligation to pay hire if the vessel is wholly, or partially, deprived of income as a consequence of the vessel being detained due to the discovery, suspicion or alleged presence of illegal drugs or narcotic substances on board. For further information regarding CLU and the drug seizure add-on cover, readers are welcome to contact Gard’s Underwriting Department or visit www.gard.no. 

“A charterer who is contractually liable to pay hire while the vessel is detained may not be able to use the vessel for several months.”
entry into port and therefore being forced to deviate to an alternative port where the authorities are willing to allow disembarkation. Landing stowaways will, in most cases, result in a significant delay and – if the charterer is contractually liable to pay hire throughout this period – CLU will respond. CLU will also provide cover in a number of other scenarios. For example, cover is provided for any delay caused by hindrances beyond the charterer’s control where the vessel is unable to arrive or depart from a scheduled port. The only exceptions are congestion, severe weather conditions or ice. Illustrative of this would be a third party vessel running aground on her way out of a port basin thus obstructing the departure of

“The scope of the cover is wide and is proving popular among Gard’s charterer clients.”
for instance a cargo dispute leading to the arrest of the vessel. In an alleged off-spec cargo situation, arrangement and agreement of necessary security and possible cargo refinement processes could take several weeks. In such a situation CLU would respond to the liability to pay hire.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October2011

Piracy discussed at Gard seminar for charterers and traders
On 5th May 2011 Gard organised its sixth annual seminar for charterers and traders at the Swissôtel Metropole in Geneva. This year’s event was attended by 87 guests from all over Europe, including Switzerland, France, Italy, Belgium, United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Clients, their brokers and other players in the trading community were there to hear about Gard’s product development and current issues affecting this industry segment. In addition to presentations by Gard staff, the seminar’s key note speech was delivered by Captain Marc Nuytemans, CEO of Exmar Shipmanagement, professor and course coordinator at the Institute of Maritime Management in Antwerp and former CEO of the Royal Belgian Shipowners’ Association. In his speech, “Piracy: The Sopranos at Sea”, Captain Nuytemans considered the piracy business model in detail and supported the view that as long as Somalia is a failed state, no solution being found in arming vessels’ crews or private security personnel. He also addressed the sometimes tense relationship between charterers and owners in the event of a piracy incident. His conclusion was that owners, charterers and cargo interests in fact face a common piracy enemy, but that the solution probably does not lie with either of them. Instead, governments should co-operate in a massive aid programme for Somalia, in combination with increased military intervention. However, Captain Nuytemans observed that Somalia does not have natural resources of importance and therefore may not be high up on the priority list of any government, so the problem may remain unsolved for quite some time. 

19

“As long as Somalia is a failed state, without sufficient economic alternatives to piracy, there is little prospect of the situation improving.”
without sufficient economic alternatives to piracy, there is little prospect of the situation improving. He noted the insufficiency and inefficiency of military intervention on the high seas, with

Wider Caribbean Region Special Area under MARPOL Annex V in force
Members and clients are reminded that the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR) Special Area under MARPOL Annex V: Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage has been in force since 1st May 2011. Members and clients are requested to ensure that their vessels are prepared to comply with the more stringent garbage disposal regulations in place. Onboard placards and garbage management plans should be updated if required. More details are available from www.imo.org. 

Save our Seafarers campaign
A campaign to stop piracy supported by Intertanko, Intercargo, BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping and the ITF is seeking support to put pressure on governments to introduce more robust laws, stronger enforcement of international conventions and firmer political resolve to stop piracy. Last year an anti-piracy petition, organised by the ITF, attracted over a million signatures of support, and was presented to the head of the IMO. However, political progress has been slow. The Save our Seafarers campaign believes that politicians underestimate the magnitude of the threat that piracy poses to the world economy. Gard supports the campaign and has made a financial contribution in order to assist funding its administration. To find out how you can help the Save our Seafarers campaign visit their website at www.saveourseafarers.com. 

Perfecting pollution prevention? – The State of Washington enacts a new statute

20

Some states within the US are more active than others when it comes to putting into place their own statutes and regulations regarding marine pollution, and the State of Washington has proven itself to be one of the most active.

Since the passage of the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), which specifically allows the individual states in the US to make their own marine pollution laws and standards (staying within legal limitations), the State of Washington first tried to augment OPA 90 with its own comprehensive regulatory scheme, incorporating what it called “Best Achievable Protection” practices (BAP), controlling vessel manning, tank vessel design and construction, repairs, operations, etc. This far-reaching regulatory programme was opposed by industry, as an impermissible over-reaching into the province of the US federal regulatory field and insisting that it would set up severe inconsistencies with the rest of the US, rendering compliance expensive and practically impossible. In March 2000, the industry group Intertanko successfully obtained a ruling from the US Supreme Court to that effect, striking down 11 of the regulations as illegal, and they were repealed by the State of Washington in June of that year.

But since that time, Washington State officials have periodically issued pollution protection regulations that do not run afoul of legal limitations, and in April 2011 the Washington State legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, the latest set of regulations for tank vessels, due to come into effect on 22nd July 2011.

“In March 2000, the industry group Intertanko successfully obtained a ruling from the US Supreme Court striking down 11 of the regulations as illegal.”
These new statutory mandates include: – Enhancement of vessel contingency plan provisions, including a large scale equipment deployment every three years, that would be focused on operational readiness of response efforts in the first few hours of a spill. New planning standards by

the Department of Ecology will be issued every five years, starting with tank vessels, with new rules set forth by 31st December 2012. – The Washington State Department of Ecology is required to establish a volunteer co-ordination system, to handle the numerous citizens who volunteer to participate in spill clean-ups, and grants civil immunity to the state for what said volunteers might do. This is similar in aim to what the State of California has done with its creation of regulations for the handling of volunteers post spill, the need for which was seen in the 2007 ‘Cosco Busan’ spill in San Francisco. Not only are the needs for human volunteers to be addressed, but the new statute also requires that more provisions be made to incorporate into spill responses ‘vessels of opportunity’, like fishing boats, so that they can be used for oil spill recovery efforts. This seems to acknowledge the large role such small vessels have in spill response, most recently seen in the ‘Deepwater Horizon’ incident off Louisiana.

– The reporting of an emergency at sea or a discharge or substantial threat of discharge must be made within one hour to the Washington Department of Ecology, in addition to the US Coast Guard. This is similar to requirements in effect in several other states. – Approval of contingency plans by the State of Washington must be made and notified within 65 days of submission. – The use of ‘umbrella plans’ for both tank and non-tank vessels as per Washington State law is still permitted, but the omnibus plan must take into account the maximum worst case discharge amount of both vessel types, and provide for additional equipment to meet the challenge. – The level of state fine to be assessed for such an incident had been tripled, to USD 3-300 per gallon for more than 1,000 gallons discharged, although any oil recovered within the first 48 hours after the spill will be credited against the amount spilled.

These laws appear to dwell well within the legal boundaries as set by the US Supreme Court for such state statutes. So, compliance planning for these regulations will be necessary for tank vessel operators (and those with mixed fleets of tank and non-tank vessels), who have vessels that will operate in Washington State waters, and will require work in the modification of plans to conform to these enhanced expectations.

“Other coastal states in the US will certainly take note of what the State of Washington has done, and may mimic those aspects of the new statute that are not currently found in equivalent terms within their own laws.”
Other coastal states in the US will certainly take note of what the State of Washington has

done, and may mimic those aspects of the new statute that are not currently found in equivalent terms within their own laws. In this way, the states in the US that set the trend are likely to be followed in kind by other states in due course, and so developments tend to eventually spread throughout the US and become the ‘new standard’. This is also fed by developments in federal pollution regulations, which states also watch with interest, then tend to tailor, adopt, and append to their own state laws, further driving forward developments in the area. The matrix of state laws, and their interplay with federal laws, is a hallmark of marine pollution response in the US, and is a peculiar feature that requires vigilance in planning and flexibility in compliance. Gard will continue to monitor such developments and report on them as warranted, in what has proven to be a dynamic venue for the evolution of marine pollution response planning and regulation. 

21

NIS and NOR-registered vessels: mandatory registration with MSCHOA and UKMTO
NIS and NOR vessels must register with MSCHOA and report to UKMTO.

The article “Why registration with MSCHOA is vital in the war on piracy”, which appeared in Gard News issue No. 198, explained that the Maritime Security Centre Horn of Africa (MSCHOA), run by the EU Naval Force (EUNAVFOR), helps protect merchant shipping in the region by providing information that assists in preventing pirate attacks and disrupting the activities of pirate groups. It also explained that MSCHOA goes hand-inhand with UKMTO, the UK Maritime Trade Operations office in Dubai, which acts as a point of contact for industry liaison with Combined Maritime Forces. Yet, the article in Gard News issue No. 198 noted, not all vessels choose to register with the centres, despite the support that MSCHOA/UKMTO can provide.  

This incongruity is no doubt one of the reasons behind a recent circular issued by the Norwegian Maritime Directorate which makes it mandatory for ships registered under the Norwegian Ship Register (NIS) or under the Norwegian flag (NOR), operating in the piracy high risk area, as defined in the Best Management Practices, version 3,1 to register with MSCHOA and to report to UKMTO in Dubai.   The registration form is available at www.mschoa.org. Although all Gard members trading in the high risk area are advised to register with MSCHOA and report to UKMTO, a failure by NIS and NOR ships to comply with the new statutory requirement to register with MSCHOA and report to UKMTO may prejudice the P&I cover. The mandatory

registration and reporting requirements are pursuant to paragraph 6 A of the Norwegian Regulation 972/2004 concerning security and terrorism preparedness on board ships and mobile drilling units. It is a condition of the P&I cover that the member shall comply or procure compliance with all statutory requirements of the ship’s flag state relating to, inter alia,  the safe operation, security and management of the ship.2 

See article “Piracy – Best Management Practices, version 3” in Gard News issue No. 200. 2 See Gard Rule 8.1.f.
1

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October 2011

Gard’s new Claims Management
As a result of the Claims Initiative project, Gard has re-organised and strengthened its claims management team by introducing seven “process owners” responsible for claims types (across business areas), in addition to Loss Prevention and Risk Assessment and supporting functions.1 22

From left: Christopher Mackrill, Terje Paulsen, Lene-Camilla Nordlie Langås, Leif Erik Abrahamsen, Svein Andersen, Geir Sandnes, Mark Russell, Nick Platt, Jan-Hugo Marthinsen, Alice Amundsen.

The new claims management structure took effect on 20th February 2011. Below you will find a brief introduction to the members of the claims management team.

Svein A. Andersen, Senior Vice President, Claims
Svein is Head of Claims with responsibility for claims across Gard’s insurance products and offices, which includes P&I, hull and machinery and Energy claims worldwide.  He joined Gard as claims executive in 1984, having served as a deck officer on board Norwegian flag merchant vessels. He holds a Chief Mate’s certificate, having also passed his Master’s exam. While working for Gard as a young claims executive he did part-time law

studies at the University of Oslo. Within the Arendal office Svein has acted as Senior Manager for the Dry Cargo section of the Claims Department as well as the Casualty Environmental and Property (CEP) Department, and later as head of all P&I Claims.  He also spent some time at Gard’s Hong Kong office in 2006. Svein has had the overall responsibility for claims within Gard since August 2007.

the west coast of Norway for four years before joining Vesta in 1996, where he worked for two years in the Claims department followed by three years in the Loss Prevention/Risk Management department. He transferred to Gard in 2000 and re-joined the Claims Department in 2001, where he is now responsible for marine claims handling as well as for the administration of Marine Claims.

Leif Erik Abrahamsen, Vice President, Marine Claims
Leif Erik graduated from the Norwegian Naval Academy in 1983 and served nine years on board different fast patrol boats, six of those as Captain. He then served as State Pilot on

1 See the article “Gard’s new claims management structure” in Gard News issue No. 202.

Alice Amundsen, Vice President, Defence Claims
Alice joined Gard’s Defence claims team in Arendal in 1991. She is an English solicitor and is also qualified in Hong Kong, having worked in private practice with Eversheds and Holman Fenwick & Willan. She was the Senior Manager of Defence Claims in Arendal from 1996 until 1999, when she joined the Claims Management team with particular responsibility for leading Gard’s Knowledge Management initiative and was involved in various projects leading up to and after Gard’s merger with Storebrand and Vesta. In 2005 she returned to Defence Claims to lead the global Defence team, splitting her time between Gard’s offices in Arendal and London. In addition to Defence, Alice has broad experience of P&I and project management.

claims initiative project. Christopher represents Gard on the International Group Salvage Sub-committee.

Jan-Hugo Marthinsen, Vice President, Offshore Energy Claims
Jan-Hugo started his insurance career with Storebrand in 1979 as an assistant in the marine underwriting department in Tromsø. Whilst achieving the highest level of Marine Insurance qualifications at the Norwegian Shipping Academy in 1986, he accepted the position of claims superintendent in Storebrand’s Offshore Energy division in Oslo. He subsequently passed associateship examinations at the Chartered Insurance Institute in London and holds a diploma of Chartered Insurer. Jan-Hugo transferred to Gard in 2000, where he is currently responsible for Offshore Energy claims, being involved primarily with complex and large losses but active in all areas of claims work. In addition to chairing the organising committee of the annual Lillehammer Energy Claims Conference since its institution in 1996, he also serves as member of the Energy & Offshore Committee of the International Union of Marine Insurers, as well as Board Member of the Nordic Union of Marine Insurers, Cefor.

claims against carriers. In 1978 Nick joined O. Kverndal & Co., the UK correspondents of Gard, and transferred to Gard (UK) in 1986 when the two offices merged. Nick has handled all types of P&I claims and some hull and machinery claims, and headed the Gard (UK) claims team for 15 years. Nick is currently responsible for Environmental Claims in the Gard claims organisation across all Gard offices and for assisting in the handling and management of many large and/or complex cases, often involving on-site attendance. Nick also represents GARD on the International Group Claims Co-operation Sub-committee and is one of the Group’s representatives on the International Roundtable on the Fair Treatment of Seafarers.

23

Lene-Camilla Nordlie Langås, Vice President, People Claims
Lene-Camilla is a Norwegian lawyer with a Law degree from the University of Oslo, specialising in Maritime Law. She also has a degree in Development Studies and International Marketing from Agder University and Oslo University College. She started working in the Personal Injury & Crew (now re-named People Claims) section of the Claims Organisation in a temporary position in April 2004 and after graduation she was employed as Claims Executive/Lawyer in January 2005. In 2008 she was appointed Senior Manager of the Personal Injury & Crew team.

Mark Russell, Vice President, Cargo Claims
Mark joined Gard as a claims executive in 1996.  Before that, he was at sea for six years, principally on tankers, but also on container ships.  Mark finished his sea-going career with a Second Mate’s ticket, acting as a Chief Officer on the ferries operating between Southampton and the Isle of Wight. He has a first class honours degree in Maritime Studies from Southampton Institute.  As well as being the author of the Gard “Guidance on Bills of Lading”, Mark contributed greatly to the earlier publication “Guidance to Masters”. Following a number of years handling all types of P&I claims, Mark assumed management of the Gard UK claims team in 2006 and in the summer of 2010 took up his current position.

Terje R. Paulsen, Senior Manager, Loss Prevention and Risk Assessment
Terje joined Gard in 2009. He graduated from the Norwegian Naval Academy in 1992 and served nine years on board different fast patrol boats, four of those as Commanding Officer. He was responsible for the leadership development programme at the Norwegian Naval Academy for four years and has also worked with implementation of Norwegian fast Corvettes. He holds Master’s degrees from the Norwegian School of Economics in Economy, Strategy and Scenario Development and from the Norwegian Naval Academy in Leadership, International Studies and Logistics, and graduated from the Norwegian Armed Forces Staff College in Oslo in 2007. At Gard Terje worked as Loss Prevention Manager before assuming his current position. He sits on the Gard News Editorial Committee and is the Gard representative on IUMI’s Loss Prevention Committee.

Christopher Mackrill, Vice President, Collision Claims
Christopher is a graduate of Duke University, North Carolina, with degrees in Biology and Environmental Science and also holds a Master’s degree in Maritime Law from the London Metropolitan University. Christopher joined the Casualty, Environmental and Property claims section of Gard’s Claims Organisation in 2000. He managed the section for two years, during which he also assisted in the production of the Gard Handbook on Protection of the Marine Environment. Christopher worked full-time with the Claims Initiative project as project manager from 2009 until he assumed his current position in February 2011. Today he has a dual role, being responsible for collision claims as well as for further development of the claims organisation, a role which is very much a continuation of the work done in the

Geir Sandnes, Vice President, Claims
Following a short period at sea serving as a radio officer, Geir joined Gard in 1983 and has since then been handling and supervising claims.   Geir has a degree in Shipping Economics and is a graduate of the Norwegian Insurance Academy. In his current position Geir is responsible for the selection and performance of Gard’s external service providers, including correspondents. He also has responsibility for various crossdepartmental functions, such as the Quality Management System for claims.   Geir sits on the Gard News Editorial Committee and is the Gard representative on the International Group of P&I Clubs’ Representation Sub-committee. 

Nick Platt, Vice President, Environmental Claims
Nick started his career in the mid-1970s with Lloyd’s Recoveries Department (now Xchanging Claims Services) handling cargo

US Law – CARB Regulations update
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds California Air Resources Board (CARB) Regulations requiring use of low sulphur fuels within 24 nautical miles of California coast for vessels calling at California ports.

24

Gard News has followed the judicial twists and turns that have taken place in connection with California’s on-going efforts to regulate vessel fuel emissions since 2008.1 The most recent development is a decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the denial of an application for summary judgment by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), which sought to enjoin the CARB from enforcing regulations requiring vessels calling at California ports2 to use low sulphur fuel when operating within 24 nautical miles of the California coast.3 The PMSA challenged the regulations on the basis that California could only permissibly regulate waters falling within three nautical miles of its coast – its “seaward boundary” as provided for in the Submerged Lands Act (SLA).4 They also argued that the regulations were unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the maritime law pre-emption doctrine. The regulations at issue have been in effect since July 2009. They require that ocean-going vessels calling at California ports use marine gas oil with 0.3 per cent – 1.5 per cent sulphur content or marine diesel oil with a sulphur

content of 0.5 per cent or less in all main engines, auxiliary engines and auxiliary boilers when operating within the 24 nautical miles limit. These sulphur content limits will decrease as of January 2012 to 0.1 per cent. As the court noted, vessel owners are

state had clear justifications for doing so” and that “the sovereign police powers retained by California allow[ed] the state to adopt a wide range of laws in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of its own residents”.5 Insofar as the regulations were challenged as an improper extension of California’s power beyond the three nautical miles boundary of state territorial waters established by the SLA, the court found that CARB was not purporting to extend the border of California, but rather seeking “to regulate conduct beyond the

“Vessel owners are required to maintain detailed records of their fuel use, and non-compliance with the regulations can result in a wide range of sanctions being imposed.”
required to maintain detailed records of their fuel use, and non-compliance with the regulations can result in a wide range of sanctions being imposed, including fines and criminal prosecution.

The Court of Appeals decision
The court acknowledged that “the regulatory scheme at issue here pushes a state’s legal authority to its very limits” but was persuaded that there was sufficient evidence that “the

See articles “The new California Vessel Air Emission Regulations – Facing legal challenges” in Gard News issue No. 186, “Airing differences – Vessel air emissions in the US” in Gard News issue No. 188 and “US Vessel General Permit deadline reminder” in Gard News issue No. 195. 2 Vessels that are only transiting (“innocent passage”) are exempt. 3 Pac. Merch. Shipping Ass’n v. Goldstene, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6239 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 67 Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C. sec. 1301 et seq. 5 Pac. Merch. Shipping Ass’n v. Goldstene, supra, *14-15.
1

state’s territorial boundaries because of the serious harmful effects of this conduct on the state and its residents”.6 The regulations therefore did not violate the SLA. Dealing with the argument that California was invading a “field” already pre-empted by federal law–maritime commerce, conduct at sea outside state boundaries – the court distinguished the CARB regulations as “ultimately implicat[ing] the prevention and control of air pollution”, which the Supreme Court has held falls within the police power of the states.7 Yet, as the court readily

pursuant to which waters lying up to 200 nautical miles seaward of the Canadian and US coasts will be designated an Emission Control Area (ECA) as of July 2012.8 It is notable that the CARB regulations contain a sunset clause. As the court stated: “it is reasonable to predict that, once the heightened standards established by the ECA go into effect, the [CARB regulations] will be terminated”.9 Although its lengthy opinion conscientiously addressed the myriad legal issues raised, it would appear that ultimately the court was prepared to countenance California’s push of its legal authority “to its very limits” because it knew that the CARB regulations would have a fairly limited “shelf life”. CARB has proposed amendments to the regulations, including postponement from 1st January 2012 until 1st January 2014 of the 0.1 per cent sulphur content limitation. A public hearing is scheduled to be held in Sacramento, California on 23rd June 2011. The amendments will include extending the area to which the regulations will apply to include waters within 24 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Channel Islands.10 This is

apparently a response to what CARB believes is a strategy by ships to change their routes to avoid application of the regulations as well as to the fact that the US Navy is concerned about a sharp increase in traffic through the Point Magu Sea Range, which is used for Navy testing and training. Finally, CARB is proposing that fees for vessel non-compliance be reduced if vessels buy and use the correct fuel upon reaching a California port. 11 

“As the court readily conceded, air pollution caused by vessel emissions has most definitely been addressed by the federal government in its implementation of MARPOL Annex VI.”
conceded, air pollution caused by vessel emissions has most definitely been addressed by the federal government in its implementation of MARPOL Annex VI,

Id., *30-31. Id., *27. The Court took care to distinguish the CARB regulations from those at issue in United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000) where the Supreme Court ruled that certain aspects of Washington state’s regulation of oil tankers could not stand because state action had the same purpose as federal legislation – preventing oil tanker accidents. Id., *28-29. 8 The sulphur content for fuel used by vessels travelling within the ECA will be 1 per cent until 2015, when it will decrease to 0.1 per cent. 9 Pac. Merch. Shipping Ass’n. v. Goldstene, supra, *69. 10 Source: News from Bryant’s Maritime Consulting, May 17, 2011, http://brymar-consulting.com. 11 See Keesal, Young & Logan article, “Court Upholds California Low Sulfur Regulations”, 8th April 2011, at www.kyl.com.
6 7

25

Frequently asked questions on calcium hypochlorite
Articles in issues 196 and 202 of Gard News1 informed readers about the outcome of litigation in the English courts by Gard’s members, the time charterers, against the shippers of a “rogue” cargo of calcium hypochlorite, which exploded on board a container vessel in late December 1998. The shippers have largely failed to pay the amount awarded against them and steps are now being taken to enforce payment. Meantime, and in the light of the serious nature of such incidents, the growing number of different grades of calcium hypochlorite which are now being offered for shipment and the apparently increasing trend for such cargoes to be shipped in reefer containers, Gard and the other clubs in the International Group commissioned experts from The FAQs can be found on Gard’s website at www.gard.no/ikbViewer/Content/ 16694522/International%20Group% 20FAQs%20Calcium%20hypochlorite.pdf. The FAQs are currently official International Group policy and clients and members should be guided accordingly. 

“The FAQ document will help clients and members when considering and preparing for the carriage of calcium hypochlorite.”
two companies to prepare an FAQ document to help clients and members when considering and preparing for the carriage of calcium hypochlorite.

1

“English law – Has justice finally been done on the calcium hypochlorite cases?” and “English law – Calcium hypochlorite case goes to the Court of Appeal”.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October 2011

SOLAS amendments concerning lifeboat release hooks and retrieval systems
A step in the right direction regarding lifeboat safety. 26
In May 2010 the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) adopted amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) concerning lifeboat release hooks and retrieval systems. The MSC adopted a new paragraph 5 of SOLAS regulation III/1 requiring lifeboat on-load release mechanisms not complying with new International Life-Saving Appliances (LSA) Code requirements to be replaced no later than the first scheduled dry-docking of the ship after 1st July 2014 but, in any case, not later than 1st July 2019. The SOLAS amendment is expected to enter into force on 1st January 2013. It establishes new, stricter, safety standards for lifeboat release and retrieval systems, in order to prevent accidents during lifeboat launching.

SOLAS amendments: stricter safety standards for lifeboats. manufacturer no longer exists or supports the equipment. If an evaluation is not carried out by the given deadline, the release and retrieval system will be considered noncompliant with the new requirements. IMO member governments were encouraged to initiate, at the earliest opportunity, approval processes for new on-load release and retrieval systems that comply with the amendments to the LSA Code. This is a very positive development in this area. In several previous articles Gard News has highlighted the safety issues affecting lifeboat release hooks and retrieval systems.1 Gard hopes that the problem of lifeboat fall during exercises will be greatly reduced following implementation of these provisions. For more information readers should refer to the IMO website at www.imo.org/Media Centre/MeetingSummaries/MSC/Pages/ MSC-89th-session.aspx or to the DNV webstite a t w w w. d n v. co m / i n d u s t r y / m a r i t i m e / publicationsanddownloads/publications/ newsletters/technical_regulatory/2011/imom aritimesafetycommittee89thsession20may201 1lifeboatreleaseandretrievalsystems.asp. 

“The MSC also adopted guidelines for evaluation and replacement of lifeboat release and retrieval systems.”
The amendment will require the assessment and possible replacement of a large number of lifeboat release and retrieval systems, so the MSC also adopted guidelines for evaluation and replacement of lifeboat release and retrieval systems. The guidelines provide that an evaluation of existing lifeboat release and retrieval systems conducted by the original manufacturer shall be completed no later than 1st July 2013. Alternatively, the evaluation may be conducted by another manufacturer of lifeboat release and retrieval systems or any person who has taken responsibility over the system if the original

1

See articles “Totally enclosed lifeboats” and “Lifeboat accidents” in Gard News issue No. 146; “P&I incidents – Offshore personal injury” in Gard News issue No. 154; “Industry investigation into lifeboat safety” in Gard News issue No. 164; “A 20year anniversary – The loss of lives in lifeboats with on-load release hooks” , “Twelve men in a boat”, “The end of a musical career”, and “A fatal rescue operation” in Gard News issue No. 183; “Letter to the Editor – Lifeboat accidents” in Gard News issue No. 184; “Gard Academy conference on lifeboat hooks” in Gard News issue No. 189; and “When safety matters – The invisible human misery” in Gard News issue No. 191.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October 2011

Guidelines to shipping companies on behavioural safety systems
New guidelines stress that observation, intervention and reporting of unsafe acts and conditions is the best way to improve safety culture. 27

The UK’s National Maritime Health and Safety Committee, a tripartite body with input from the UK Chamber of Shipping, Nautilus International and RMT, has recently published the Guidelines to shipping companies on behavioural safety systems. These guidelines

have been produced in response to concerns voiced by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch that complacency was becoming increasingly significant as a causal factor in marine accidents. The guidelines stress that observation, intervention and reporting of

unsafe acts and conditions is the best way to improve safety culture and explain how to implement a behavioural safety system. Copies can be ordered via the Chamber of Shipping website at www. british-shipping.org/publications/codes/. 

The 2011 Gard Academy Summer Seminar
Gard’s traditional annual summer seminar was held in Arendal on 9th and 10th June 2011, with a record 150 delegates from more than 20 countries.

This year’s programme included the following topics: a status report on Gard, by Claes Isacson, Gard; the development of the Chinese economy and impact on world trade, by Stephen Pan, World-Wide Shipping Agency Limited; Somali pirate tactics and techniques and the counter piracy operations, by Narve Nordanger, NATO Maritime Command HQ Northwood; ship protection against piracy, by Henning Smidt, Defence Staff liaison to the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association; Somali piracy negotiations, by Neil Young, NYA International; P&I industry challenges, by David Baker, International Group Secretariat; new pollution legislation in China, by Catherine Wong, Gard (HK) Limited; wreck removal of the WEST ATLAS, by Alex Harrison, London Offshore Consultants (Australia) Pty Ltd; Gard Claims Initiative, by Svein A. Andersen, Gard. In the afternoon of 9th June, delegates were invited to a sightseeing boat trip, which included a stop at the picturesque island of Merdø, which had its days of glory when tall

ships traded to Arendal. Delegates were able to view houses that 200 years ago hosted a captain’s home, customs, inn, shipyard, pilot station, school and post office.

Following the trip, the traditional fresh shellfish buffet was served in the gardens of the Gard headquarters, with musical entertainment provided by Gard employees. 

Delegates at the 2011 Gard Academy Summer Seminar.

GARD NEWS ISSUE 203 August/October 2011

Loss Prevention and P&I Member Circulars, spring 2011
The following Loss Prevention and P&I Member Circulars have been issued by Gard during the spring of 2011: – Loss Prevention Circular No. 07-11, May 2011: Environmental issues in the Dominican Republic. – Loss Prevention Circular No. 08-11, June 2011: Clearing of shore pipelines following cargo operations at terminals. – P&I Member Circular No. 04-11, May 2011: Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the prevention and control of marine pollution from ships. – P&I Member Circular No. 05-11, May 2011: Review of Policy Years. All Loss Prevention and P&I Member circulars are available from www.gard.no. If you would like to receive Gard’s Loss Prevention Circulars by e-mail, please contact [email protected]. 

28

Loss Prevention Circulars
– Loss Prevention Circular No. 03-11, March 2011: Voyage Data Recorders (VDR). – Loss Prevention Circular No. 04-11, April 2011: USCG Enforcement of US EPA’s Vessel General Permit Program on ships in US Waters. – Loss Prevention Circular No. 05-11, April 2011: Bunker Sampling. – Loss Prevention Circular No. 06-11, May 2011: Cargo liquefaction problems – sinter feed from Brazil.

P&I Member Circulars
– P&I Member Circular No. 02-11, March 2011: Charterparty Clauses – Indemnity for Insured Risks. – P&I Member Circular No. 03-11, April 2011: Defence cover in respect of nuclear risks arising from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant incident, Japan, March 2011.

Staff news
John Martin, previously Managing Director of Gard (HK) Ltd, has been appointed Claims Director of Gard (Japan) K.K. Richard Corwin, Regional Director Asia, has been appointed Managing Director of Gard (HK) Ltd. Svein Just has joined Gard as Vice President, Property & Service. Svein previously worked as business developer in Fjellkraft AS, and, prior to that, as general manager in Enteca AS and sales manager in Markedskraft ASA. Peter Newell has joined Gard (UK) Limited as Senior Manager of Defence Claims. Peter spent time with the Royal Navy as a submarine specialist, before training as a solicitor working for firms such as Shaw & Croft, Middleton Potts and Lawrence Graham. He later moved to the West of England P&I Club where he worked for seven years. Kunbi Sowunmi has joined Gard as Senior Lawyer in the Charterers Traders team. He will be based in London before moving to New York in November. Kunbi is an international trade and shipping solicitor who recently left BHP Billiton in The Hague, where he was inhouse Counsel. Prior to that he worked at Holman Fenwick and Willan and two US law firms in London. Kristin Urdahl has joined Gard as Loss Prevention Executive in the Loss Prevention & Risk Assessment Department. Kristin has an MSc degree in Mechanical Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. She previously worked as senior engineer with Sevan Marine and worked for 14 years with DNV. Peggy Lemou has joined Gard (Greece) Ltd as Claims Executive. She has worked at major adjusting firms in Piraeus and for the past five years worked as Claims Executive in the Piraeus office of The American Club. Hideo Teramachi, Representative at Gard (Japan) K.K, has retired after more than 20 years’ service. We thank him for his hard work throughout the years and wish him a long and happy retirement. 

Staff directory
Claes Isacson Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Mobile +47 97 55 93 37 [email protected] Asia West/Eastern Europe/Africa Petter Eid Skalstad Area Manager Stephen Mulcahy Senior Underwriter Samira Hmam Deputy Underwriter Iain Laird Area Manager Stephen Mulcahy Senior Underwriter Samira Hmam Deputy Underwriter Nordic Reidun Haahjem Area Manager Steinar Jørgensen Senior Underwriter Mariela Karvanen Underwriter Karianne Kristensen Underwriter Lisbet Fokstuen Underwiter North America Espen Olsen Area Manager Knut Goderstad Vice President, Underwriting and Support Kenneth Meyer Underwriter Wenche Dahle-Olsen Underwriter Northern Europe Bjørn Fremmerlid Area Manager Stein Wahl Sande Vice President, Senior Underwriter Michaela Arnell Underwriter Inger Aasbø Flaten Underwriter Jai Raymond Johansen Underwiter Karianne Kristensen Underwriter Southern Europe Audun Fjermedal Pettersen Mobile +47 97 55 92 10 Area Manager [email protected] Nina Hovland Senior Underwriter Steinar Jørgensen Senior Underwriter Lisbet Fokstuen Underwiter Anne Wenche Leland Deputy Underwriter Sigrun Ottersland Deputy Underwriter Exploration & Production Mobile +852 9196 4210 [email protected] Mobile +852 9036 6561 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 72 [email protected] Gunnar Aasberg Mobile +47 99 29 22 25 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Sabine Colette Mazay Senior Underwriter Mobile +47 99 29 22 30 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 49 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 54 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 92 23 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 97 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 43 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 84 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)733 55 51 13 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 12 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 34 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 72 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 51 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 27 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 41 05 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 71 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 56 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 49 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)705 92 68 02 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 72 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 54 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 74 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7799 894670 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7990 591911 [email protected] Home +44 (0)1962 777650 Mobile +44 (0)7768 547401 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7799 894670 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7990 591911 [email protected] Liv Johanne Nordvik Underwriter MOU & Offshore Magne Nilssen Mobile +47 97 55 91 20 Vice President, Area Manager [email protected] Terje Holte Mobile +852 9154 8101 Vice President, Special Adviser [email protected] Andre Kroneberg Senior Manager Kenneth Meyer Manager Tore Furnes P&I Offshore Liv Sand Marine Offshore Gisle Brøvig Underwriter Sven Jensen Underwriter Christian Lillevik Underwriter, Lawyer Mobile +47 97 55 92 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 41 05 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 86 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 19 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 70 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 63 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 49 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 18 [email protected]

Sara E. Burgess Mobile +44 (0)7818 421723 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Head of International Group Matters Svein Buvik Senior Vice President, Head of Organisation & ICT Steinar Bye Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Mobile +47 97 55 93 18 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 10 [email protected]

Latin America and London

Kristian Dalene Mobile +47 97 55 91 42 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Chief Investment Officer (CIO) Christen Guddal Mobile +47 97 55 92 95 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Head of Quality Management Nicolas Wilmot Senior Vice President, Customer Relations Mobile +47 99 28 40 11 [email protected]

29

Jan-Erik Braathen Mobile +47 99 28 41 01 Vice President, [email protected] Risk Management and Analysis Svein Just Mobile +47 94 52 91 07 Vice President, Property & Service [email protected] Inge Liltved Vice President, Accounts Jens Martinius Nilsen Vice President, Head of Gard Academy Mobile +47 97 55 91 25 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 80 [email protected]

Marianne Bruun Mackrill Mobile +47 97 55 93 38 Underwriter [email protected] Atle Jonsborg Pedersen Mobile +47 99 29 22 65 Underwriter [email protected] Marine Builders’ Risks Knut Morten Finckenhagen Mobile +47 99 29 22 50 Vice President, [email protected] Area Manager Ingunn Brenna Senior Underwriter Jan Solem Jacobsen Senior Underwriter Charterers Traders Terri Lynn Jay Area Manager Mobile +47 97 55 93 25 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 55 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 56 [email protected]

Trygve Nøkleby Mobile +47 99 28 41 11 Vice President, [email protected] Human Resources and Organisation Trond Willy Olsen Vice President, ICT Roar Rasten Vice President, Controller Mobile +44 (0)7826 853782 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 80 [email protected]

Harald Stridsklev jr Mobile +47 97 55 92 38 Vice President, [email protected] Investment Management Lily Karaiscos Special Adviser Claudia Storvik Editor, Gard News Group Legal Kjetil Eivindstad Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Counsel Karsten Sunde Vice President Tore A. Svinøy Lawyer Underwriting Bjørnar Andresen Mobile +44 (0)7920 163586 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Joint Head of Underwriting Rolf Thore Roppestad Mobile +47 97 55 92 45 Senior Vice President, [email protected] Joint Head of Underwriting Bjarne Sælensminde Vice President, Special Adviser Mobile +47 99 28 40 61 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 18 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 83 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 01 [email protected] Mobile +30 693 220 0209 [email protected] Home +44 (0)1689 851486 Mobile +44 (0)7775 644791 [email protected]

Terje Holte Mobile +852 9154 8101 Vice President, Special Adviser [email protected] Liv Kristensen Senior Underwriter Bart Mertens Senior Underwriter Small Craft Nordic Thomas Nordberg Managing Director, Gard (Sweden) AB Patrik Palmgren Manager Malena Edh Underwriter Mette Ellefsen Underwriter Henry Hemtman Underwriter Ivar Rokne Underwriter Line Dahle Senior Manager Karin Nicolaisen Research Executive Vivi Sandsten Research Executive Technical Underwriting Helge A Nordahl Senior Manager Veith Huesmann Business Analyst Tor Halvor Løyte Business Analyst Mobile +47 99 29 22 64 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 40 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 311 70 02 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)40 046 5852 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)705 469 697 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 92 69 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6943 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 74 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 53 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 13 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 22 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 21 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 32 [email protected]

Market Research & Analysis

Terje Holte Mobile +852 9154 8101 Vice President, Special Adviser [email protected] Lars Schedenborg Special Adviser Asia East Sid Lock Area Manager Sigvald Fossum Underwriter Karianne Kristensen Underwriter Mobile +46 (0)70 792 60 84 [email protected]

Ingrid Helena G Larsen Mobile +47 99 29 22 15 Underwriter [email protected]

Product Development Andre Kroneberg Senior Manager Tonje Forøy Breivik Senior Lawyer Inger Eidem Contract Adviser, Lawyer Mobile +47 97 55 92 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 58 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 90 [email protected]

Geir Kjebekk Senior Claims Adviser

Mobile +47 97 55 92 52 [email protected]

Offshore Energy Claims (Oslo) Jan-Hugo Marthinsen Mobile +47 99 29 22 40 Vice President [email protected] Asle Englie Skola Claims Executive Ragnar Løken Claims Executive Nils-Joakim Rosdahl Claims Executive Marine Claims (Oslo) Ivar Brynildsen Senior Manager Karl Petter Mühlbradt Senior Claims Adviser Anne Glestad Lech Senior Claims Adjuster Atle Olav Nordbø Senior Claims Adjuster Torstein Søreng Senior Claims Executive Thomas Christiansen Claims Executive Hans Jørgen Hald Claims Adjuster Marine Claims (Bergen) Leif Erik Abrahamsen Vice President, Marine Claims Sveinung Måkestad Vice President Svend Leo Larsen Senior Claims Adviser Reidar Ebbesvik Senior Claims Executive Alf Inge Johannessen Senior Claims Adjuster Vidar Solemdal Senior Claims Executive Mobile +47 99 28 41 12 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 32 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 22 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 31 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 28 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 25 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 31 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 78 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 76 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 24 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 47 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 17 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 42 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 46 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 43 [email protected]

Andres Duran Mobile +47 97 55 92 61 Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Einar Gulbrandsen Senior Claims Executive Odd Helgesen Senior Claims Executive Torgrim Andersen Claims Executive Heiko Bloch Claims Executive, Lawyer Sandra Guiguet Claims Executive, Lawyer Paul Andor Marskar Claims Executive Tom Bent Opsal Nielsen Claims Executive Gitana Røyset Claims Executive, Lawyer Silje Skjævesland Claims Executive Rasmus Tideman Claims Executive, Lawyer Grethe Øynes Claims Executive Beatriz Åsgård Claims Executive Andreas Brachel Senior Manager Gunnar Espeland Senior Claims Adviser Jan Kr. Jacobsen Senior Claims Adviser Mobile +47 97 55 91 64 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 02 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 47 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 08 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 71 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 69 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 62 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 41 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 96 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 57 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 77 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 91 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 49 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 53 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 27 [email protected]

Thorbjørn Emanuelsson Mobile +47 94 52 93 97 Product Adviser [email protected] Underwriting Support Ingebjørg Eliassen Manager Kenneth Meyer Underwriter Mobile +47 97 55 92 70 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 41 05 [email protected]

Trading Certificates (Bunkers and CLC Blue Cards/COFR/ITOPF Inger-Helene Andersen Mobile +47 94 52 93 27 Underwriting Assistant [email protected]

30

Liv Gundersen Underwriting Assistant Hanna Kristensen Underwriting Assistant Claims Claims Management Svein A. Andersen Senior Vice President, Head of Claims Leif Erik Abrahamsen Vice President, Marine Claims

Mobile +47 94 52 91 23 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 22 [email protected]

Mobile +47 97 55 91 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 41 12 [email protected]

Casualty, Environmental, & Property Claims (Arendal)

Alice Amundsen Mobile +47 97 55 92 65 Vice President, Defence Claims [email protected] Christopher Mackrill Vice President, Collision Claims Mobile +47 97 55 93 61 [email protected]

Jan-Hugo Marthinsen Mobile +47 99 29 22 40 Vice President, [email protected] Offshore Energy Claims Lene-Camilla Nordlie Langås Mobile +47 97 55 92 42 Vice President, [email protected] People Claims Nick Platt Mobile +44 (0)7768 547402 Vice President, Environmental Claims [email protected] Mark Russell Mobile +44 (0)7747 758789 Vice President, Cargo Claims [email protected] Geir Sandnes Vice President, Claims Bjarne Printz Lawyer, Special Adviser People Claims (Arendal) Lene-Camilla Nordlie Langås Mobile +47 97 55 92 42 Vice President [email protected] Kristin Aanonsen Senior Claims Executive Per Fredrik Jensen Senior Claims Executive Christopher Petrie Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer Pål Berglund Claims Executive Lisbeth Christensen Claims Executive Trond Denstad Claims Executive Mobile +47 97 55 92 47 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 91 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 28 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 37 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 75 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 90 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 63 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 20 [email protected]

Kim Jefferies Mobile +47 97 55 92 90 Senior Claims Adviser, Lawyer [email protected] Tonje Castberg Senior Claims Executive Roar S. Larsen Senoir Claims Executive Hans-Øyvind Leikvin Senior Claims Executive Torgeir Bruborg Claims Executive Grethe Ljøstad Claims Executive Mobile +47 97 55 91 36 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 43 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 63 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 18 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 16 [email protected]

Asbjørn Arvid Asbjørnsen Mobile +47 94 52 40 41 Claims Executive [email protected] Trond Justad Claims Executive Jan Sundberg Claims Executive Påsan Vigerust Claims Executive Marit Bjørnethun Claims Adjuster Svein Arne Nilsen Claims Adjuster Defence Claims (Arendal) Alice Amundsen Vice President Arne Sætra Senior Lawyer Veronica Villegas Lawyer Jove Ytreland Lawyer Terje Paulsen Senior Manager Mobile +47 97 55 92 65 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 96 12 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 80 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 40 85 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 27 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6945 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 71 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 21 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 34 [email protected]

Isabel Martin de Nieto McMath Mobile +47 94 52 96 19 Claims Executive, Lawyer [email protected] Fredrik Doksrød Olsen Claims Executive, Lawyer Jannike Rognøy Olsson Senior Manager Alf Ove Stenhagen Senior Claims Executive Emil Evnum Claims Executive Severin Frigstad Claims Executive Robert Skaare Claims Executive Christopher Walker Senior Manager Michael Moon Senior Lawyer Alejandra Hardisson Senior Claims Executive, Lawyer Kine Haaland Claims Executive, Lawyer Hanne Topland Lawyer Mobile +47 97 55 92 32 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 94 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 66 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 28 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 60 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 52 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 75 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 11 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 71 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 52 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 22 91 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 29 22 41 [email protected]

Liquid Cargo Claims (Arendal)

Loss Prevention & Risk Assessment

P&I and Defence Claims (Oslo)

Roy Kenneth Jenssveen Mobile +47 97 55 93 41 Claims Executive [email protected] Gudrun Mortensen Aaserud Mobile +47 97 55 91 17 Claims Executive [email protected] Morten Mauritz Seines Claims Executive, Lawyer Stig Garmann Tønnesen Claims Executive, Lawyer Dry Cargo Claims (Arendal) Geir Sandnes Vice President, Claims Mobile +47 97 55 91 63 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 82 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 91 15 [email protected]

Alf Martin Sandberg Mobile +47 97 55 92 51 Senior Technical Adviser [email protected] Bjarne Augestad Senior Marine Surveyor Per Arne Sæther Senior Marine Surveyor Marius Schønberg Senior Loss Prevention Executive Kristin Urdahl Loss Prevention Executive Per Haveland Marine Surveyor Mobile +47 97 55 92 54 [email protected] Mobile +47 99 28 40 29 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 75 [email protected] Mobile +47 94 52 93 92 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 93 17 [email protected]

Tove Kaasine Skjeldal Claims Executive

Magnar Birkeland Mobile +47 99 28 40 18 Risk Assessment Executive [email protected] Accounting Solvor Ek Hayes Senior Manager Inger Kristiansen Senior Manager Jorunn Brekkestø Manager Gard (Sweden) AB Thomas Nordberg Managing Director Yvonne Mikulandra Controller Underwriting Michaela Arnell Underwriter Mariela Karvanen Underwriter Malena Edh Underwriter Claims (Gothenburg) Johan Henriksson Senior Manager Thomas Forssen Claims Executive Patrik Friberg Claims Executive Jonas Gustavsson Claims Executive Jerker Paulusson Claims Executive Gard (UK) Limited Bjørnar Andresen Managing Director Mobile +44 (0)7920 163586 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 787 04 07 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 655 92 92 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 878 74 15 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 633 92 94 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)73 442 60 70 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)733 55 51 13 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)705 92 68 02 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)705 469 697 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 311 70 02 [email protected] Mobile +46 (0)70 787 04 06 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 91 48 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 74 [email protected] Mobile +47 97 55 92 88 [email protected]

Helenka Leary Senior Lawyer Helen Sandgren Senior Lawyer Kunbi Sowunmi Senior Lawyer Kelly Wagland Senior Lawyer

Mobile +44 (0)7766 251387 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7901 530812 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7584 130237 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7789 938200 [email protected]

Claudia Botero-Götz Senior Lawyer Cheryl Acker Claims Executive Edward Fleureton Claims Executive Hugh Forde Claims Executive, Lawyer Dina Gallaro Claims Executive Christine Thomas Claims Executive Gard (Greece) Ltd

Mobile +1 (646) 248 8109 [email protected] Mobile +1 (203) 258 7059 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3510 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3753 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3209 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 670 3271 [email protected]

Hélène-Laurence Courties Mobile +44 (0)7917 195810 Lawyer [email protected] Monica Kohli Lawyer Oy Gard (Baltic) Ab Roberto Lencioni Managing Director Underwriting Henry Hemtman Underwriter Claims (Helsinki) Saila Hiirsalmi Senior Manager Riika Ahtiala Claims Executive Mobile +358 (0)50 595 1133 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6946 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6943 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 500 0000 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7920 423832 [email protected]

George Karkas Managing Director Joakim Bronder Senior Manager Anne Boye Senior Claims Executive Svein Ellingsen Senior Claims Executive

Mobile +30 694 451 3350 [email protected] Mobile +30 693 662 1102 [email protected] Mobile +30 693 726 7653 [email protected] Mobile +30 693 726 7654 [email protected]

31

Alexandra Chatzimichailoglou Mobile +30 697 412 0812 Claims Executive, [email protected] Lawyer Themis Ploumidakis Claims Executive, Lawyer Emmanuel Tatianidis Claims Executive, Financial Controller Mobile +30 694 624 4965 [email protected]

Martin Jansson Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6942 Claims Executive, Surveyor [email protected] Johan Lång Claims Executive Gard (HK) Ltd Richard Corwin Managing Director Underwriting Terje Holte Mobile +852 9154 8101 Vice President, Special Adviser [email protected] Sid Lock Area Manager, Asia East Sigvald Fossum Underwriter Katherine Wang Deputy Underwriter Claims (Hong Kong) Einar Christensen Claims Director Catherine Wong Senior Lawyer Charmaine Chu Claims Executive Zoe Ho Claims Executive Nancy Kam Claims Executive Patrick Lee Claims Executive Michelle Pun Claims Executive Tony Wong Lawyer Wallace Yeung Claims Executive Gard (Japan) K.K. Tadashi Sugimoto Managing Director John Martin Claims Director Katsumi Imamura Claims Executive Mobile +81 (0)80 4142 9688 [email protected] Mobile +81 (0)90 3095 2923 [email protected] Mobile +81 (0)90 4709 5174 [email protected] Mobile +852 9196 4210 [email protected] Mobile +852 9036 6561 [email protected] Mobile +852 6396 3291 [email protected] Mobile +852 9106 9262 [email protected] Mobile +852 6478 7260 [email protected] Mobile +852 6478 7264 [email protected] Mobile +852 6478 7262 [email protected] Mobile +852 6292 7578 [email protected] Mobile +852 9107 0302 [email protected] Mobile +852 9337 6463 [email protected] Mobile +852 6398 7265 [email protected] Mobile +852 9124 6365 [email protected] Mobile +852 6391 1334 [email protected] Mobile +358 (0)50 414 6941 [email protected]

Mobile +30 693 726 7669 [email protected]

Lingard Limited, Bermuda Graham Everard Managing Director Mobile +1 (441) 330 3445 [email protected]

DIARY Gard offices will be closed on the following dates: London 29th August Hong Kong 13th September, 1st October, 5th October Tokyo 19th September, 23rd September, 10th October New York 5th September Bermuda 5th September Piraeus 15th August, 28th October

Nick Platt Mobile +44 (0)7768 547402 Vice President, Environmental Claims [email protected] Mark Russell Mobile +44 (0)7747 758789 Vice President, Cargo Claims [email protected] Underwriting Iain Laird Area Manager, Latin America & London Stephen Mulcahy Senior Underwriter Samira Hmam Deputy Underwriter Claims (London) Ajaz Peermohamed Senior Manager Adrian Hodgson Senior Claims Executive Andreas Alsterberg Claims Executive Chris Connor Claims Executive Jennie Gibson Claims Executive Tina Lind Havdahl Claims Executive Kelly Turner Claims Executive Nigel Wright Claims Executive Peter Newell Senior Manager Balvinder Ahluwalia Senior Lawyer Peter M. Chard Senior Lawyer Jim Edwards Senior Lawyer James Hawes Senior Lawyer Mobile +44 (0)7747 758978 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7747 758956 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7917 351450 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7747 758845 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7786 915855 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7826 854156 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7748 646665 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7795 843634 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7825 518447 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7766 303047 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7766 251390 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7879 235982 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7887 508198 [email protected] Home +44 (0)1962 777650 Mobile +44 (0)7768 547401 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7799 894670 [email protected] Mobile +44 (0)7990 591911 [email protected]

Defence Claims (London)

Gard (North America) Inc Sandra Gluck President Evanthia Coffee Senior Lawyer Mobile +1 (917) 670 3169 [email protected] Mobile +1 (917) 399 5918 [email protected]

Frank Gonynor Mobile +1 (917) 670 3164 Senior Claims Adviser, Lawyer [email protected] John Scalia Senior Claims Adviser Mobile +1 (516) 551 1577 [email protected]

Gard AS Postbox 789 Stoa NO-4809 Arendal Norway Phone: +47 37 01 91 00 [email protected] Gard AS Skipsbyggerhallen Solheimsgaten 11 NO-5058 Bergen Norway Phone: +47 37 01 91 00 [email protected] Gard AS Støperigata 2, Aker Brygge NO-0250 Oslo Norway Phone: +47 37 01 91 00 [email protected] Gard (UK) Limited 85 Gracechurch Street London EC3V 0AA United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)20 7444 7200 [email protected] Gard (Greece) Ltd 2, A. Papanastasiou Avenue 185 34 Kastella, Piraeus Greece Phone: +30 210 413 8752 [email protected]

Gard (North America) Inc 30 Broad Street New York NY 10004-2944 U.S.A. Phone: +1 (212) 425 5100 [email protected] Gard (Japan) K.K. Kawade Building, 5F 1-5-8 Nishi-Shinbashi Minato-ku Tokyo 105-0003 Japan Phone: +81 (0)3 3503 9293 [email protected] Gard (Sweden) AB Våstra Hamngatan 5 SE-41117 Gothenburg Sweden Phone: +46 (0)31 743 7130 [email protected] Gard (HK) Ltd 35/F, The Centrium 60 Wyndham Street Central Hong Kong Phone: +852 2901 8688 [email protected]

Oy Gard (Baltic) Ab Bulevardi 46 FIN-00120 Helsinki Finland Phone: +358 30 600 3400 [email protected] Gard P. & I. (Bermuda) Ltd. Gard Marine & Energy Limited Lingard Limited Trott & Duncan Building 17A Brunswick Street Hamilton HM 10 Bermuda Phone: +1 (441) 292 6766 [email protected] CATASTROPHE TELEPHONE NUMBERS P&I: +47 90 52 41 00 Marine: +47 90 92 52 00 OUTSIDE OFFICE HOURS TELEPHONE NUMBERS Gard AS: +47 90 52 41 00 Gard (UK) Limited: +44 (0)7747 021 224 Gard (Greece) Ltd +30 6936 600 603 Gard (North America) Inc: +1 (917) 856 6664 Gard P&I Japan and Far East: +81 (0)3 3503 9293 Gard (Sweden) AB: +46 (0)31 743 71 48. Gard (HK) Ltd: +852 94 61 63 61 Oy Gard (Baltic) Ab: +358 (0)50 402 7777

www.gard.no [email protected]

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close