Most reefer cargo damage occurs not because of technical reasons, but due to poor communication systems, management practices or administrative procedures.
A tank container with a shipment of 21,000 litres of wine was consigned from Australia to the USA. On arrival, the consignee refused to take delivery as the accompanying documents did not include the relevant certificate of food quality. It was also alleged that the wine was contaminated.
Arrangements were made for the tank container to be returned to Australia where tests could be carried out and, if necessary, the wine distilled to remove its alcohol content.
Enquiries revealed that the tank container had been used previously for a cargo of liquid detergent, and that a steam clean as well as the replacement of all the gaskets and seals to remove all traces of the detergent were necessary to bring the tank up to food quality standard. This had not been done and as a result the wine had become contaminated.
As a clean B/L had been issued the carrier had no defence against a claim from the shipper but the carrier in turn looked to the agent for indemnity under the terms of their Agency Agreement.
The tank container was ordered by the agent from a yard that was not used to dealing with tanks that were used for food and was unaware of the necessary food quality standards. The agent's written instructions to the yard specified the tank needed by container number, and also that it was intended to be used for the carriage of a cargo of wine, but the yard did not take any action to ensure that contents would not become contaminated. It was necessary for the agent to ascertain the previous contents of the tank from the import container files, but this was not done.
The liabilities of the shipper were investigated but, as an inspection of the tank before filling would not have revealed the presence of any liquid detergent residue within the seals and gaskets, these investigations were not pursued.
In due course, a claim for A $89,299 was made against the carrier. The Club decided to obtain their agreement from the agent, negotiating a settlement directly with the shipper to agree the best possible terms and to avoid any unnecessary costs. This was done and settlement was agreed at A$61,000. No costs were incurred.
Our detail pages below examine some typical cases of damage to reefer cargoes & countermeasures against future claims
A tank container with a shipment of 21,000 litres of wine was consigned from Australia to the USA. On arrival, the consignee refused to take delivery as the accompanying documents did not include the relevant certificate of food quality. It was also alleged that the wine was contaminated.
Arrangements were made for the tank container to be returned to Australia where tests could be carried out and, if necessary, the wine distilled to remove its alcohol content.
Enquiries revealed that the tank container had been used previously for a cargo of liquid detergent, and that a steam clean as well as the replacement of all the gaskets and seals to remove all traces of the detergent were necessary to bring the tank up to food quality standard. This had not been done and as a result the wine had become contaminated.
As a clean B/L had been issued the carrier had no defence against a claim from the shipper but the carrier in turn looked to the agent for indemnity under the terms of their Agency Agreement.
The tank container was ordered by the agent from a yard that was not used to dealing with tanks that were used for food and was unaware of the necessary food quality standards. The agent's written instructions to the yard specified the tank needed by container number, and also that it was intended to be used for the carriage of a cargo of wine, but the yard did not take any action to ensure that contents would not become contaminated. It was necessary for the agent to ascertain the previous contents of the tank from the import container files, but this was not done.
The liabilities of the shipper were investigated but, as an inspection of the tank before filling would not have revealed the presence of any liquid detergent residue within the seals and gaskets, these investigations were not pursued.
In due course, a claim for A $89,299 was made against the carrier. The Club decided to obtain their agreement from the agent, negotiating a settlement directly with the shipper to agree the best possible terms and to avoid any unnecessary costs. This was done and settlement was agreed at A$61,000. No costs were incurred.
Our detail pages below examine some typical cases of damage to reefer cargoes & countermeasures against future claims