Whenever any cargo damage occurs, answers are sought as to why, where and when it occurred, reinforcing the commitment that whoever is responsible for damage is also accountable for it.
Liner agents took delivery of two discharged containers of frozen beef. The agents arranged for the two containers to be transferred to cold storage where they were stripped and the beef placed in storage awaiting delivery instructions.
A short time later, the storage company delivered the beef to a third party on the instructions of the consignee, without the bills of lading being surrendered. It was not until two weeks later that the agents became aware that the original bills of lading had not been surrendered and their enquiries revealed that the beef had already been delivered. At about the same time, the agents learned that the consignee had filed for bankruptcy.
A bill of lading (also referred to as a BOL or B/L) is a document issued by a carrier, eg a ship's Master or a company's shipping department. It acknowledges that specified goods have been received onboard as cargo for transport to a named place for delivery to the consignee, who is usually identified.
Lawyers advised that the agents' principals would be liable to the holders of the bills of lading for the value of the cargo, and that they in turn would have a good claim for indemnity against the agents for allowing the release of the cargo without ensuring that the bills of lading were first surrendered.
The value of the cargo was US$3,400. This was settled in full with the line and the shippers, in return for an assignment of their rights against the storage company and the notify party. Unfortunately after a full investigation, lawyers advised that a claim against the storage company was unlikely to succeed and there was little prospect of any recovery from the consignee's receivers.
Ironically, most reefer cargo damage occurs not because of technical reasons, but due to poor communication systems, management practices or administrative procedures. Most of these losses could have been avoided if appropriate checklists had been made and strictly adhered to, and the systems followed. Weak links in the chain of information need to be strengthened.
ITIC (International Transport Intermediaries Club) Claims Review reports that there have been an increasing number of claims (varying between US$15,000 and $150,000 in value) resulting from reefer containers either being left unplugged at the load or discharge port or being carried at the incorrect temperature.
Our detail pages below examine some typical cases of damage to reefer cargoes & countermeasures against future claims
Liner agents took delivery of two discharged containers of frozen beef. The agents arranged for the two containers to be transferred to cold storage where they were stripped and the beef placed in storage awaiting delivery instructions.
A short time later, the storage company delivered the beef to a third party on the instructions of the consignee, without the bills of lading being surrendered. It was not until two weeks later that the agents became aware that the original bills of lading had not been surrendered and their enquiries revealed that the beef had already been delivered. At about the same time, the agents learned that the consignee had filed for bankruptcy.
A bill of lading (also referred to as a BOL or B/L) is a document issued by a carrier, eg a ship's Master or a company's shipping department. It acknowledges that specified goods have been received onboard as cargo for transport to a named place for delivery to the consignee, who is usually identified.
Lawyers advised that the agents' principals would be liable to the holders of the bills of lading for the value of the cargo, and that they in turn would have a good claim for indemnity against the agents for allowing the release of the cargo without ensuring that the bills of lading were first surrendered.
The value of the cargo was US$3,400. This was settled in full with the line and the shippers, in return for an assignment of their rights against the storage company and the notify party. Unfortunately after a full investigation, lawyers advised that a claim against the storage company was unlikely to succeed and there was little prospect of any recovery from the consignee's receivers.
Ironically, most reefer cargo damage occurs not because of technical reasons, but due to poor communication systems, management practices or administrative procedures. Most of these losses could have been avoided if appropriate checklists had been made and strictly adhered to, and the systems followed. Weak links in the chain of information need to be strengthened.
ITIC (International Transport Intermediaries Club) Claims Review reports that there have been an increasing number of claims (varying between US$15,000 and $150,000 in value) resulting from reefer containers either being left unplugged at the load or discharge port or being carried at the incorrect temperature.
Our detail pages below examine some typical cases of damage to reefer cargoes & countermeasures against future claims
