Protection & Indemnity Liability in respect of persons Birgitta Hed The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 1

Liabilities in respect of persons  Who is covered under the P&I insurance?  The nature of the cover provided under the P&I insurance  What determines the extent of cover?  Preventative actions both in respect of claims in relation to personal injury and illness

PI, Illness - Claim cost & frequency per vessel The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 3

PI, Injury - Claim cost & frequency per vessel

Who is covered under the P&I insurance?  Crew  Passengers  Others; other than crew and passengers  Stowaways and refugees

The nature of cover provided - Crew Compensation and damages for  personal injury  illness  death Costs and expenses for  hospitalisation  medical fees  other expenses Maximum medical cure

The nature of cover provided - Crew Repatriation and travelling costs  actual costs, air fare etc.  escort  substitute Sick wages Loss of or damage to personal effects Repatriation based on the 2006 Maritime Labour Convention

The nature of cover provided - Passengers  Personal injury  Illness  Death  Delay  Loss of or damage to luggage and vehicles

The nature of cover provided - Others Other than crew and passengers;  longshoremen, stevedores, pilots, agents, port officials, repair crews, visitors etc. Compensation for;  personal injury  illness  death on board or in relation to the entered ship

Diversion expenses  Extra fuel  Port charges  Extra wages etc.

What determines the extent of cover? “Legal liabilities incurred, or deemed likely to be incurred, under any legislation, contract or agreement applicable to the case.” Contractual liabilities are subject to special conditions

What determines the extent of cover? - Crew  Individual contracts of employment / service  Collective Bargaining Agreements, CBA  National Legislation including Employees’ Compensation Ordinance  Other Insurance  Jurisdiction Rule 3 Section 1 (a) “…crew of the entered ship who is on board or proceeding to or from that ship”

What determines the extent of cover? - Passengers  The applicable contract of carriage  Athens Convention 1974  Protocol 1976 (SDR)  Protocol 1990 (increased levels of limitation)  Athens Convention 2002  EC Regulation No. 392/2009  Other Insurance  Jurisdiction

What determines the extent of cover? - Others  National Legislation including Employees’ Compensation Ordinance  Terms of employment / service  Other Insurance  Jurisdiction

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

Preventative actions Crew

Actions to be taken if an accident occurs  Attention and attitude towards an injured person  Notify and report to appropriate shore organisation and the Club immediately  Collect and secure evidence  Incident report, entry in the logbook  Statements  Keep broken or malfunctioning equipment or any other evidence in a safe place  Make explanatory drawings, take photographs of the scene of the accident  Investigate the cause as soon as possible

Forum Shopping  Level of compensation awarded  Costs  Contingency fee  Liability  Jury  Time bar  Ambulance chasing  Jurisdiction

Stoways  Streams of refugees  Containerisation  Ro-Ro vessels – ramps  Brief calls/limited crewing capacity

Stowaway prevention  Gangway and access watch  Search before sailing  Restricted areas  Equipment/alarms  Charterparty clauses, Bimco Clause 1993 revised in 2009  ISPS Code 2004 (The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code)

Stowaway – actions to be taken  Establish identity (incl. photographs, fingerprints etc.)  Travel documents/Embassy  International regulations  Human treatment

Stowaways Tools used for cutting the protection bars Piece of the bar

Stowaways Protection bars cut off

(1) Workshop - Practical application of Contracts of Employment On her route from Rotterdam to Port Elisabeth, New York the container vessel M/V VICTORIA encountered severe weather conditions resulting in a stack of containers collapsing, four containers were lost overboard and since several twist locks and lashings were broken it became necessary to secure the remaining containers in the relevant stack as soon as possible. It was later discovered that the cause of the stack collapsing was that an empty container had been incorrectly stowed in the bottom of the stack. As soon as the weather allowed the second officer and two ABs were instructed by the master to inspect the lashings of the remaining containers in the collapsed stack. During the course of their work the second officer, who was regrettably intoxicated, climbed up on one remaining container in order to secure the same. Due to the rolling of the vessel he lost his balance and fell between two containers injuring his leg so badly that it later had to be amputated by the knee. One of the AB’s coming to his rescue was hit by falling lashing equipment which resulted in him losing all toes on his right foot. All crew onboard are Polish and employed under ITF contracts. The vessel is registered in Bermuda and owned by Cypriot interests, at the time of the accident she was under time charter to a Swedish company. A NYPE C/P with an unamended clause 8 was in place at the time of the voyage. Are there any special considerations to be aware of based on the jurisdictions possibly involved? What jurisdictions could be involved if the accident occurred on international waters? For how long would the two injured seafarers be entitled to sick wages? Since we can assume that they are both entitled to compensation for permanent disability what amount of compensation would they in your opinion be contractually entitled to? Who would be liable for that compensation, the owner of the vessel or the charterer who in accordance with the applicable C/P was responsible for the stowing and lashing of the cargo onboard? The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 24

The product tanker M/V CORNELIA was employed to carry benzene from China to Rotterdam for five consecutive voyages during the autumn of Eleven months later one of the ABs working onboard at that time was diagnosed with leukemia. He had at that time been working onboard the vessel for three consecutive years but never before or since been exposed to this particular cargo. His medical condition was diagnosed during the vessel’s call at Southampton where he was hospitalized for three weeks before he was declared medically fit for repatriation to Manila. His contract of employment is attached for your reference. Is he entitled to medical attention, sick wages and compensation under the ITF contract if he cannot resume his duties onboard due to his medical condition? If he dies 140 days after being submitted to hospital in Southampton would his heirs, widow and six minor children, be entitled to compensation for loss of life under the ITF contract? If not, under which contract could they seek compensation? If this seafarer is not actually diagnosed to be suffering from leukemia but his condition is weak due to experienced symptoms of an undiagnosed illness and this weakness causes him to fall and sustain injuries which result in an assessed permanent disability, would he then be entitled to compensation under the ITF contract. If there are two contracts or agreements referred to in the terms of employment which contract will prevail? The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 25 (2) Workshop - Practical application of Contracts of Employment

Why is it not recommendable to engage a stowaway in work onboard the vessel? The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 26 (3) Workshop - Stowaways

The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers 27 Thank you!