United Loss Adjusters & Surveyors

🎄 Merry Christmas from United Loss Adjusters! 🎄 As the holiday season is upon us, we want to take a moment to say a big thank you to all our amazing clients, partners, and team members. Your support and hard work have made this year truly special. This Christmas, we're reflecting on the journey we've shared – the challenges we've faced and the successes we've celebrated together. Your trust and collaboration mean the world to us, and we can't wait to see what we can achieve together in the new year. Wishing you all a joyful holiday season filled with love, laughter, and wonderful memories. Here's to a bright and prosperous 2025! Warmest wishes, The ULA Team #MerryChristmas #HappyHolidays #Gratitude #UnitedLossAdjusters #ULA

The Admiralty Court's decision in Sea Consortium Pte. Ltd (trading as X-Press Feeders) & Ors v Bengal Tiger Line Pte. Ltd (X-Press Pearl) [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admty) provides valuable insight into the definition of "shipowner" under Article 1(2) of the Limitation Convention. The case clarified that non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) can qualify as "charterers" under the Convention if their agreements establish a contractual right to vessel space, even without payment obligations for unused slots. This interpretation aligns with earlier principles established in The MSC Napoli and reinforces a consistent approach to liability limitation. The ruling highlights the necessity of carefully reviewing charterparty terms and related agreements to determine whether parties might fall under the definition of "shipowner" or "charterer," with significant implications for liability and limitation rights. #MaritimeLaw #ShippingDisputes #LimitationConvention #XPressPearl #Charterparties #MarineClaims #AdmiraltyLaw #RiskManagement #ULA

Understanding Jurisdiction: Key Ruling on ISDA Master Agreements The English Commercial Court has confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction under a bespoke clause in an ISDA Master Agreement in the case Dexia Credit Local SA v. Patrimonio del Trentino SpA [2024] EWHC 2717 (KB). This case is part of the ongoing "Italian swaps claims," involving disputes between banks and Italian public authorities over interest rate swaps and other derivative agreements. These agreements, often challenged in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, typically raise issues of capacity, authority, and validity under Italian law. What’s the ruling about? The court examined whether a jurisdiction clause in the ISDA Master Agreement, governed by English law, provided for exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction in the English courts. The ruling not only clarifies the interpretation of bespoke ISDA clauses but also reinforces principles relevant to all commercial contracts. Key points from the decision: 1) The jurisdiction clause was amended in 2012 to explicitly provide for exclusive English jurisdiction, removing language that previously allowed proceedings in Italian courts. 2) The court found that the umbrella Master Agreement, separate from specific transactions, was valid and binding, dismissing arguments related to Trentino’s capacity under Italian law. 3) The court considered the Brussels I Regulation, which was applicable at the time, and emphasized the necessity of an exclusive jurisdiction clause to avoid conflicting rulings across jurisdictions. Why this matters: This ruling is significant for anyone dealing with ISDA Master Agreements and derivatives, particularly in cross-border transactions. It highlights the importance of precise and deliberate drafting in jurisdiction clauses to avoid uncertainty and potential disputes. The decision also reassures parties about the enforceability of English jurisdiction clauses, even in the post-Brexit context. #ISDA #CommercialLaw #Jurisdiction #EnglishLaw #Derivatives #DisputeResolution #CrossBorderLaw #LegalUpdates #ULA

Exciting News for 2025! At United Loss Adjusters and Surveyors, we are committed to nurturing the next generation of insurance and claims professionals. Following the success of our 2024 training programs on Proximate Cause, Business Interruption, and Aviation War Insurance, we are thrilled to announce our plans to expand training opportunities in 2025. Whether you're an aspiring claims adjuster, a legal enthusiast, or someone interested in the complexities of insurance claims, these sessions will offer practical insights and hands-on expertise directly from industry leaders. Why Train with Us? Gain specialized knowledge tailored to the insurance market. Learn from experts with years of experience in handling complex claims. Join a network of professionals passionate about the future of the industry. Stay tuned for program details, topics, and enrollment information. We can’t wait to welcome the next group of bright minds ready to make waves in this exciting field. If you’d like to register interest or learn more, feel free to reach out to us! #Insurance #Training2025 #ProfessionalDevelopment #UnitedLossAdjusters #ULA

Key Dates in Arbitration and Crucial Distinctions In the recent case of Friedhelm Eronat -v- CPNC International (Chad) Ltd and Cliveden Petroleum Co. Ltd [2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm), the Commercial Court provided valuable clarification on the distinction between the date an arbitral award is made and the date it is notified to the parties. The case involved a dispute concerning an indemnity deed tied to oil and gas rights. The claimant, seeking to appeal a partial arbitration award, argued that the appeal period should run from the date they were notified of the award rather than its issuance. The Court rejected this argument, confirming that under the Arbitration Act 1996, the date of an award is when it is signed by the tribunal, not when it is served on the parties. Implications for Disputing Parties - Strict Enforcement of Time Limits: In this case, the 30-day appeal period began on the date the award was made (11 April 2024), not the date of notification. - Contractual Precision: The parties’ contract explicitly waived rights to appeal under the Arbitration Act, except within the agreed terms. The Court upheld this agreement, leaving no room for an extension of time. - Prompt Action Required: The judgment highlights the importance of promptly obtaining and reviewing arbitral awards to avoid time-bar issues. Delayed collection or inaction can lead to the forfeiture of valuable rights. This judgment reinforces the importance of clearly understanding procedural rules and deadlines in arbitration. The distinction between the date an award is issued and when it is notified can have significant consequences for the rights of the parties. Time limits for appeals or challenges are strictly enforced, leaving little room for error or delay. #ArbitrationLaw #DisputeResolution #CommercialLitigation #ULA #ProceduralCompliance #TimeLimits #ContractualDisputes #LegalUpdates #BusinessLaw #LitigationRisk

EU Methane Regulation - Key Steps for Compliance. The EU Methane Regulation (Regulation 2024/1787) is now in effect, requiring traders, operators, and energy market participants to monitor, report, and reduce methane emissions in oil, gas, LNG, and coal sectors. Non-compliance can result in severe penalties, including fines. Key obligations include: - Beginning in 2025, traders must report their annual emissions; starting in 2027, the standards will become more stringent. - Operator controls for venting, flaring, and leak detection, starting in 2025. Operators must set up reliable monitoring systems, and traders should amend sale contracts to guarantee compliance. Early planning is crucial because the duties are phased in through 2030. Navigating the difficulties of this rule, which is a crucial step in lowering emissions, calls for careful planning. #EnergyLaw #Compliance #MethaneRegulation #ULA

Landmark Legal Judgments in 2024 – Part 2 The second half of 2024 brought further impactful rulings across various courts, addressing issues from collisions to fraud and force majeure clauses. 1) Collision Liability in the Bay of Bengal: In Denver Maritime v Belpareil AS [2024] EWHC 362 (Admty), the Admiralty Court delivered its first collision decision of the year, apportioning liability 70:30 between two vessels involved in a collision in the Bay of Bengal. 2) Total Loss of Star Centurion: The Hong Kong Admiralty Court ruled on one of its most significant cases, addressing liability and total loss complexities in the Star Centurion case. 3) Supreme Court Ruling on Force Majeure Clauses: In RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV UKSC 2022/0172, the Supreme Court explored the construction of force majeure clauses, focusing on the extent of a party’s obligation to use reasonable endeavours to mitigate the impact of a force majeure event. 4) Fraud and Freezing Orders: Building on a prior freezing order in Civiello v Brodahl [2023] EWHC 707 (Comm), a “pockets-wallets” application further secured the applicant’s interests, demonstrating the courts' robust handling of fraud-related disputes. These cases highlight the evolving nature of maritime and commercial law and the courts' dedication to delivering clear and impactful rulings. #MaritimeLaw #ShippingLaw #MarineInsurance #CommercialLaw #InternationalTrade #DisputeResolution #Arbitration #AdmiraltyLaw #ForceMajeure #LegalUpdates #CaseLaw #FraudPrevention #ULA

Landmark Legal Judgments in 2024 – Part 1 2024 has seen a number of significant judgments shaping the legal landscape in shipping and marine insurance. These cases have addressed key principles, jurisdictional questions, and liability issues, influencing the future of the industry. 1) Yangtze Navigation (Asia) Co Ltd & others v TPT Shipping Ltd & others (the ‘Xing Zhi Hai’) [2024] EWHC 2371 (Comm): A notable ruling where a Part 11 application successfully set aside the claim against TPT Forests Ltd on the grounds that it was not a party to the letters of indemnity. 2) MS AMLIN v King Trader and others [2024] EWHC 1813 (Comm): The High Court reaffirmed the validity of the "pay-to-be-paid" rule in marine insurance, upholding its application across both mutual P&I and fixed premium policies. 3) Stournaras Stylianos Monoproposi EPE v Maersk A/S [2024] EWHC 2494 (Comm): This case highlighted the limits of a carrier’s duty in verifying shipper-declared weights. The claims against Maersk were dismissed due to the lack of evidence that they had reason to suspect fraudulent data from the shippers. 4) Euronav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm): In this unique “anti-anti arbitration” case, an application in the High Court was successfully resisted, preserving the enforceability of arbitration agreements in complex disputes. #MaritimeLaw #ShippingLaw #MarineInsurance #CommercialLaw #InternationalTrade #DisputeResolution #Arbitration #AdmiraltyLaw #ForceMajeure #LegalUpdates #CaseLaw #FraudPrevention #ULA

Court Decision Highlights the Autonomy of Performance Bonds Case: Power Projects Sanayi Insaat Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Star Assurance Company Ltd [2024] EWHC 2798 (Comm) A recent decision from the Commercial Court has reinforced the legal principle that performance bonds are autonomous instruments, separate from the underlying contractual disputes. Key Takeaways: - Performance bonds are irrevocable, unconditional on-demand payment instruments, independent of any disputes under the underlying contract. - The only valid defence for refusing payment is proving fraud, with clear evidence of dishonesty at the time the demand was made. - Issuers are not entitled to investigate the underlying dispute or rely on objections from the parties involved. The Court’s Ruling: Star Assurance failed to honour a US$6.297 million demand made by Power Projects under a performance bond, citing disputes over the underlying subcontracts. The Court held that such disputes were irrelevant to Star’s obligations, which required prompt payment upon a valid demand unless fraud was proven. Therefore highlighting the strict nature of performance bonds and the limited grounds for refusal to pay under these instruments. #PerformanceBond #CommercialLaw #ConstructionLaw #CaseLaw #LegalUpdate #ULA

Significant Judgment on the Hague-Visby Rules and Misdelivery Claims A recent judgment has clarified that the one-year time limit under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules applies not only to claims for loss or damage during the carriage of goods by sea but also to misdelivery claims occurring after discharge. The case involved a bank’s claim for misdelivery of a coal shipment in India. The Supreme Court upheld earlier rulings, affirming that the time limit ensures finality for all claims arising under the contract of carriage, including those relating to events after discharge. Key points from the judgment include: 1) Delivery versus Discharge: The court distinguished between discharge and delivery, confirming that the time limit applies until delivery is complete, even if misdelivery occurs after the goods have been discharged. 2)Comprehensive Scope: The time limit applies “in any event” to “all liability” under the Rules, ensuring a consistent framework and avoiding fragmented time bars. 3) Practical Implications: This ruling reinforces the importance of finality in claims, reducing uncertainty and enabling parties to close their accounts within a defined period. This judgment highlights the importance of timely action and robust contract management under the Hague-Visby Rules. It also showcases the enduring relevance of these conventions in governing liabilities and responsibilities in maritime trade. #MaritimeLaw #HagueVisbyRules #ShippingLaw #LegalUpdate