We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 11 March 14
HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSES ARE NOT ALWAYS MUTUAL! - ITIC
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
ITIC provides an insurance related contract review service to all of its members. As the leading professional indemnity insurer for the offshore and hydrographic sector, we are often asked to review contracts which contain a mutual hold harmless or knock for knock clause. We are usually told that the presence of this clause in a contract means the risk of a claim is either significantly reduced or even non-existent! No contract is completely risk free. However, if the clause is worded carefully, and is balanced between both contracting parties, it is good contractual risk management and can help to reduce the chance of a successful claim of negligence against you.
A mutual hold harmless indemnity regime provides that each party to the contract agrees to take responsibility for, and to indemnify the other, against injury and loss to its own personnel and property and its own ‘consequential losses’. This is intended to be effective even if the accident and related losses are caused by negligence.
The mutual hold harmless clause in the LOGIC standard form contracts, does seek to create balance. However, in many of the contracts we review, the party with the greater bargaining power will naturally seek to swing the balance back to their favour. Consequently, there are a number of pitfalls to consider. We shall provide a few of these below. This shall be viewed from an English law and a professional indemnity insurance perspective.
Insurance
First, when asked to review contracts with a mutual hold harmless clause, ITIC would suggest that your other insurers are notified. Potentially you are signing away the recovery rights of both your property and employers’ liability insurer. Therefore, you should seek authority from them before signing a contract containing a mutual hold harmless clause.
They may not be mutual
It is staggering how often we see contracts where “the consultant shall indemnify the company against any and all losses,” but there is no reciprocal benefit to the consultant. Furthermore, the clause can be more beneficial to one party, as one side may be carrying out all of the work, using only their employees and property. The clause should be read carefully to ensure there is a mutual provision.
Third party damage
The mutual hold harmless clauses seen by ITIC, although setting out the losses suffered to the property or employees of the contracting parties, will often leave the distribution of third party liabilities unclear. If, for example, you act as a hydrographic consultant on a survey vessel, you should be protected from third party claims arising from the operation of the vessel. The consultant should not be responsible for potentially multi-million dollar pollution liabilities, or collision damages to third party property. These should fall upon the party who has insurance for these liabilities, such as the vessel’s protection and indemnity or hull and machinery cover.
Gross Negligence
The hold harmless regime provides that neither party shall be liable to the other even where the loss occurred is due to the negligence of one party. However, in some cases we see the clause is amended to state this does not apply in instances of “gross” negligence. Therefore, if one of the parties is found to be grossly negligent they will not be held harmless. This might be fine if the contract was pursuant to Norwegian or US law.
Unfortunately, there is no true concept of gross negligence under English law. You should always operate under the assumption that you are negligent or you are not. Baron Rolfe, in - Wilson v Brett (1843) - stated that he “could see no difference between negligence and gross negligence; that it was the same thing, with the addition of a vituperative epithet.” In other words “gross” did not add anything to the standard negligence test. That being said, if gross negligence is included in a contract, a tribunal will attempt to interpret it. The leading decision comes from Lord Mance in - The Hellespont Ardent (1997) – in which he found that gross negligence: is “conduct so seriously negligent that the defendant should not be entitled to rely on the exemption clause.” He further added that it is “very much a matter of degree and judgment,” and, “all the circumstances must be weighed and balanced.” It should be pointed out that Lord Mance was interpreting a contract pursuant to New York law. Therefore, his words are not binding, and his interpretation on gross negligence may not be followed by subsequent tribunals.
The line between negligence and gross negligence can become blurred, and cases will turn on the facts and expert evidence. Moreover, tribunals may have differing opinions on how to apply the test against the facts, reaching differing decisions. On balance, the inclusion of gross negligence within a hold harmless clause in a contract pursuant to English law can lead to uncertainty and increased litigation costs.
Finally, it is understandable that contracting parties do not want the other to rely on a hold harmless clause, as a shield for reprehensible behaviour, beyond the ordinary test of negligence. However, as the line is blurred between that of negligence and gross negligence, a more delineated position to take, is between that of wilful default/misconduct and negligence.
Indirect damages
A further and final point we see, is how consequential or indirect losses are defined in the mutual hold harmless clause. It is usual that these losses are excluded under contract. However, the distinction between indirect and direct loss can be complicated. The famous case of Hadley v Baxendale [1854] found that direct losses were those which arise naturally from the breach of contract, and is therefore foreseeable and recoverable. Whereas, indirect losses were recoverable, but only if they were reasonably foreseeable by both parties, as a possible result of a breach, at the time of contracting.
A common misconception is that all “loss of profits” are indirect losses. This is wrong. Loss of profits can be either direct or indirect, depending on the facts of the case. The following is taken from the hold harmless clause of a contract we have reviewed recently:
“ The consultant nor the company shall be liable to the other… for any consequential indirect damage, that may be suffered by the other.”
This clause could pose problems in the event of a claim, as it only excludes “consequential indirect damages.” Following Hadley v Baxendale, dependant on the facts, loss of profit can either be a direct or indirect result of the breach. If, for example, a consultant was providing design work for sub-sea equipment and carried out the design negligently, not only could this cause damage to property, but also lost drilling time, leading to lost revenue and profit. In this example, a tribunal could find the loss of profit arose naturally from the breach, and therefore, is a direct loss not excluded under the above hold harmless clause. Taking into account the current day rates of drill rigs, this could form a substantial part of any claim.
The clause should be amended to state loss of profits are excluded, whether direct or indirect.
Conclusion
ITIC’s advice is that you carefully review your hold harmless clauses to ensure that they are actually mutual and of benefit to you.
Source: ITIC / Hellenic Shipping
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Friday, 06 September 24
REBOUND IN OIL DEMAND COULD LIFT MARKET IN LATTER HALF OF 2024 - BIMCO
Supply/demand
Based on a strong second half demand, the supply/balance is forecast to strengthen in 2024 but weaken slightly in 2025 as n ...
Friday, 06 September 24
GLOBAL SEABORNE LNG TRADE HAS CONTINUED TO INCREASE LAST YEAR - BANCHERO COSTA
Global seaborne LNG trade has continued to increase last year, helped also by the events in Ukraine which forced Europe to diversify away from Russ ...
Wednesday, 28 August 24
SEABORNE COAL IMPORTS INTO INDIA INCREASED BY +9.9% Y-O-Y TO 146.6 MLN T - BANCHERO COSTA
Global coal trade has really picked up pace over the past year, and is now fully back to pre-Covid levels said Banchero Costa Research in its lates ...
Tuesday, 06 August 24
EXERCISE CAUTION WITH AMMONIA SWITCH - BALTIC EXCHANGE
A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has thrown a spanner into the plan to transition ships from diesel fuel to ammonia ...
Friday, 02 August 24
ENERGY MARKET DEVELOPMENTS: COAL AND NATURAL GAS PRICES REACH RECORD HIGHS - WORLD BANK
The recent surge in natural gas and coal prices has been so swift that the main benchmarks were roughly three times higher in 2022Q2 compared to a ...
|
|
|
Showing 1 to 5 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- MS Steel International - UAE
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- The University of Queensland
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
|
| |
| |
|
1 