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, 30 May 14
US COAL PRODUCTION RELATIVELY FLAT WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.6 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
Thursday, 29 May 14
PEABODY ENERGY CHAIRMAN RECEIVES WCA AWARD
The World Coal Association has presented Gregory H. Boyce, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU), with the 2014 Chairm ...
Thursday, 29 May 14
HANDY : THE SUPRAS ARE BEING TRADED AROUND 13K FOR SHORTER UPTO 1 YEAR PERIOD
Handy
The week started off with bank holidays in London and very little happening. This trend has continued and we believe it will continue into ...
Wednesday, 28 May 14
THE DRY BULK MARKET REMAINED UNDER PRESSURE - INTERMODAL
COALspot.com: The Dry Bulk market remained under pressure during this past week, with all indices pointing down compared to the previous Friday. Th ...
Tuesday, 27 May 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE SHIPPED 19.13% LESS COAL THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 07:00 hours 26 May 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensland, ...
|
|
|
Showing 3681 to 3685 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Australian Coal Association
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
|
| |
| |
|
