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.
|
|
Monday, 12 May 14
TAIPOWER TO IMPORT AROUND 1 MMT OF SUB-BITUMINOUS COAL DURING AUGUST 2014 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2014
COALspot.com - Taiwan Power Company intends to procure 1.050 million tons of sub-bituminous coal for Taipower thermal power plant through open t ...
Monday, 12 May 14
DRY BULK MARKET IS STILL STRUGGLING TO FIND FIRM FOOTING
COALspot.com: The freight market continued to be weak and the BDI closed slightly lower at 997 points or fell 1.96 pct week on week. The cape in ...
Friday, 09 May 14
RBCT SHIPPED 5.4 MMT OF COAL IN APRIL
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the single largest coal export terminal in the world, shipped 5.45 million to ...
Friday, 09 May 14
DRY BULK MARKET: BANKRUPTCY TONNAGE UNLEASHED
Drewry’s latest Dry Bulk Forecaster saw freight rates on most routes declined in 2014’s first quarter as the previous quarter’ ...
Friday, 09 May 14
UNITED STATES COAL PRODUCTION SLIGHTLY SLIDES TO 82.4 MMST IN APRIL
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.8 million short tons (mmst) of coal i ...
|
|
|
Showing 3711 to 3715 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Planning Commission, India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- White Energy Company Limited
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- The University of Queensland
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
|
| |
| |
|
