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.
|
|
Wednesday, 16 April 14
Q1 2014 : TERMS OF FREIGHT RATES THE PERFORMANCE IN THE DRY BULK MARKET HAS NOT MET THE HIGH EXPECTATIONS - INTERMODAL
This year the dates for the celebration of Easter will coincide for the Orthodox and the Catholic, so we are already seeing most people in the m ...
Tuesday, 15 April 14
NEWCASTLE SHIPPED MORE COAL WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 07:00 hours 14 April 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensl ...
Monday, 14 April 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDO COAL SWAP FOR Q1' 15 DELIVERY CLOSED AT US$ 60.12 PER MT
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q4’ 2014 gain on month and on week according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap's reports rele ...
Monday, 14 April 14
INDONESIA'S Q1 COAL PRODUCTION LITTLE CHANGED EVEN WITH PRICE DROP - INVESTOR DAILY
Indonesia’s coal production by volume in the first quarter remained little changed from the same period last year despite the decline in t ...
Monday, 14 April 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS GAIN FOR THE MONTH & WEEK
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q2 14 deliveries gained 4.61 percent month on month and closed at US$ 76.18 per mt as ...
|
|
|
Showing 3751 to 3755 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Australian Coal Association
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Planning Commission, India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
|
| |
| |
|
