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.
|
|
Tuesday, 18 March 14
SECOND QUARTER SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP LOST 3.27% IN A MONTH
COALspot.com – Indonesia, the world’s largest exporter of the thermal coal's swaps for delivery April - June 2014 gained this pa ...
Tuesday, 18 March 14
NEWCASTLE COAL EXPORT VOLUME FALLS 26.23% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 17 March 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensland, total 2 ...
Monday, 17 March 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS FOR AVERAGE Q2 14 DELIVERIES LOST 2.59% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q2 14 deliveries lost 2.59 percent month on month and closed at US$ 74.15 per mt as o ...
Sunday, 16 March 14
BDI DOWN ON LOW CAPESIZE ACTIVITY
COALspot.com: The freight market was slightly soft this week with BDI down by 4.28 pct week on week. The BDI closed at 1,477 points and the cape ...
Friday, 14 March 14
DRY BULK MARKET ENTERS RECOVERY MODE, ON INCREASED CAPESIZE DEMAND - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market has entered and sustained higher ground as of this week, on the back on increased Capesize demand. Although the situation in ...
|
|
|
Showing 3796 to 3800 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Planning Commission, India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Economic Council, Georgia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- The University of Queensland
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- White Energy Company Limited
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Parliament of New Zealand
- PTC India Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
|
| |
| |
|
