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, 26 November 13
EWP INVITES COAL BIDS FOR 2014 - 2018 DELIVERIES
COALspot.com: Korea East-West Power Co. Ltd (EWP) invited bids to supply 130,000MT of min 5,600kcal/kg (Sub)-bituminous Coal on NCV basis for March ...
Tuesday, 26 November 13
NEWCASTLE COAL EXPORTS SLIP 22.62% W-W
COALspot.com: In the week ended November 25, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensland, totalled 2.26 ...
Monday, 25 November 13
THE SUB-BIT INDONESIA COAL SWAP MOVEMENT IN YEAR 2014 IS STILL FAR FROM PROMISING
COALspot.com – Sub-Bit Indonesia coal swap (FOB ) for average Q1’ 14 delivery gained $ 2.54 pmt month on month on Friday 22 Novemb ...
Sunday, 24 November 13
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS FOR Q4' 14 DELIVERY PRICE SHOWS A NEGATIVE TREND WEEK ON WEEK AND FLAT ON D-D
COALspot.com : API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q1’ 14 delivery gained 0.13 percept d-d on Friday 22 November 2013. The CFR South ...
Sunday, 24 November 13
SUPRAMAX FREIGHT RATES REMAINED FIRM FROM INDONESIA TO INDIA AND CHINA - SOLYM
COALspot.com: The freight market was fairly steady except for the Supramax in SE Asia region which continued to remain firm. The BDI was down by 1.5 ...
|
|
|
Showing 3991 to 3995 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- The University of Queensland
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- White Energy Company Limited
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- PTC India Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- VISA Power Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Planning Commission, India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
