Don’t Let Your Cargo Melt Away!
Puerto Dos Bocas Terminal is located in a relatively sheltered area, offering berthed ships considerable protection from wind and tidal forces. During Hurricane Season, coastal authorities would intensify warnings and notices to mariners, following up every 6 hours. The standard practice is that large ships avoid staying at berth during a Hurricane Warning. Warnings issued prior to the incident recommended all large ships to sail away if possible, remaining in the waiting areas outside Dos Bocas Harbor. The ship, however, decided to stay moored at the berth.
An ice cream shipment from Cape Town to South Carolina encountered issues when the refrigeration unit failed. Despite the shipping company’s imposed limitations, a potential solution under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) was identified. Attention to fine print and thinking outside the box was the way to reach a successful outcome.
Transporting ice cream from Cape Town, South Africa, to South Carolina, United States hit a difficulty when the scheduled shipment never left as planned. Shipping company notified us that the refrigeration unit (reefer) linked with the shipment malfunctioned while the cargo was in their custody. Since the goods were never shipped, the maritime company imposed a limitation on the settlement, capped at 2 SDR/Kg, according to contractual
terms.
To challenge this limitation, we delved into the details. Although the absence of a Bill of Lading (BL) didn’t absolve the shipping company of responsibility, the fine print of the booking included a clause subjecting it to the terms and conditions of the specific shipping Line terms and conditions.
This led us to discover that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) applied to shipments to the USA, setting a higher limitation of $500 per package – surpassing our original claim.
Conclusion
After back-and-forth negotiations, we secured an offer of 78% of the claimed amount. The client was very pleased with the outcome but hesitated to accept the offer as they had not yet received the subrogation receipt from their insurer.
Considering their delayed response, especially given the favorable offer we had obtained, we personally addressed their concerns by informing them that the lack of subrogation would not pose a problem as we had various solutions for such scenarios. One solution involved obtaining a Letter of Authorization from their insurer.
However, since the case had already been settled by the insurer, we assured them that the Proof of Payment would suffice to validate our legitimacy and prompt the opposing party to proceed with the payment. This is exactly what happened.
BARBUSS
Case Study by
Adela Koffman
Claims Handler
Un envío de helado desde Ciudad del Cabo a Carolina del Sur encontró problemas cuando la unidad de refrigeración falló. A pesar de las limitaciones impuestas por la compañía marítima, se identificó una posible solución bajo la Ley de Transporte de Mercancías por Mar (COGSA).
El transporte de helado desde Ciudad del Cabo, Sudáfrica, hasta Carolina del Sur, Estados
Unidos, se vio obstaculizado cuando el envío programado nunca salió según lo planeado. La empresa responsable del transporte nos notificó que la unidad de refrigeración (reefer) vinculada con el envío había fallado mientras la carga estaba bajo su custodia.
Dado que la mercancía nunca se envió, la naviera impuso una limitación en el acuerdo,
limitada a 2 SDR/Kg, según los términos contractuales. Para desafiar esta limitación, nos sumergimos en los detalles. Aunque la falta de un Conocimiento de Embarque (BL) no eximió a encargada del transporte de responsabilidad, la letra pequeña de la reserva incluía una cláusula que la sometía a los términos y condiciones propios de la compañía que nos favorecían. Esto nos llevó a descubrir que la Ley de Transporte de Mercancías por Mar (COGSA) se aplicaba a los envíos a los EE. UU., estableciendo una limitación más alta de $500 por paquete, superando nuestro reclamo original.
Conclusión
Después de negociaciones de ida y vuelta, aseguramos una oferta por el 78% del monto reclamado. Aunque inicialmente dudoso debido a retrasos en recibir un recibo de subrogación de su aseguradora, tranquilizamos al cliente de que teníamos soluciones en marcha.
Una solución consistía en obtener una Carta de Autorización de su aseguradora. Sin embargo, dado que el caso ya había sido resuelto por la aseguradora, les aseguramos que la Prueba de Pago sería suficiente para validar nuestra legitimidad y motivar a la parte contraria a proceder con el pago. Esto es exactamente lo que ocurrió, dejando al cliente satisfecho con el resultado.