Suez Canal ship case adjourned for compensation talks

https://news.yahoo.com/amid-dispute-suez-canal-blames-141200015.html

-High Winds, too high of speed, no tugs used (windy), rudder too small or other mechanical issues --although it ran fine once dislodged.

Will settle out of court for sure. Not using the Suez Canal is way more expensive in fuel than using it.

The government of Egypt requires ships traversing the canal to be boarded by an Egyptian "Suez crew," including one or more official maritime pilots from Egypt's SCA who command the ship, taking over from the regular crew and the captain.

There were two Egyptian SCA pilots on board at the time of the accident.

They and the Suez Canal Authority, were responsible for operating the ship, therefore responsible for the accident.

It does not work that way. Read the paragraphs under "Responsibilities" in the following pdf

https://www.steamshipmutual.com/Downloads/Risk-Alerts/RA01SuezCanalNavigation.pdf

Specifically:

In particular, Members must remain aware that any vessel transiting the canal or at its associated ports or roads is responsible for any damage or consequential loss it may cause either directly or indirectly to herself or to canal property, personnel or any third parties. Such vessels are deemed responsible without the option to release themselves from responsibility by limited liability. Moreover, the vessel and its owners guarantee to indemnify the Canal Authority in respect of any claim arising against them by reason of any damage they may cause either directly or indirectly to a third party. Finally a vessel and her owners waive the right to claim against the Canal Authority for any damages caused to them by a third party whilst in the canal.

As the results of any incident which may occur in the canal the Canal Authority may delay a vessel for the purpose of investigating any claim or dispute that may arise, or due to any formal or informal complaints that may arise, or for an alleged violation of the rules of the canal or due to security reasons........... If a vessel is detained for whatever reason no claims for damages from vessel or owners will be entertained by the Canal Authorities.

Which ships are these?

One example I could find easily

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-given-crew-fear-joining-ranks-of-seafarers-stranded-on-ships-for-years

I missed out on the Evergreen flies the Panama flag. It's insured by Lloyds of London.

Ever Given is insured by the UK P&I Club according to multiple sources. They filed a lawsuit against the SCA a week or so ago in a London court.

Uh, excuse me, but...

The government of Egypt requires ships traversing the canal to be boarded by an Egyptian "Suez crew," including one or more official maritime pilots from Egypt's SCA who command the ship, taking over from the regular crew and the captain.

There were two Egyptian SCA pilots on board at the time of the accident.

They and the Suez Canal Authority, were responsible for operating the ship, therefore responsible for the accident.

Fake and inacurate. The Captain is merely oblicated.

Under the rules of the Suez Canal Authority the captain is the legal custodian of the ship and may not leave it. If the captain leaves the ship they are subject to arrest. There are two other ships impounded in the Great Bitter Lake and their captains have been stuck on them for years.

Which ships are these?

The vessel’s Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha Ltd, and insurers said the demand is still too high. They previously had offered $150 million in compensation but that was rejected by the canal authority.

Comparing to the damages of the Suez fiasco, this amount is an atom to the actual damage. Egypt was generous to demand nearly 1 billion dollars, while they could have demanded 10 billion dollars (if the corporation is actually large like MAERSK or COSCO).

This means Shoei Kisen Kaisha may not be financially viable as various J-nationalists thought. This applies to the whole world of Japan Inc.

Fake and inacurate. The Captain is merely oblicated.

Under the rules of the Suez Canal Authority the captain is the legal custodian of the ship and may not leave it. If the captain leaves the ship they are subject to arrest. There are two other ships impounded in the Great Bitter Lake and their captains have been stuck on them for years.

Evergreen is owned by a Japanese company leased to a Taiwan company, managed by a German company and manned by an Indian crew.

And is built, maintained and operated in accordance with the standards of it's maritime classification society, the American Bureau of Shipping. Ship owners have to select a classification society under whos standards their ship will be built, maintained and and operated. The choice has a major effect on its insurance rates and how much it costs to build and operate the ship. There are 28 such societies. They all have different standards. Ships built and operated to low standards can be denied entry to some ports or they are subject ot more scrutiny by the maritime authorities in some nations that enforce higher standards. Australia for example frequently bans ships from its ports when its inspectors find ships with faulty safety equipment, crews that have not been paid and do not have adequate provisions, etc.

The Egyptians require the captain to remain physically on board the ship as he is now the ships "legal guardian". So the captain is essentially a hostage in this situation.

Fake and inacurate. The Captain is merely oblicated.

The Japanese Government Needs to set up better training and inspection as there is way too many ship accidents coming from the country. But goes to show the competency level of specific industry. The nature of this business makes it very visible when management decisions go wrong. Its probably happening in every industry .

This is why we have insurance.

Correct. But realize that every shipper has an insurance company with attorneys arguing with the Suez Canal Authority. Evergreen has an insurance company with attorneys involved in this. The ships operator, Bernard Schulte Ship Management, will have an insurance company and the ships owner has at least two, one to insure the ship itself and another for general liability. All these insurance companies now have their attorneys lining up to litigate this mess, and the liability insurance company for the ships owners have been leading the fight against the high fees the SCA seeks to extract to release the ship from impound.

the crew can be relieved

The Egyptians require the captain to remain physically on board the ship as he is now the ships "legal guardian". So the captain is essentially a hostage in this situation.

Hiro - the crew can be relieved and they were never held hostage. It's the ship that was in holding.

This is why we have insurance. Otherwise many companies would go bankrupt already. I hope Egypt release the crew soon. it's considered blackmail for them to keep holding on the crew and refuse to let them go home.

Would "General Average" be relevant in an out of court settlement.?

Yes. General Average spreads whatever the eventual cost of the ships "salvage" is across all of the cargo owners in proportion to their "exposure", which usually means in proportion to how much of the total cargo is theirs.

SKK will pay little of this settlement. = "General Average" was declared.

Would "General Average" be relevant in an out of court settlement.?

SKK will pay little of this settlement. = "General Average" was declared.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-j0KAJg2w (explanation of General Average)