 |
 |
|
|
|
| World leader in verification, testing and certification |
|
|||||
 |
||||||
|
|
|
Home |
|
Services |
|
Contact |
|
About Us |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
| | | |||
| | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | News/General Info High court says OSHA has authority over boats As from 1 August 2002
import of poultry The import of poultry from the USA in Russia will be practically impossible as from 1 August 2002. The Russian State Veterinary Service emphasises that the Americans have not presented a new Veterinary Certificate for poultry up till now, even though the stipulated 60 days term to come to a Russian-American agreement has ended. The official institutions of the USA were notified in a letter d.d. 30.04.02 that as from 01.08.02 shipments of poultry from the USA should be accompanied by a new Veterinary Certificate. However, the Americans "are slowing down the process of drawing up a Vet. Certificate" and on 03.07.02 again refused to lay down the results of the negotiations. Instead, they told the Russians to go on with the negotiations. So, "poultry that arrives in Russian ports after 31.07.02 will not be able to get a new Veterinary Certificate", according to the statement of the State Veterinary Service of the Russian Federation. The State Veterinary Service informed the suppliers and importers of poultry from the USA that in view of the current situation the shipments of poultry from the USA that are discharged with a Veterinary Certificate of 1996 will be indulged until 31.07.02 to avoid financial losses. "Debris removal case Antilles Steam Ship Co, Ltd. v. Members of the Am. Hull Ins. Syndicate,733 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1984) Facts:An explosion aboard a ship caused extensive damage to it, rupturing several of its cargo tanks loaded with liquid chemicals. Some of the liquid cargo spilled and later solidified. The ship company brought an action to recover the removal costs of all chemicals and repair costs from its insurer under its marine hull and machinery policy. The insurer agreed to pay for the actual damage to the ship and the cost of removal of the mixture and removing of the residue, but refused to pay for the cost of removing the bulk of the hardened mass from the cargo tanks. Holding: The insurer was required to pay only for those expenses incurred in removal of the last residue of material clinging to the bulkhead of the tanks. The court determined that the bulk of the hardened mass in the tanks was cargo, not debris, and the expense of its removal was to be borne by the ship owner, not the insurer. The court concluded that the cargo debris in the cargo tank at the port of destination did not constitute damage to the vessel within the parties' intended meaning of the additional perils or negligence clause. Reasoning: The plaintiff was unable to prove that there was a loss within the terms of the policy, because it could not show that the shipboard explosion required the insurance company to pay for the cost of removing cargo or cargo debris from the ship once it safely reached its harbor. The court stated that once a voyage is complete, hull underwriters are not concerned with the cost of cargo discharge, no matter what its form. The court further stated that ship owners may be protected against extra expense for cargo removal by purchasing insurance with protection or indemnity underwriters. An important consideration in the court's decision on this question was that plaintiff had the burden of showing that both the loss and the peril that caused it, fell within the meaning of the policy term. The court found that plaintiff could not meet its burden because the cargo debris in a cargo tank at the port of destination did not constitute "damage to the vessel" within the intended meaning of the clause. Comparison to other case cited in this memorandum: Factually, this case is unique because the "debris removal" sought to be covered was removed after successful completion of the voyage, rather than after a stranding or explosion. However, to determine coverage, the court in this case again looked at the "intent" of the insurance contract. The court found the contract to be unambiguous. The court then looked to the historical and customary understanding of the scope of coverage to determine the intent of the parties. The court based its decision on 85 years of marine insurance law, which has held that once a voyage is completed, hull underwriters are not concerned with the cost of cargo discharge, no matter what its form. MLA Spring 2002 Report SEMINAR
Please reserve a seat for me at the AIMU/MICA Seminar. Coffee & donuts served at 8:30 a.m. Name: ______________________________________________ Company: ___________________________________________ Phone: ___________________E-mail: _____________________ Method of Payment: check credit card American Express Visa Master Card Membership: AIMU MICA Card Number: ________________________________________ Exp. Date: _____________ Signature: _____________________ |
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | | | |
 | |||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
 |
| Terms & Conditions, Privacy, © 2002 SGS |
