General Average, Salvage and a Subrogation Time Bar
The container vessel MV Ardent suffers a main engine breakdown 380 nautical miles off Sri Lanka and drifts for four days in heavy swell. The master declares general average after a salvage tug (Lloyd's Open Form 2020) brings the vessel to Colombo. During the salvage, 180 containers are jettisoned to refloat the vessel; 40 of those containers belong to your assured, insured for USD 2.1m under ICC(B) with a 5% deductible. The assured's containers were stowed on deck, and the policy includes the standard 'both-to-blame' collision clause and a general average absorption clause. The average adjuster has issued a GA adjustment showing the assured's contribution at USD 640,000, and cargo's sacrifice at USD 380,000. The carrier has declined to deliver the remaining cargo until GA security is provided. Meanwhile, the assured's subrogated recovery against the carrier faces the Hague-Visby one-year time bar, which expires in 11 days. The carrier alleges the engine breakdown was caused by unseaworthiness due to a defective fuel pump, which it says was latent.
1. Explain the general average position: what can the assured recover, and how do the deductible and absorption clause operate?
Read the worked answer
General average is a sacrifice or expenditure intentionally and reasonably made for the common safety. The jettison of the 40 containers is a GA sacrifice, and the assured's contribution of USD 640,000 towards the ship's and other cargo's sacrifice is a GA contribution. ICC(B) covers both general average sacrifice and general average contribution, and also salvage charges under the Lloyd's Open Form. The assured can therefore claim the GA sacrifice (measured by the GA allowance, normally sound value less damage) and the GA contribution, subject to the policy limits.
The 5% deductible does not apply to general average or salvage under the standard Institute Cargo Clauses deductible provision. It applies to the ordinary cargo claim, not to GA. The GA absorption clause may provide that if the assured's GA contribution is below a stated threshold, the insurer absorbs it and waives subrogation against the assured. The threshold and wording must be checked. Even where the clause applies, the insurer still needs to provide GA security so that the carrier releases the cargo.
The carrier's fault is relevant. Under the York-Antwerp Rules, a GA adjustment is not defeated by the carrier's fault, but cargo may have a defence to contribution or a right to recover its contribution as damages if the carrier failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy. The assured should pay under protest and preserve its rights. If the carrier's unseaworthiness is proved, the insurer may recover the GA contribution from the carrier after paying it. The on-deck stowage also needs checking: if the policy contains a deck-cargo exclusion, the claim may be denied unless deck carriage was declared and agreed.
2. What action should be taken in the 11 days before the Hague-Visby time bar expires, and how does subrogation affect the position?
Read the worked answer
The one-year time bar under Hague-Visby Article III rule 6 runs from delivery of the goods or the date when they should have been delivered. It is a bar on the assured's claim against the carrier. Subrogation puts the insurer in the assured's shoes; it does not restart or extend time. If the assured's claim is time-barred, the insurer's subrogated claim is also barred.
With 11 days left, the insurer should not rely on correspondence. It should either issue protective proceedings or commence arbitration in the correct forum under the bill of lading, or obtain a written time-bar extension from the carrier and its P&I club. A protective writ can be issued and the proceedings stayed pending the GA adjustment or settlement. If the bill of lading has an arbitration clause, the arbitration must be commenced in accordance with it. A claim against the vessel, the demise charterer, the time charterer or the stevedores should also be considered, but each has its own contractual and limitation position.
The insurer should also protect the assured's position on GA security and ensure that the assured does not sign away rights. Payment on account can perfect subrogation, but the insurer should obtain a subrogation receipt and the assured's cooperation. The assured's uninsured loss, including the 5% deductible, may have priority out of any recovery. If the carrier is liable for the GA contribution, the insurer can pursue that as part of the subrogated claim, but it must avoid double recovery with the GA payment.
3. How should the claim be handled if the carrier proves a latent defect in the fuel pump and due diligence?
Read the worked answer
If the carrier proves that the engine breakdown was caused by a latent defect in the fuel pump that was not discoverable by due diligence, it has a defence under Hague-Visby Article IV rule 1. The burden is on the carrier to prove both the latent defect and the exercise of due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy at the beginning of the voyage. The insurer should test that evidence: maintenance records, fuel-oil analysis, classification society surveys, the vessel's ISM documentation and the engine-room log. A 'latent' defect is not a label the carrier can attach without proof.
If the defence succeeds, the assured's GA contribution and sacrifice may not be recoverable from the carrier as damages. The cargo insurer still responds under ICC(B) for the GA sacrifice and contribution, subject to the policy terms, because the insurance covers the cargo's GA exposure regardless of the carrier's liability. The insurer then bears the cost and cannot subrogate against the carrier for the GA contribution.
If the carrier fails to prove due diligence, the position reverses. The carrier is liable for the unseaworthiness, and the insurer can subrogate for the GA contribution and the sacrificed cargo, subject to the Hague-Visby limitation. The GA absorption clause may still apply. The insurer should reserve rights, pay the GA security and the cargo claim promptly, and continue the subrogated recovery against the carrier and its P&I club. The 'both-to-blame' clause is not engaged because there was no collision, but it should be reviewed in case the casualty involves contact with another vessel.