The Reefer Container That Was Too Warm for Too Long

Red flags and their significance

• Missing raw data. A handwritten log and photographs are secondary evidence. The reefer data logger records time-stamped set point, supply/return air and door events. Without the raw download, the central factual allegation is unverified and easily fabricated.
• Selective production. The shipper's own pre-shipment survey is withheld. That survey would show product temperature and condition at loading, which is the baseline for any deterioration analysis.
• Physical implausibility. Frozen shrimp held at -2°C for 11 days would show heavy drip loss, ammonia odour and likely total rejection, not a sale at 40% of value. The claimed temperature profile and the salvage outcome do not fit together.
• Documented alternative cause. The 7-hour door opening at Colombo gives a plausible, limited excursion. The investigator must test whether it explains any real damage rather than assume the claimant's longer profile.
• Late notice and no joint survey. Nine months' delay and a unilateral sale defeat the carrier's opportunity to inspect and mitigate. This is both a red flag and a legal prejudice issue.
• Unsupported quantum. Invoiced value, sound market value at destination, salvage proceeds and sale costs are not reconciled. A claim cannot exceed the measure of indemnity.

Treat the file as unproven, not as a straightforward temperature-damage claim.

Evidence plan

1. Preserve and download the logger. Obtain the container number, logger serial number, calibration certificate and raw data file. Have an independent refrigeration surveyor download it in the presence of both parties; record chain of custody and check tamper seals and logger placement.
2. Compare sources. Reconcile logger data with the carrier's remote reefer monitoring, the vessel's reefer log, partlow chart and plug-in/unplug records at Chennai, Colombo and Rotterdam.
3. Carrier maintenance file. Obtain pre-trip inspection, machinery service history, repair records and any alarm history for that container. A carrier-supplied unit creates a maintenance duty the carrier must prove it met.
4. Transshipment records. At Colombo, obtain gate-in/gate-out times, plug-in records, power interruptions, door-opening authorisations and terminal CCTV showing whether the doors were opened and by whom.
5. Pre-shipment condition. Request the withheld shipper survey, cold-store temperature records, loading temperatures and product specifications. Interview the shipper's surveyor.
6. Cargo examination. Seek a joint re-inspection or retained samples; commission an independent laboratory for drip loss, TVB-N and histamine. Photographs alone are not probative.
7. Sale and mitigation. Obtain the sale contract, buyer identity, proceeds, marketing evidence and the reason for sale at 40%. Interview the consignee's claims manager.

Each item should be requested in writing with a deadline and preserved under a documented chain of custody.

Legal analysis

• Carriage regime. The bill of lading is likely governed by the Hague-Visby Rules. The carrier is liable for cargo while in its custody, including during transshipment at Colombo, but may rely on defences such as inherent vice, insufficient packing, or the shipper's fault. Because the container was carrier-supplied, the carrier cannot easily shift responsibility for reefer malfunction to the shipper.
• Notice and time bar. The one-year time bar has not expired at nine months, so the claim is not barred. However, failure to give notice of loss within three days of delivery is not fatal but weakens the claimant's position: delivery is presumed in good order unless the claimant proves otherwise.
• Burden of proof. The clean bill of lading establishes apparent good order and condition at shipment. The claimant must then prove that the loss occurred during carrier custody and that the carrier's breach caused it. The missing logger download undermines that proof.
• Measure of indemnity. The claimant is entitled to the sound market value at destination less salvage proceeds, not the invoice value. It has a duty to mitigate. A unilateral sale at 40% requires justification; if the sale was unreasonable, the carrier may argue the claimant failed to mitigate.
• Spoliation and prejudice. Failure to permit a joint survey may support an argument that the carrier lost the chance to investigate, but it does not automatically extinguish liability; the claimant may still prove its case on the documents.

Conclusion: pay only for damage actually proved and attributable to the carrier's custody, calculated on the correct measure and after credit for salvage.