Flat-Rack Transformer Lashing Failure
A 42-tonne transformer was shipped on a flat rack from Chennai to Hamburg under an ICC(A) policy for USD 1.65 million. The approved stowage plan specified 8 mm wire lashings, timber dunnage and four engaged twist locks. The actual shipment used 5 mm wire, no dunnage, and the flat rack's twist locks were not engaged because the shore crane operator could not align them. During the voyage the vessel met 7-metre swells; lashings parted, the transformer shifted, struck the ship's rail and suffered winding damage. The master's protest records heavy weather but no abnormal waves. The survey at Hamburg finds fresh abrasion on the flat rack, broken 5 mm wires, and no evidence of pre-shipment damage. The carrier's loading officer signed a 'shipper's stow' notation. The insured argues ICC(A) covers all risks and that heavy weather is a fortuity. The policy excludes loss from insufficiency of packing and from unseaworthiness where the insured had privity.
1. Determine the proximate cause and assess whether the packing/preparation exclusion defeats the ICC(A) claim. Consider the carrier's role.
Read the worked answer
The proximate cause is not 'heavy weather' in the abstract; it is the failure of the securing system. The approved plan required 8 mm wire, dunnage and four engaged twist locks. Actual stowage used 5 mm wire, no dunnage and disengaged twist locks. The vessel met 7 m swells, but the master's protest records no abnormal wave; that is weather a properly secured flat rack should survive. ICC(A) covers fortuities, but it does not convert inadequate preparation into a covered peril. Exclusion 4.3 for insufficiency or suitability of packing or preparation is engaged where the insured or its agents packed or prepared the cargo for transit. Securing cargo on a flat rack is preparation for transit. The carrier's 'shipper's stow' notation supports that allocation, but it is not conclusive if the carrier's loading officer actually controlled stowage and the twist locks. The carrier may be liable for improper stowage or for supplying a flat rack with defective fittings; that is a subrogation target, not a reason to pay a cargo claim that the policy excludes. The surveyor should also consider whether the flat rack itself was unseaworthy and whether the insured had privity.
2. What evidence would you gather and what tests would you perform to decide whether this is a cargo-packaging failure or a carrier-stowage failure?
Read the worked answer
Obtain the approved lashing plan, wire test certificates, photographs of the actual lashings, flat-rack inspection records, twist-lock condition, crane operator's statement, loading officer's report, B/L notation, deck and stowage plan, vessel motion and weather data, and master's protest. Recalculate lashing strength using the actual 5 mm wire and compare with forces from the recorded roll and pitch. Check whether dunnage was required to spread load and whether the transformer's centre of gravity matched the plan. Inspect the flat rack for pre-existing cracks or bent fittings. Interview the lashing gang and terminal supervisor separately. Photograph the broken wires and abrasion marks before cleaning. Record whether the wire failed in tension or was cut or chafed. If the carrier controlled the lashing, preserve a claim against it; if the insured's contractor did, the policy exclusion stands. Recommend a reservation of rights and, if the claim is repudiated, a written report distinguishing packing from carrier stowage.