Fire on MV Coral Star: Independence, Evidence and Reporting
You are appointed by an H&M insurer to survey the engine-room fire on MV Coral Star, a 9,800 DWT tanker, at Mumbai. The owner's technical superintendent is a former colleague. The repair yard is owned by the owner's brother. During the inspection you find no fire watch was posted, a portable generator had been used without a hot-work permit, and the vessel's ISM checklists appear to have been altered after the casualty. The owner asks you to leave these findings out and offers to reimburse your 'expenses' if the report supports the claim. The insurer has asked for a preliminary report within 48 hours. What do you do?
1. How should you respond to the owner's request and the conflict-of-interest issues?
Read the worked answer
Decline the request and the payment clearly and in writing. The offer is an attempt to influence an independent survey, and accepting it would breach the IRDAI surveyor code of conduct, the insurer's instructions and basic professional ethics. The fee must come only from the appointing insurer on the agreed terms; no contingency fee or hospitality from the owner should be accepted.
Disclose the relationships immediately to the insurer: the former colleague and the repair yard connection. Ask the insurer whether it wishes to appoint another surveyor; if the appointment continues, document the disclosure and take steps to ensure objectivity, such as inviting the insurer's representative to attend or using an independent yard for repair estimates.
Do not alter, suppress or soften the findings. Record the request in your file, keep the original notes and photographs, and avoid discussing the case with the owner's representatives beyond necessary factual enquiries. Confidentiality applies to the insurer's instructions and the survey findings.
2. What should the preliminary report contain, and how should the altered ISM documents be handled?
Read the worked answer
The preliminary report should be factual and expressly provisional:
- appointment, scope, date/time of inspection and persons present;
- vessel particulars, policy and casualty summary;
- damage description with labelled photographs and a sketch of the engine room;
- fire-origin observations and the absence of a fire watch;
- the portable generator, its fuel source and the absence of a hot-work permit;
- the ISM checklists as found, noting that alterations are suspected but not concluding who altered them;
- documents inspected, originals retained and chain-of-custody notes;
- immediate recommendations: preserve the generator, permit records, CCTV, logbooks and electronic records; consider forensic document examination and laboratory testing.
Do not make a final finding of arson or fraud without evidence. Use language such as 'appears altered' and 'requires verification'. Report the suspected alterations to the insurer as a material fact and recommend that the originals be secured. The final report should await forensic and lab results, and should state what remains undetermined.
3. What should you do if the insurer later pressures you to conclude 'electrical short circuit' without supporting evidence?
Read the worked answer
Refuse to certify a cause that the evidence does not support. The report must distinguish between a possible cause, a probable cause and an undetermined cause. If the fire pattern, witness evidence or laboratory results do not establish an electrical short circuit, state that the cause is undetermined and identify the further tests needed.
Record the insurer's pressure in the file and repeat your professional obligation in writing. A surveyor's duty is to give the insurer an independent technical opinion, not a conclusion chosen for claims convenience. If the pressure continues, escalate the matter through the insurer's compliance or grievance channel and, if necessary, seek guidance from the IRDAI framework for surveyors. Do not sign a misleading report, do not backdate it and do not omit the hot-work and ISM findings. If the insurer instructs another surveyor, cooperate factually but do not endorse an unsupported conclusion.