Stean Shaw LLP
Stean Shaw LLP
 

Recoveries of
up to USD 100,000


The following are examples of cases that have recently been handled by Stean Shaw LLP where recoveries of up to USD 100,000 were obtained for the client.
  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the London insurers of a bulk consignment of bagged wheat that suffered problems during carriage on a vessel from Rotterdam to Port Au Prince, Haiti. The cargo had been wetted as a result of ingress of water into the holds of the vessel and also due to oil staining and poor handling. We were able to obtain security in the form of a P&I Club Letter of Undertaking prior to the vessel sailing from Haiti. We ensured that cargo’s surveyor liaised as closely as possible with the surveyor attending on behalf of the carrier in order to try to minimise potential dispute on quantum and mitigation of loss. After the claim was mitigated and quantified, we continued negotiations with the vessel’s P&I insurers. After intensive efforts, we were able to quickly resolve the claim in an amicable fashion at USD 72,000.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the United States insurers of a consignment of Morpholine, which was lost during carriage on a vessel from Harwich to Cuxhaven. The vessel encountered heavy weather conditions on the voyage. The container in which the cargo was shipped shifted and was damaged causing the loss of the goods. Opponents attempted to repudiate liability on the basis of the weather conditions experienced by the vessel. We argued that these weather conditions were not exceptional or unforeseeable for the location and time of year and, therefore, that the carrier would not able to rely upon a “heavy weather” defence. We argued that the stowage of the container had not been adequate, particularly since Morpholine is classified as being a dangerous cargo. Following extensive negotiations with the carrier and their P&I Club, we were able to negotiate an amicable settlement at USD 37,500.


  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the captive insurers of a consignment of fruit that sustained problems during carriage by sea from Cape Town to Rotterdam. This cargo was found to be tainted and investigations indicated that this had occurred as a result of the consignment being exposed to bunker fumes during an operation to re-fuel the vessel at Rotterdam. We ensured that cargo’s surveyor liaised as closely as possible with the surveyor attending on behalf of the carrier in order to try to minimise potential dispute on quantum and mitigation of loss. However, opponents subsequently still raised a number of arguments with respect to the quantum of the claim, particularly on the prevailing market conditions for fruit at the time. Following extensive negotiations, we were able to resolve the claim in an amicable fashion at USD 86,560.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the United States insurers of a flare stack that had sustained damages during road transit from Texas to New York. Investigations indicated that the damages sustained by the flare stack were attributable to it being stuck from above at some stage during transit. The carrier contested these findings and argued that the damages were either of pre-shipment origin or attributable to insufficient packaging of the flare stack. However, we argued that no such reservations had been made by the carrier at the time of shipment. Following extensive discussions, it was possible to agree an amicable settlement at USD 76,340.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the captive insurers of a consignment of pharmaceutical products that suffered problems during shipment by sea from Sweden to Iceland. Investigations indicated that this consignment had been contaminated due to leakage from another cargo stowed by the carrier in the same container. Arguments were raised by the carrier with respect to quantum and mitigation of losses. They also relied upon a package limitation based upon the weight of the goods that were damaged. Settlement was subsequently agreed with the carrier at USD 20,000 on the basis of this package limitation.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the United States insurers of a container of goods that were lost overboard during carriage by  sea from the United States to Europe. This container was one of a number that were lost overboard when the vessel encountered severe weather conditions during the voyage. The carrier repudiated liability on the basis of these weather conditions. We argued that the weather conditions experienced, although severe, were not sufficient for the carrier to succeed with a “heavy weather” defence. We also argued that the securing of the container had been insufficient. Following extensive negotiations with the carrier / their representatives, we were able to agree an amicable settlement at USD 63,400.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the captive insurers of a consignment of steel coils that suffered problems during shipment by sea from Brazil to Belgium. Security was obtained in the form of a P&I Club Letter of Undertaking. Opponents argued that the losses claimed were of pre-shipment origin and covered by clausing that was made on the applicable Bills of Lading. We argued that this clausing did not actually apply to the cargo that was the subject of the claim and that our evidence reflected that the losses claimed were attributable to the vessel. Following lengthy discussion, we were able to agree an amicable settlement at USD 40,125.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of cargo interests in respect of losses and damages suffered by a consignment of containerised watermelons shipped by sea from Panama to Belgium. The cargo was to be carried at a set temperature and ventilation. Our evidence reflected that these losses were attributable to these carriage instructions not being met during transit. Opponents evidence was that the carriage instructions were met and that the losses were attributable to pre-shipment problems and inherent vice of the cargo. Following negotiations, we were able to reach an amicable settlement of USD 15,450.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the captive insurers of the owners of a terminal in the UK that was damaged as a result of being contacted by a vessel. Security was obtained in the form of a P&I Club Letter of Undertaking. We ensured that the terminal’s surveyor liased as closely as possible with the vessel’s surveyor in order to try to minimise potential dispute on quantum and mitigation of loss. However, opponents still raised extensive arguments with respect to quantum, particularly alleged improvement to the condition of the terminal after the repairs were performed. Following extensive exchanges, we were able to agree an amicable settlement at USD 69,510.    

  • We were instructed to act by the Nigerian receivers of a bulk consignment of bagged sugar that had sustained problems during shipment from Brazil to Nigeria. We obtained security in the form of a P&I Club Letter of Undertaking. Our evidence reflected that the consignment had sustained problems due to poor handling of cargo, shortlanding and caking. Liability for each of these types of losses had to be assessed under the prevailing Bills of Lading and Charter Parties covering the carriage on the vessel. Opponents had their own argument on liability and also different evidence with respect to the quantum of the losses sustained. Following extensive discussions, it was eventually possible to agree an amicable settlement at USD 75,000.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the United States insurers of a yacht that was damaged during shipment from Singapore to the United States. Evidence indicated that the yacht was damaged during transhipment between vessels in China. The Bill of Lading provided the claim to be subject to United States law and jurisdiction where the carrier would be able to rely upon a limitation of liability of only USD 500. However, we were able  to establish jurisdiction in Singapore and, following further negotiations, agreed an amicable settlement at USD 25,000.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the London insurers of a consignment of aluminium sheets that incurred losses due to theft during road transportation from the UK to Germany. The carriers disputed liability on the basis that the theft was due to circumstances beyond their control. However, we argued that the incident was due to a lack of security. Following lengthy negotiations, an amicable settlement was reached at USD 83,850.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the United States insurers of a cargo of heat exchangers shipped by air from Los Angeles to Singapore. Opponents raised a number of arguments on quantum and mitigation of losses. Following negotiations it was possible to agree an amicable settlement at USD 60,000.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the London insurers of a consignment of bleached hardwood pulp that was damaged during shipment by sea from Canada to Belgium. Our evidence reflected that the cargo had been wetted by salt water during transit. This was disputed by the carriers, who alleged that the cargo had pre-shipment problems. We were able to agree an amicable settlement at USD 31,150.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the United States insurers of a bulk cargo of acetic acid that was contaminated by oil during carriage by sea from Kotka to Rotterdam. Evidence indicated that this contamination was attributable to leakage of the seals in the deep well pump in the vessel’s tank number 3 center. Opponents argued that this was a latent defect with the vessel that was not discoverable despite the exercise of due diligence. We disputed this and argued that they would face considerable difficulties in defending liability given the age and condition of the vessel. Following negotiation we were able to reach an amicable settlement of USD 19,000.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the London insurers of a consignment of steel wire that was damaged during road shipment from Cardiff to France. These damages occurred due to a road accident during transit. Opponents disputed quantum, but a settlement was agreed at USD 14,950.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the London insurers of a consignment of aluminium T-bars that were damaged during shipment by sea from Egypt to Rotterdam. This cargo was  found to be contaminated at the time of discharge with dirt and residues. Opponents alleged that this was of pre-shipment origin. However, we were able to reach an amicable settlement at USD 5,450.

  • We were instructed to act on behalf of the London insurers of a consignment of musical instruments that were damaged during shipment by air from Leeds to New York. We were able to agree an amicable settlement with the carrier at USD 8,585.
  If you have any enquiries about Stean Shaw LLP, our services and fees, or questions on claims, our team would be happy to hear from you through our listed contact details. Alternatively, to e-mail us, please click here.