When "No Contact" Still Causes Claims: Charter Party Risks from Non-Collision Grounding Incidents

 When "No Contact" Still Causes Claims: Charter Party Risks from Non-Collision Grounding Incidents

🚨 Could Your Ship Be Held Liable Without a Scratch?

• Does a vessel have legal liability if no actual collision occurred?
• Can "constrained by draft" status protect your vessel fully?
• Are you prepared to defend your position if the Letter of Protest is served?

 

⚓ Clause Breakdown: Navigational Responsibility and Non-Collision Incidents

In the realm of charter party disputes and maritime operations, one of the most misunderstood situations is when a vessel causes damage or delay without physical contact. The Letter of Protest above, involving two bulk carriers—one being constrained by draft and the other allegedly not keeping clear—highlights this issue clearly.

🔍 What Does the Clause or Situation Mean?

While not quoting a specific clause, this scenario invokes COLREG Rule 9 (Narrow Channels) and Rule 18 (Responsibilities between vessels). The core issue is a deep-draft vessel (constrained by draft) being interfered with by another vessel, resulting in a grounding without contact.

💡 Implications

Even in the absence of physical collision, liability can arise due to:

• Navigational negligence
• Breach of duty under COLREGs
• Infringement of pilotage protocols or port traffic schemes

⚖️ Example

A bulk carrier attempting to exit the inner anchorage runs aground while trying to avoid another ship that failed to keep clear. Though no actual contact occurred, the blocking vessel may be liable for:

• Grounding-related damage
• Loss of time (off-hire, laytime impact)
• Tug/pilot salvage costs
• Environmental damages or port fines

🚫 Common Pitfalls

• Masters not asserting "constrained by draft" status in time
• Failing to document VHF conversations or port traffic instructions
• Delay in issuing protest letters
• Misinterpretation of COLREGs responsibility matrix

📚 Relevant Case Law & Commentary

While this specific incident hasn’t gone to court, BIMCO regularly advises Members to take timely protest actions and log all bridge communications to protect Owners’ interests. The "Orapin Global" case (2005) is an example where "close-quarters maneuvering" resulted in significant legal costs due to delay and unclear documentation, even without collision.

 

✅ What Operators/Managers/Owners/Charterers Should Do:

1. Immediately Issue Protest: As done in the sample above, issue a Letter of Protest without delay and on a "without prejudice" basis.
2. Collect Evidence: Include:
• VDR data
• AIS track
• Bridge log entries
• VHF audio
• Photos of ship’s condition
3. Instruct Surveyor Promptly: To assess damage, conduct underwater surveys, and document environmental conditions.
4. Consult P&I Club: Notify them and seek legal/pilotage advice before the situation escalates.
5. Review Port Traffic Rules: Confirm with the agent and local VTS whether vessel movements were in compliance with the regulations.
6. Preserve Chain of Liability: Charterers, sub-charterers, and owners must all be copied and updated to preserve rights for downstream claims.

 

📣 Conclusion: Stay Sharp, Stay Covered

Just because there’s no contact doesn’t mean there’s no consequence. As this grounding incident shows, liability can follow poor seamanship or miscommunication, even in anchorage zones.

Did this situation remind you of a past near-miss? What protocols do you follow in such scenarios?
💬 Share your thoughts in the comments, like this post, and follow ShipOpsInsight for real-world shipping case studies and insights delivered weekly.

 

📜 Disclaimer:

This blog post is for educational purposes only. It is based on a hypothetical, anonymized maritime scenario inspired by operational events. No actual vessel, owner, charterer, or company names have been used. The content does not constitute legal advice. Always consult your legal counsel or P&I Club for specific guidance.