ITIC's alert follows a case where a manager of a tanker was entering West African waters, thinking that the terms of a charterparty meant that armed guards would be appointed at the charterer's expense.
Consequently, the manager appointed the guards for the voyage at the price of $170,000. On the contrary, the charterer refused to pay the invoice.
As ITIC informs, although the terms of the charter part included provisions on the armed guards, that didn't mean that their deployment was mandatory.
As a result, the charterparty noted that the charterer was only liable for up to $20,000 of any such costs. The charterer offered to pay that $20,000, and the owner demanded that the managers pay the shortfall.
Continuing, the owner highlighted that it had sent the manager voyage orders according to which the decision to appoint armed guards was at the stake of the owner. It had in fact only appointed armed guards for one out of the last 10 calls to the area, and on that occasion the charterparty required the charterer to pay the security bill in full.
Concluding, ITIC pointed out that it has seen a number of claims caused by ship brokers and managers concerning their recollection of a charter party wording, as opposed to checking what the charterparty actually said. On this occasion, ITIC reimbursed the full claim of $150,000.