Parsad Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/insurers-brace-multi-billion-dollar-155747897.html Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santayana Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 I've wondered if the modest selloff in Fairfax wasn't due to concern about their losses on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 27 Author Share Posted March 27 9 minutes ago, Santayana said: I've wondered if the modest selloff in Fairfax wasn't due to concern about their losses on this. Yeah, I think insurers in general are off a bit since the accident. Not sure how much FFH's or BRK's exposure might be on this on the reinsurance side. Aon and Chubb are the direct hit insurers. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaygo Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 Thanks for posting. I always wondered what would happen in a major human cat event. Say if the Pickering nuclear plant went radioactive or something. In that instance the damage would be in the trillions and most likely end Canada as an entity. Who pays for that? And how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValueArb Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 1 hour ago, Jaygo said: Thanks for posting. I always wondered what would happen in a major human cat event. Say if the Pickering nuclear plant went radioactive or something. In that instance the damage would be in the trillions and most likely end Canada as an entity. Who pays for that? And how. I don't think what you described is even scientifically plausible. Fukushima killed ... one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaygo Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, ValueArb said: I don't think what you described is even scientifically plausible. Fukushima killed ... one person. If a meltdown and radioactive leak made Canada's largest city uninhabitable the Canadian economy would simply deteriorate to the point of the country likely being broken up. Also scientifically I really hope you are right! Edited March 28 by Jaygo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooky Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 12 hours ago, Jaygo said: Thanks for posting. I always wondered what would happen in a major human cat event. Say if the Pickering nuclear plant went radioactive or something. In that instance the damage would be in the trillions and most likely end Canada as an entity. Who pays for that? And how. Nuclear events are generally carved out of insurance so the Government would need to step in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxthetrade Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Some more details: Lawyers Gear Up for Swift Start in Legal Fight Over Baltimore Bridge The National Transportation Safety Board said the investigation to establish the cause of the collision could take up to two years. Photo: Peter Knudson/NTSB/Reuters The first shot in the legal fight over who will pay for the damage and loss from the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge will likely occur in the next few days in a Baltimore courtroom, insurance academics said. The Singaporean owner of the cargo ship that took down the bridge is expected to invoke a law dating back to the 19th century that limits the liability of ships’ owners, according to Lawrence Brennan , a law professor at Fordham University in New York. The law is similar to one used by the Titanic’s owners after that “unsinkable” liner hit an iceberg. This Limitation of Liability Act law caps the liability of the cargo ship’s owners—and their several insurers—at the value of the goods the ship was carrying and the value of the ship itself. A representative of the ship’s owner, Grace Ocean, didn’t respond to a request for comment. The fight, maritime lawyers say, could run as long as a decade. “It will be one of the most contentious marine insurance cases in recent decades,” said Brennan, the law professor and a retired captain in the U.S. Navy. While the lawyers fight, most claims will likely get paid by the insurers, including money for the bridge’s reconstruction. Then they will duke it out among themselves. Other claims might take longer, including those by the families of the people killed in the crash . Other big sources of claims include the loss of revenue for the port, for the vessels now stuck inside it, and for businesses affected by the resulting supply-chain snarl-ups. The bridge part of this web of claims may be the simplest to resolve. The structure cost some $60 million to build in 1977, which is around $300 million today when adjusted for inflation. The bridge is covered by the state of Maryland’s insurance. The policy, covering property damage and business interruption for bridges and tunnels, pays up to $350 million, documents show. The state, with its insurers in support, will likely be among many claimants that sue the Singaporean owner of the giant cargo ship that struck the bridge , seeking to recover their losses. That ship, the Dali, has coverage through a specialized property and indemnity insurer, the Britannia P&I club. It said it is “working closely with the ship manager and relevant authorities to establish the facts and to help ensure that this situation is dealt with quickly and professionally.” Britannia is one of a dozen protection and indemnity, or P&I, clubs, which between them insure around 90% of the world’s oceangoing tonnage. Each club, owned by shipowners, operates independently. But the clubs pool resources to buy reinsurance, allowing them to pass on much of the risk they underwrite. That reinsurance covers up to $3.1 billion per ship, according to ratings firm AM Best. This generous reinsurance safety net is led by French insurer Axa , according to people familiar with the matter, but involves in total around 80 insurers from across the globe. That means, despite a likely eye-popping overall claim, the payout is “unlikely to be significant for individual reinsurers since it will be spread across so many,” said Brandan Holmes , an official at ratings firm Moody’s. Not all claims springing from the incident will be covered by the ship’s insurance agreements. The bridge collapse is a significant blow for a marine insurance market already hit by the costs of the recent Red Sea attacks . Increased rates and new restrictions on coverage are expected to follow. “This probably will be one of the biggest marine losses in history,” John Neal , chief executive of the Lloyd’s of London insurance marketplace, said Thursday. “It clearly will have an impact on cover and premium.” The insured losses could total between $2 billion and $4 billion, surpassing the Costa Concordia catastrophe , ratings firm Morningstar DBRS said. The bridge collapse will likely affect the operations of scores of importers, exporters and other companies that use the port. Many will likely find the event isn’t covered by their businessinterruption insurance, according to Robert Merkin , a law professor at the University of Reading. “Only some policies will cover this—it depends on the wording,” Merkin said. Business-interruption insurance is designed primarily to cover damage to the company’s own premises, although some policies have extensions that might cover external events, such as the bridge collapse, he added. Heather Gillers contributed to this article. Write to Jean Eaglesham at Jean.Eaglesham@wsj.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfp Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 I would be nervous if I was the company that had just filled that ship up with fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libs Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 55 minutes ago, gfp said: I would be nervous if I was the company that had just filled that ship up with fuel. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfp Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 7 minutes ago, Libs said: Why? Just a hunch that bad fuel caused the problems in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intelligent_Investor Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 IIRC they are investigating if dirty fuel was the reason for the power loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxthetrade Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 5 hours ago, gfp said: Just a hunch that bad fuel caused the problems in the first place This will get interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saluki Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 3 minutes ago, maxthetrade said: This will get interesting! 2 hours ago, Intelligent_Investor said: IIRC they are investigating if dirty fuel was the reason for the power loss That's surprising. The stuff that they use for ships, bunker fuel, is literally the crud that is right above the asphalt in a cracker when they break petroleum into other stuff. It's literally a solid at room temperature, so it's hard to think that it could be even lower quality than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfp Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Saluki said: That's surprising. The stuff that they use for ships, bunker fuel, is literally the crud that is right above the asphalt in a cracker when they break petroleum into other stuff. It's literally a solid at room temperature, so it's hard to think that it could be even lower quality than that. Yeah but because of that there are sometimes nasty contaminants mixed in that will clog a fuel filter and then you lose power to the generator. I also believe that they actually run on slightly cleaner fuel when they are in the harbors and switch to heavy fuel oil or whatever bunker fuel is when they are out at sea. Edited March 28 by gfp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yesman182 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 7 hours ago, Intelligent_Investor said: IIRC they are investigating if dirty fuel was the reason for the power loss That’s seems nearly impossible to prove. Wouldnt that be like someone having a heart attack and then suing where they just had a burger and fries. how do you know the contamination wasn’t already in the tank? I don’t down that they might have gotten bad fuel, but it seems like the defense will easily be able to blame it on lack of maintenance or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimoser22 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Shipping is such a shady industry, I guess dirty fuel gets sold every now and then and is a known issue… this article notes that typically the charterer (Maeresk) is responsible for fuel. Maritime executive link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 20 hours ago, gfp said: Just a hunch that bad fuel caused the problems in the first place Fuel always comes with samples and a certificate of origin. Also, fuel cargo tanks do not feed directly into machinery. Fuel is pumped from cargo tanks and passes through a centrifuge to the "day tanks", which feed fuel to machinery. A competent engineer would catch contaminated fuel (water, debris, fungus, etc.), as it centrifuges out, and would immediately stop filling the day tanks. They went dark ship right before the collision => generators. I've had multiple problems in the past where engineers failed to change generator fuel filters. Fortunately none that resulted in incidents (other than me having to change my underwear). Someone(s) combing through the engineers logs and the vessels electronic maintenance system, which can be very telling on the crew and management. Past inspections and audits and any deficiencies (including no sail items if there are any), will be well documented by the classification authority, flag state and shoreside management (management undergoes regular and extensive record keeping audits just like vessels). Could also have been some nimrod screwing up a generator swap during maintenance (which should have been done at the dock or offshore). I'll bet that investigators already know the cause, or at the very least have strong suspicions. I'm betting on human error in the engine room with a failed e-gen kicker (more poor maintenance and testing). https://gcaptain.com/ship-lost-control-before-hitting-baltimore-bridge/ https://www.theautopian.com/heres-everything-we-know-about-the-container-ship-crash-that-destroyed-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-in-baltimore/ Edited March 29 by DooDiligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfp Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Thanks - I knew you would have a useful insiders take on it. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) This is the only link I could find with class info for machinery spaces. I was wondering if it was diesel electric but apparently not. No shaft gens are listed either. https://www.scheepvaartwest.be/CMS/index.php/containerships/9676-dali-imo-9697428 Edited March 29 by DooDiligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooDiligence Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) I once ran an oil spill response vessel with 3 generators arranged side by side athwartship. Each generator had an e-stop mounted on it. One of the assistant engineers had a rather large caboose and would frequently hit the e-stop on the duty gens as he passed between them. The guy did this at least once a hitch. I made 2 or 3 hitches and transferred to another vessel. Couldn't stand the monotony of doing weather patterns for weeks at a time + the vessel was poorly maintained and the crew were bottom of the barrel. The next vessel (M/V Reedbuck - IMO 9476886) was the polar opposite. It's hit or miss with vessels and crews. Edited March 29 by DooDiligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longterminvestor Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 See below the layering mud map for IG P&I Club on risk for accident. Do not know carriers in the tower but there is $3B of cover - 80 reinsurance companies in tower including 20 of the worlds top 25 reinsurers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogermunibond Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Has anyone noted if there is any liabiiity to the owner of Grace Ocean Ltd, which Bloomberg has reported as Mitsui, the Japanese trading house? I suppose the liability insulation is why the trading houses own ships in limited companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longterminvestor Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 According to Mitsui, it is not a subsidiary. Below is link and note from Mitsui. My understanding was Mitsui loaned $250M to Grace in 2010 to buy ships. https://www.mitsui.com/jp/en/topics/2024/1248961_14380.html Regarding certain media reports Mar. 28, 2024 Regarding the incident in which a large cargo vessel collided with a bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, certain media reports have mentioned that the vessel owner, Grace Ocean Private Limited, is a subsidiary of Mitsui & Co., however, Grace Ocean is not our subsidiary, and these reports are not factually correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now