{"id":3229,"date":"2013-09-10T12:26:29","date_gmt":"2013-09-10T11:26:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3229"},"modified":"2016-06-08T12:28:12","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T11:28:12","slug":"award-1209","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/09\/10\/award-1209\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1209"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1209 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex 90 \u2013 Flour in bags \u2013 Damage to cargo \u2013 Subrogated insurers \u2013 Admissibility (yes) \u2013 Evidence of vessel\u2019s liability (unproved). <\/strong>Having supplied all documents necessary to justify the validity of the subrogation, the insurers\u2019 claim was declared admissible. On the merits, the claimants claimed that the bags had been damaged on board due to water ingress through the hatch cover seals while the defendants claimed that damage was due to showers during discharge. The arbitrators underlined that, by virtue of the terms of clause 5 of the charter-party, the goods were to be discharged at the expense and risk of charterers\/receivers and that the burden of proof was to be borne by the claimants. Nothing in the survey report showed that the cargo damage occurred during the sea voyage. The claim was therefore dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1209 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex 90 \u2013 Flour in bags \u2013 Damage to cargo \u2013 Subrogated insurers \u2013 Admissibility (yes) \u2013 Evidence of vessel\u2019s liability (unproved). Having supplied all documents necessary to justify the validity of the subrogation, the insurers\u2019 claim was declared admissible. On the merits, the claimants claimed that the bags had been<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3229","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3229","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3229"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3229\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3230,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3229\/revisions\/3230"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}