{"id":3300,"date":"2012-02-27T10:19:30","date_gmt":"2012-02-27T09:19:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3300"},"modified":"2016-06-10T10:20:23","modified_gmt":"2016-06-10T09:20:23","slug":"award-1192","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2012\/02\/27\/award-1192\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1192"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1192 &#8211; C\/P GENCON \u2013 DAP cargo damaged by water ingress \u2013 Personal want of due diligence (yes) \u2013 Shipowner\u2019s liability (yes) \u2013 Indemnification for depreciation and consequential expenses. <\/strong>To involve the ship owner\u2019s liability, clause 2 of Gencon does not require the ship owner to have committed a personal fault but only that he failed to show the due diligence expected from him. The fact the ship owner declined water-tightness tests of the hatch covers indicates he was aware that there were ascertained deficiencies that he has not repaired in due time. Therefore, he has complete responsibility regarding the consequences of sea water ingress into the hold and the resulting damage to the cargo. However, the arbitral Tribunal did not follow\u00a0charterer\u2019s request to be indemnified on the basis of the insured value or that of replacement value. They held the ship owner responsible to indemnify the charterer for the value of the damaged cargo and the resulting expenses.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1192 &#8211; C\/P GENCON \u2013 DAP cargo damaged by water ingress \u2013 Personal want of due diligence (yes) \u2013 Shipowner\u2019s liability (yes) \u2013 Indemnification for depreciation and consequential expenses. To involve the ship owner\u2019s liability, clause 2 of Gencon does not require the ship owner to have committed a personal fault but only that<\/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-3300","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\/3300","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=3300"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3301,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3300\/revisions\/3301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}