What does “seaworthiness” mean? That seems like an easy question. We usually think of seaworthiness in terms of a vessel that’s well-designed and well-built. What might come to mind is a heavy deep-vee hull that could comfortably make the canyon run in three-foot seas, while passengers in the cockpit enjoy a smooth ride. A Bertram 42 with a pair of Detroit 6-71s would fit this definition of “seaworthy.” A vintage tri-hull bowrider from the 1970s with a deteriorating outdrive boot and eggshell-thin hull… maybe not so much. However, the term “seaworthiness” could extend to attributes beyond bow flare, stability, or engines. Seaworthiness, in maritime law, can cover equipment and hardware. It can cover the competence of the crew on a commercial vessel. But what about navigational charts – would they fall under this umbrella of “seaworthiness?” A recent Court of Appeals case from the First Circuit took on this very issue.
The case involved a vessel that had run aground off the coast of the Dominican Republic. Would the loss be covered by the insurer? A fundamental issue facing the court was whether the vessel was “seaworthy” under the definition of the policy.
The policy contained a seaworthiness warranty, which read as follows, “…it is warranted that the scheduled vessel is seaworthy at all times during the duration of this insuring agreement.” In other words, a vessel owner holds their boat out to be seaworthy.
The policy defined seaworthiness as, “…fit for the scheduled vessel’s intended purpose. Seaworthiness applies not only to the physical condition of the hull, but to all its parts, equipment and gear… cont’d. For the scheduled vessel to be seaworthy, it and its crew must be reasonably proper and suitable for its intended use.”
Here, the owner had intended to pick up the vessel in Grenada after repairs and sail to Aruba before ending the journey in Saint Maarten. The policy provided $365,000 coverage for the waters of Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean.
After the vessel rounded Aruba and headed northeast, winds picked up, which resulted in a crewmember becoming seasick. The owner headed further northward, hoping to avoid damage and ease the crewmember’s seasickness. Eventually, winds pushed the vessel northwesterly toward the Dominican Republic, where it was discovered that the radio transmitter was not working.
The agent who sold the vessel recommended docking in the Dominican Republic to make repairs. The boat ran aground on a breakwater while waiting to dock. At the time its voyage began, the vessel carried charts for the intended Aruba-to-Sint Maarten route. These included charts for the Leeward Islands, Windward Islands, and Aruba, all of which were on the vessel’s intended course from Aruba to Saint Maarten. The vessel’s Garmin GPS carried electronic charts for the Dominican Republic, but the charts were outdated, failing to show the breakwater.
Both the vessel owner and the insurance company presented plausible points to back their respective positions on the damage claim. To support the basis for payment on the claim, the vessel owner argued that the charts carried aboard the vessel were sufficient for its intended voyage. To support the position of not paying the claim, the insurance carrier argued that the vessel did not carry up-to-date charts for the waters covered in the scope of its policy.
The court ruled in favor of the vessel owner. Maritime case law was not presented to support the position that a vessel must carry charts for all waters within its operating area. This is an interesting take on “seaworthiness.” It shows there can be more to “seaworthiness” than crab boats on the Bering Sea bashing through mountainous seas in howling winds. Seaworthiness could be about things so minute as a software update to an electronic chart.
As the days grow colder with the approach of winter, we hope you and your families stay safe and warm and may your “navigational hazards” in life be few. As always, please keep our local businesses in mind when shopping, even if something might be a few pennies cheaper online. We wish all of you the best for a bright and wonderful Holiday Season! Tim, Erol
Ref; Great Lakes Insurance SE, Plaintiff-Appellant v Andersson, Defendant-Appellee, 23-
1359, Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Tim is a NY-based maritime attorney and has taught law at SUNY Maritime College. Erol is a graduate of CUNY School of Law and Farmingdale State College.