ASG Law

Tag: Admiralty Law

  • Rehabilitation vs. Maritime Liens: Balancing Creditors’ Rights and Corporate Recovery

    The Supreme Court ruled that corporate rehabilitation proceedings take precedence over the enforcement of maritime liens. This means that when a shipping company undergoes rehabilitation due to financial distress, a stay order issued by the rehabilitation court temporarily suspends the enforcement of maritime liens against the company’s vessels. The ruling ensures that the rehabilitation process can proceed without disruption, allowing the distressed company a chance to recover, while still protecting the lienholder’s rights, which can be enforced later in the rehabilitation or liquidation process.

    Navigating Troubled Waters: Can a Stay Order Halt a Maritime Lien?

    Negros Navigation Co., Inc. (NNC), a shipping company, faced financial difficulties and filed for corporate rehabilitation. One of its creditors, Tsuneishi Heavy Industries (Cebu), Inc. (THI), sought to enforce a repairman’s lien against NNC’s vessels through an admiralty proceeding. However, the rehabilitation court issued a stay order, suspending all claims against NNC, including THI’s maritime lien. The core legal question was whether the stay order in the rehabilitation proceedings should prevail over THI’s right to enforce its maritime lien through a suit in rem.

    THI argued that maritime liens are enforceable only through admiralty courts and that suspending these proceedings would impair its rights under Presidential Decree No. 1521 (PD 1521), the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978. PD 1521 grants a maritime lien to any person furnishing repairs or other necessaries to a vessel, enforceable by suit in rem. THI maintained that its right to proceed against the vessels themselves, irrespective of NNC’s financial status, should be upheld.

    The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. The Court recognized that while PD 1521 governs maritime liens, the filing of a petition for corporate rehabilitation invokes the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 902-A (PD 902-A), as amended, and the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. PD 902-A mandates the suspension of all actions for claims against corporations under rehabilitation to enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its powers. The purpose is to allow the company to rehabilitate without undue interference.

    Specifically, the Court emphasized Section 6 of the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation, which provides for a stay order upon the court finding the rehabilitation petition sufficient. This stay order halts all claims against the debtor, secured or unsecured, to provide a “breathing spell” for the company to reorganize. The Court also highlighted the justification for the stay order: to prevent dissipation of assets and to ensure an equitable distribution among creditors. Permitting certain actions to continue would burden the rehabilitation receiver and divert resources from restructuring efforts.

    “The justification for the suspension of actions or claims, without distinction, pending rehabilitation proceedings is to enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the ‘rescue’ of the debtor company.”

    The Court noted that the stay order did not eliminate THI’s preferred maritime lien. It merely suspended the enforcement to allow the rehabilitation to proceed. Upon termination of the rehabilitation, or in the event of liquidation, THI retains its right to enforce its lien. The ruling thus balances the interests of creditors and the goal of corporate rehabilitation. As reiterated in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, all claims are suspended during rehabilitation, and secured creditors retain their preference but must await the conclusion of the rehabilitation process to enforce it.

    Therefore, in cases of corporate rehabilitation, the stay order takes precedence over maritime liens, at least temporarily. While the rehabilitation proceedings are ongoing, creditors with maritime liens must wait for the suspension to be lifted. This protects all creditors while simultaneously providing an opportunity for the rehabilitation of distressed businesses.

    The Supreme Court carefully considered both PD 1521 and PD 902-A, and determined there was no conflict between the laws. The court held that the stay order only temporarily suspended the proceedings in the admiralty case; it did not divest the admiralty court of jurisdiction over the claims.

    FAQs

    What was the main issue in this case? The main issue was whether a stay order issued during corporate rehabilitation proceedings could suspend the enforcement of a maritime lien against the company’s vessels.
    What is a maritime lien? A maritime lien is a claim or privilege on a vessel for services rendered or damages caused. In this case, it was for repairs done by Tsuneishi Heavy Industries on Negros Navigation’s ships.
    What is a stay order in corporate rehabilitation? A stay order is issued by a court during corporate rehabilitation proceedings to suspend all claims against the company. This allows the company to reorganize its finances without being burdened by lawsuits.
    Does the stay order eliminate the maritime lien? No, the stay order does not eliminate the maritime lien. It only suspends the enforcement of the lien during the rehabilitation process.
    What law governs maritime liens? Presidential Decree No. 1521, also known as the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978, governs maritime liens in the Philippines.
    What law governs corporate rehabilitation? Presidential Decree No. 902-A, as amended, and the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation govern corporate rehabilitation in the Philippines.
    Can the creditor enforce the maritime lien after rehabilitation? Yes, the creditor can enforce the maritime lien after the rehabilitation proceedings have concluded or if the rehabilitation fails and the company is liquidated.
    Why is a stay order important in rehabilitation? A stay order is important because it gives the distressed company a chance to reorganize its finances and operations without being overwhelmed by creditor lawsuits, which could hinder the rehabilitation process.

    This ruling clarifies the interaction between maritime law and corporate rehabilitation. It emphasizes the importance of allowing distressed companies the opportunity to rehabilitate while still protecting the rights of creditors, who retain their claims even if enforcement is temporarily suspended.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Negros Navigation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166845, December 10, 2008

  • Priority of Maritime Liens vs. Ship Mortgages in the Philippines: Understanding Preferred Claims

    When Ship Repairs Trump Bank Loans: Decoding Maritime Lien Priorities in the Philippines

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies that maritime liens for essential ship repairs, arising before a ship mortgage is recorded, take precedence over the mortgage holder’s claim. Even if a bank guarantees a loan for repairs and later pays, they inherit the priority maritime lien, ensuring those who maintain vessels are paid first from foreclosure proceeds.

    G.R. No. 128661, August 08, 2000

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a shipping company facing financial headwinds, struggling to maintain its fleet. When a vessel needs urgent repairs to stay operational, who gets paid first if the company defaults – the shipyard that fixed the ship or the bank that financed its purchase? This question of priority is crucial in maritime law, impacting not only shipowners and lenders but also the businesses that keep vessels afloat. In the case of Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines tackled this very issue, specifically examining the hierarchy between maritime liens and ship mortgages. At the heart of the dispute was a claim by China Banking Corporation (CBC) asserting a maritime lien against vessels mortgaged to Philippine National Bank (PNB). The core legal question was whether CBC’s claim, stemming from payments for vessel repairs, held preferential status over PNB’s mortgage lien.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: UNRAVELING MARITIME LIENS AND SHIP MORTGAGES

    Philippine maritime law, heavily influenced by international maritime conventions and U.S. jurisprudence, recognizes the unique nature of maritime commerce and the necessity of protecting those who contribute to a vessel’s operation and preservation. Two key concepts in this legal landscape are maritime liens and ship mortgages.

    A maritime lien is a privileged claim or right enforceable against a vessel for services rendered or damages caused. It arises from the moment the service is provided or the damage occurs, attaching directly to the vessel itself. Presidential Decree No. 1521, also known as the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978, Section 21 clearly establishes this:

    “Sec. 21. Maritime Lien for Necessaries; persons entitled to such lien. – Any person furnishing repairs, supplies, towage, use of dry dock or maritime railway, or other necessaries to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic, upon the order of the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel…”

    This means shipyards, suppliers, and others who provide essential services to a vessel can acquire a maritime lien, securing their right to payment. Crucially, this lien is considered a “preferred maritime lien” under Section 17 of the same decree, granting it a high priority in claims against the vessel.

    On the other hand, a ship mortgage is a loan secured by a vessel, much like a land mortgage secures a house loan. While it provides lenders security, Philippine law, particularly Section 17 of P.D. No. 1521, carves out exceptions to its priority. This section dictates that preferred maritime liens, specifically those arising before the mortgage is recorded, supersede the mortgage claim. Section 17 (a) states:

    “Sec. 17. Preferred Maritime Liens, Priorities, Other Liens – (a) …The preferred mortgage lien shall have priority over all claims against the vessel, except the following claims in the order stated: … (5) maritime liens arising prior in time to the recording of the preferred mortgage…”

    This establishes a clear hierarchy: older maritime liens for necessaries generally outrank even recorded ship mortgages. Furthermore, the principle of subrogation is vital in this case. Subrogation, under Article 1302(2) of the Civil Code, allows a third party who pays a debt with the debtor’s consent to step into the shoes of the original creditor, acquiring all their rights and remedies. This principle becomes central when banks or financial institutions are involved in facilitating payments for services that create maritime liens.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE BATTLE FOR VESSEL PROCEEDS

    The story begins with Philippine International Shipping Corporation (PISC) seeking financing to acquire several ocean-going vessels. They obtained guaranty accommodations from National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), later merged with Philippine National Bank (PNB), using the vessels as collateral through chattel mortgages.

    Separately, PISC contracted Hongkong United Dockyards, Ltd. to repair and convert one of its vessels, M/V “Asean Liberty.” To finance this repair, PISC arranged a standby letter of credit with China Banking Corporation (CBC) in favor of Citibank, which in turn lent PISC the funds. Crucially, the loan was explicitly for the repair of M/V “Asean Liberty.”

    When PISC defaulted on its obligations to PNB, the bank foreclosed on the mortgages and sold the vessels at auction. CBC, having paid Citibank under the letter of credit when PISC defaulted on its loan, intervened in the foreclosure proceedings, claiming a maritime lien over M/V “Asean Liberty” for the amount they paid for repairs. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed CBC’s intervention, arguing that CBC was merely a lender and not a maritime lienor. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, siding with CBC.

    PNB then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising two key issues:

    1. Jurisdiction: Did the Court of Appeals err in hearing CBC’s appeal, arguing it involved purely legal questions that should have gone directly to the Supreme Court?
    2. Maritime Lien Priority: Was CBC’s claim a maritime lien, and if so, did it take precedence over PNB’s mortgage?

    The Supreme Court first addressed jurisdiction, clarifying that CBC’s appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law. The appellate court needed to examine evidence – contracts, loan documents, and payment records – to determine the nature and purpose of CBC’s claim. As the Supreme Court affirmed:

    “Thus, in resolving the issues raised by private respondent in the Court of Appeals, the appellate court had to make a factual inquiry, among others, on the nature and terms of the contracts among the different parties, the relationship of the different parties with one another and with respect to the vessels involved in the case, how the proceeds of the loans were used, and the correct dates when the maritime and mortgage liens were constituted on the vessels.”

    On the substantive issue of the maritime lien, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that Hongkong United Dockyards, Ltd. clearly held a maritime lien for repairs upon commencing work on M/V “Asean Liberty” on credit. Although CBC was not the original repairer, the Court emphasized the principle of subrogation. Because CBC, through its letter of credit and subsequent payment to Citibank, essentially financed the repairs, it stepped into the shoes of the maritime lienholder. The Court quoted American jurisprudence, which is highly persuasive in Philippine maritime law:

    “A creditor who advances money specifically for the purpose of discharging a maritime lien is subrogated to the lienor’s rights.”

    The Court further reasoned that since the repairs, giving rise to the maritime lien, pre-dated the recording of PNB’s mortgage, CBC’s subrogated maritime lien had priority. Thus, CBC was entitled to be paid from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of M/V “Asean Liberty” before PNB could satisfy its mortgage claim.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SECURING MARITIME CLAIMS AND LOANS

    This case carries significant implications for businesses in the maritime industry and financial institutions:

    • For Ship Repairers and Suppliers: This ruling reinforces the security of maritime liens. It assures repairers and suppliers that providing essential services on credit creates a high-priority claim against the vessel, especially if the services are rendered before a mortgage is registered. Documenting the necessity and timing of services is crucial.
    • For Banks and Lenders: Lenders financing ship acquisitions or operations must be aware of the potential for pre-existing maritime liens to take precedence over their mortgages. Thorough due diligence, including vessel history and potential outstanding repair or supply claims, is essential before granting loans.
    • For Shipping Companies: Understanding lien priorities is vital for shipowners managing finances and vessel maintenance. Promptly addressing repair and supply obligations can prevent the accrual of high-priority liens that could complicate future financing or vessel sales.

    Key Lessons:

    • Maritime Liens are Powerful: Liens for necessaries like repairs are not mere debts; they are preferred claims against the vessel itself, designed to ensure essential services are compensated.
    • Timing is Critical: Maritime liens arising before mortgage registration generally have priority. Record-keeping of service dates and mortgage registration is paramount.
    • Subrogation Protects Financiers of Necessaries: Banks or entities financing repairs or supplies can inherit the priority of a maritime lien if the funds are demonstrably used for those purposes.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What exactly is a “necessary” in maritime law?

    A: “Necessaries” are broadly defined as goods or services essential for a vessel’s operation, maintenance, and voyage continuation. This includes repairs, supplies, towage, dry docking, and even insurance premiums in some jurisdictions.

    Q2: Does a maritime lien need to be registered to be valid?

    A: No, unlike mortgages, maritime liens for necessaries generally arise automatically by operation of law when the service or supply is provided. No formal registration is typically required to establish the lien itself, although enforcement usually requires admiralty proceedings.

    Q3: What if the vessel is sold? Does the maritime lien disappear?

    A: No, a maritime lien “follows the vessel.” It remains attached to the vessel even if ownership changes, and can be enforced against a subsequent owner, subject to certain time limitations and legal processes.

    Q4: How long does a maritime lien last? Is there a deadline to enforce it?

    A: While maritime liens are powerful, they are not indefinite. There are statutes of limitations, and delays in enforcement can sometimes lead to the lien being lost due to laches (unreasonable delay). It’s crucial to act promptly to enforce a maritime lien.

    Q5: If there are multiple maritime liens, which one gets paid first?

    A: Philippine law and maritime tradition establish a priority ranking among different types of maritime liens. Generally, liens arising later in time (e.g., salvage after a more recent incident) may take priority over older liens. However, liens for necessaries generally rank high, especially those predating a mortgage.

    Q6: How is a maritime lien enforced in the Philippines?

    A: Maritime liens are typically enforced through an “action in rem” in admiralty courts (Regional Trial Courts in the Philippines designated as admiralty courts). This is a legal proceeding against the vessel itself, leading potentially to its arrest and judicial sale to satisfy the lien.

    Q7: Can a bank that provides a loan directly to the shipyard also claim a maritime lien?

    A: Potentially, yes. If the loan is specifically and demonstrably used to pay for repairs that would create a maritime lien, and with the shipowner’s consent, the bank could argue for subrogation to the shipyard’s maritime lien rights.

    Q8: Is a standby letter of credit enough to establish subrogation to a maritime lien?

    A: No, the standby letter of credit itself is not enough. Actual payment under the letter of credit, demonstrably used for lien-creating services, is necessary to trigger subrogation and inherit the maritime lien priority, as illustrated in this case.

    ASG Law specializes in Admiralty and Maritime Law, Banking and Finance, and Civil Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Shared Fault at Sea: Understanding Shipmaster Liability in Pilotage Mishaps – Philippine Jurisprudence

    Master’s Duty Prevails: Shipmasters’ Negligence in Compulsory Pilotage Still Grounds for Liability

    TLDR: Even when a harbor pilot is compulsory, a shipmaster cannot blindly rely on the pilot. This landmark Philippine Supreme Court case clarifies that masters have a continuing duty to ensure vessel safety and can be held liable for damages if they fail to intervene when a pilot’s negligence is apparent.

    G.R. Nos. 130068 & 130150, October 1, 1998: Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Ports Authority; Manila Pilots Association vs. Philippine Ports Authority and Far Eastern Shipping Company

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a massive cargo vessel, guided by a harbor pilot, approaching a port. The pilot, an expert in local waters, is supposed to ensure a safe docking. But what happens when things go wrong, and the vessel crashes into the pier, causing significant damage? Who is responsible? This scenario isn’t just hypothetical; it’s precisely what the Philippine Supreme Court addressed in the consolidated cases of Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Ports Authority and Manila Pilots Association vs. Philippine Ports Authority and Far Eastern Shipping Company. This case offers critical insights into the responsibilities of shipmasters even when compulsory pilots are onboard, highlighting that ultimate authority and liability are not fully relinquished.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: PILOTAGE AND NEGLIGENCE IN MARITIME LAW

    In the Philippines, like many maritime nations, pilotage in certain ports is compulsory. This means vessels entering or leaving designated pilotage districts must be guided by licensed harbor pilots. The rationale is clear: local pilots possess specialized knowledge of waterways, crucial for safe navigation and preventing maritime accidents. Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Administrative Order No. 03-85, Section 8 explicitly states: “For entering a harbor and anchoring thereat, or passing through rivers or straits within a pilotage district, as well as docking and undocking at any pier/wharf, or shifting from one berth or another, every vessel engaged in coastwise and foreign trade shall be under compulsory pilotage.”

    While pilots take temporary charge of navigation, the crucial question is whether this absolves the shipmaster of all responsibility. Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65, Paragraph XXXIX, touches on pilot responsibility: “A Pilot shall be held responsible for the direction of a vessel from the time he assumes control thereof until he leaves it anchored free from shoal; Provided, That his responsibility shall cease at the moment the master neglects or refuses to carry out his instructions.” However, Section 11 of PPA Administrative Order No. 03-85 provides further clarity on the master’s role: “The Master shall retain overall command of the vessel even on pilotage grounds whereby he can countermand or overrule the order or command of the Harbor Pilot on board. In such event, any damage caused to a vessel or to life and property at ports by reason of the fault or negligence of the Master shall be the responsibility and liability of the registered owner of the vessel concerned without prejudice to recourse against said Master.”

    These regulations, alongside established maritime law principles, form the backdrop for understanding liability in cases of maritime accidents during compulsory pilotage. The core legal concept at play here is negligence – the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in a similar situation. In maritime law, this standard is particularly high, given the potential for significant damage and loss of life.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE M/V PAVLODAR INCIDENT

    The incident unfolded on June 20, 1980, when the M/V PAVLODAR, a vessel owned by Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESC), arrived at Manila Port. Captain Senen Gavino, a harbor pilot from the Manila Pilots Association (MPA), was assigned to guide the vessel to Berth 4. Captain Victor Kavankov, the shipmaster, was also on the bridge.

    Here’s a step-by-step account of the events leading to the pier collision:

    1. Initial Maneuvers: Pilot Gavino boarded, received vessel details from Captain Kavankov, and began docking maneuvers. Weather conditions were favorable.
    2. Anchor Order and Commotion: As the vessel approached the pier, Gavino ordered the engines stopped and then the anchor dropped. However, the anchor failed to hold, and crew members on the bow became agitated, communicating in Russian, which Gavino didn’t understand.
    3. Delayed Reaction: Gavino, noticing the anchor issue, belatedly ordered “half-astern” and then “full-astern.” Captain Abellana of the PPA, observing from the pier, saw the vessel approaching too fast.
    4. Collision: Despite the tugboats’ efforts and engine maneuvers, the M/V PAVLODAR rammed into the pier, causing substantial damage.

    The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) sued FESC, Captain Gavino, and MPA for damages amounting to P1,126,132.25, the cost to repair the pier. The Regional Trial Court found all defendants jointly and severally liable. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s ruling but clarified that MPA’s liability wasn’t based on employer-employee relationship with Gavino, but on Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65.

    Both FESC and MPA further appealed to the Supreme Court. FESC argued that the pilot alone should be liable due to compulsory pilotage, while MPA contested its solidary liability. The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Regalado, upheld the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the concurrent negligence of both Pilot Gavino and Shipmaster Kavankov.

    The Supreme Court stated, “Tested thereby, we affirm respondent court’s finding that Capt. Gavino failed to measure up to such strict standard of care and diligence required of pilots in the performance of their duties.” However, it also firmly established the master’s continuing duty, noting, “While it is indubitable that in exercising his functions a pilot-is in sole command of the ship and supersedes the master for the time being in the command and navigation of a ship…there is overwhelming authority to the effect that the master does not surrender his vessel to the pilot and the pilot is not the master. The master is still in command of the vessel notwithstanding the presence of a pilot.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND DUE DILIGENCE AT SEA

    This Supreme Court decision serves as a crucial reminder that compulsory pilotage does not equate to a complete transfer of command and responsibility from the shipmaster to the harbor pilot. Shipmasters retain a significant duty to oversee the safety of their vessels, even when pilots are legally mandated to be onboard.

    For shipping companies and vessel owners, this ruling means:

    • Vigilant Masters are Essential: Masters must remain actively engaged during pilotage, monitoring the pilot’s actions and being prepared to intervene if necessary. Blind reliance on the pilot is not acceptable.
    • Due Diligence in Crew Training: Ensure crews are well-trained and responsive to commands, especially during critical maneuvers like anchoring and docking. Communication protocols should be clear, even in multilingual crews.
    • Insurance and Liability Coverage: Shipping companies should review their insurance policies to ensure adequate coverage for liabilities arising from pilotage incidents, considering the potential for shared fault.

    Key Lessons from Far Eastern Shipping Case:

    • Master’s Overriding Duty: A shipmaster’s responsibility for vessel safety is continuous and cannot be fully delegated, even to a compulsory pilot.
    • Concurrent Negligence: Liability can be shared between the pilot and the master if both are found negligent.
    • Importance of Intervention: Masters must intervene if they observe a pilot making errors or taking actions that endanger the vessel or port facilities.
    • Pilot Associations’ Liability: Pilot associations can be held solidarily liable with their member pilots, up to the limit defined by regulations, emphasizing collective responsibility within the pilotage system.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is compulsory pilotage?

    A: Compulsory pilotage means that certain vessels entering specific ports or waterways are legally required to be guided by licensed harbor pilots.

    Q: Does compulsory pilotage mean the pilot is solely responsible for accidents?

    A: No. While the pilot is responsible for navigation during pilotage, the shipmaster retains overall command and a duty to ensure vessel safety. Liability can be shared if both pilot and master are negligent.

    Q: Can a shipmaster overrule a harbor pilot?

    A: Yes, in cases where the master believes the pilot’s actions are endangering the vessel, the master has the authority and duty to countermand or overrule the pilot’s orders.

    Q: What is the liability of Pilot Associations?

    A: Pilot associations in the Philippines can be held solidarily liable with their member pilots for damages caused by pilot negligence, as defined by Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65 and PPA regulations, typically up to a certain percentage of their reserve fund.

    Q: What should shipmasters do to avoid liability in pilotage situations?

    A: Shipmasters should remain vigilant during pilotage, monitor the pilot’s actions, communicate effectively with the pilot, and be prepared to intervene if they observe any unsafe practices or imminent danger.

    Q: How does this case affect maritime businesses in the Philippines?

    A: This case reinforces the importance of master vigilance and due diligence in maritime operations. Businesses must ensure their shipmasters are well-trained and understand their continuing responsibilities even during compulsory pilotage.

    Q: What kind of damages can be claimed in pier collision cases?

    A: Damages can include actual costs for repair of damaged port infrastructure, vessel damage, and potentially consequential damages depending on the specific circumstances.

    ASG Law specializes in Admiralty and Maritime Law, Transportation Law, and Civil Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.