Page 61 - claims information pack ebook_e

Guidelines for presenting claims in the fisheries, mariculture and fish processing sector

4. What losses are covered?

Property damage can also claim compensation for cleaning
4.1 You can claim compensation for damage contaminated boats and rafts, but usually not
to fishing and mariculture gear or other for painting them as oil rarely causes damage
equipment which has been caused by to paint. If possible, store damaged items
contamination by oil from the spill. The that need to be replaced until they have been
compensation can be for cleaning or inspected by a representative of the 1992
repairing equipment. If the equipment is too Fund/shipowner’s insurer. You should keep
dirty to be cleaned, you may claim for it to be receipts or invoices for any new equipment
replaced (though some allowance will need you buy or for any materials used for cleaning
to be made for wear and tear). You contaminated property.

12 Example extent of the work done into consideration in the
assessment.
A collision between a tanker and a fishing boat
outside a port caused a spill of oil. The oil reached The cost of durable items such as mooring ropes
the harbour where the local fleet of fishing boats and floats which could not be cleaned and had
were moored. As a result, almost all the small to be bought new after the spill, was assessed
boats moored in the harbour suffered oil-staining based on the market cost of the items, but taking
damage to their hull, mooring buoys, mooring into due consideration the age of the item and
ropes, etc., to varying degrees. applying the relevant depreciation to the final
amount assessed. This is known as residual
The majority of the oil-stained small boats were value, which is calculated as follows:
cleaned by local shipyards. These were lifted up
onto slipways. Others were cleaned by the owners
of the boats without lifting up onto slipways. Cost of X Usable life – Period in use = Residual
equipment Usable life value
The claims lodged by the oil-stained small boat
owners covered the cleaning and repainting 3-2
charges of their boats, the cost of materials 399 X 3 = 133
consumed in the cleaning and floats and mooring
ropes that were replaced due to the oil-staining
damage. The final claim was therefore calculated as follows:
The 1992 Fund based its assessment on the
photographic evidence provided by the fishermen Cost of personnel used + £750
as well as direct inspection of the contaminated
boats by its nominated experts in the State. The Cost of equipment purchased + £399
assessment of the cost of the repainting was Residual value of equipment
based on the average market costs of paints, purchased - £133
thinners and related materials in the area. The Cost of equipment rented + £589
Fund also considered that a full repainting of
the hulls, when the stains only covered part of it, Other costs (slipway charges,) + £500
would be an improvement of the conditions of TOTAL CLAIM
the boat and therefore took the previous state of = £2 105
the boat, the extent of the contamination and the