Page 82 - claims information pack ebook_e

Guidelines for presenting claims in the tourism sector

and the money from the 1992 Fund is not observe, monitor and record the impact and
needed. However, in a very large spill, it is progress of the clean-up operations. Experts
possible that not even the money available will also be used to review and investigate
from the 1992 Fund to pay compensation the technical merits of claims and to assist
for that particular spill will be enough to with determining independent assessments
cover all valid compensation claims; in this of the losses. Although the 1992 Fund and
case – and it is very rare – each successful the insurer rely on experts to assist in the
claimant will be paid a proportion of his/her assessment of claims, the decision as to
assessed claim until all the money available whether to approve a particular claim and
from the 1992 Fund is allocated, unless the the compensation amount assessed rests
damage occurs in a State which is a Member entirely with the insurer concerned and the 5
of the Supplementary Fund. 1992 Fund.
1.7 If the incident which caused the pollution Why are tourism businesses
was a natural disaster, or if it was entirely compensated?
caused intentionally by somebody (not 1.10 Coastal tourism businesses are dependent
the tanker owner) or by faulty lights or on visitors to the marine and coastal
navigation aids which should have been resources in the areas where they are
maintained by the authorities, then the located. The 1992 Fund recognises that
tanker owner is not responsible and the tourism businesses may be reliant on
1992 Fund will come into play immediately. tourists who travel to and stay in the area for
Also, if the tanker owner is not known or a number of days. Alternatively, they may be
cannot meet his liability, the 1992 Fund reliant on day visitors to businesses such as
will step in and pay compensation. restaurants, bars and tourist attractions.
1.8 The 1992 Fund will not pay compensation if 1.11 The 1992 Fund recognises that visitors may
the pollution was caused by an act of war or be put off from visiting the affected area
hostilities or if the spill was from a warship. but draws a distinction between trade lost
Nor will the Fund pay if it cannot be proved due to a decline in tourists and day visitors
that the damage was caused by a tanker. attracted by the affected sea, coast and
The 1992 Fund cannot pay compensation for beaches and other customers of tourism
damage in the tourism sector that occurred and day visitor businesses, such as local
on the high seas, or outside of the territorial and business-related users. In presenting
waters or exclusive economic zone of its claims therefore, it will be necessary for the
Member States. claimant to differentiate between coastal/
beach/seafood related tourists and visitors
1.9 Whether the compensation comes from
the shipowner’s insurer or the 1992 Fund, and other sources of demand for their
the process of making the claim and the business to the extent possible.
criteria applied to assessing the claim 1.12 If the claimant confirms that he/she has
are the same. The 1992 Fund and insurer suffered a loss due to the oil pollution
usually work closely together, particularly causing a reduction of tourism-related
on large oil spills. The Fund, in co-operation business revenues, he/she may claim
with the insurer, usually appoints experts to compensation.