Whilst the additional premium rates required for tankers carrying persistent oil in United States waters fell by 30% this year, the exposure to environmental claims remains highly significant. Furthermore, it can be difficult to follow the complexities and differences arising from different federal and state laws.
The Club has two environmental specialists to support its Members in dealing with this challenging area of liability.
Dr Chao Wu and Kevin King are based in London and New Jersey respectively and support the Club and its Members' interests in environmental liability exposure worldwide.
Their work and that of supporting colleagues has enabled the Club to publish a variety of references on pollution liability and regulatory compliance for key areas of the world.
•US Pollution Risks
- COFR and VRP Requirements - Federal & State Summaries
•China marine pollution laws
•Australian maritime pollution laws
•EU environmental legislation
Each document provides an overview of certain laws and regulations relating to oil pollution risks in these regions. While every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, it is only a guide and not a substitute for formal legal advice.
You may also be interested in:
The Sinking of the Titanic
In this short article, the Club takes a look back one of the most notorious historical incident in maritime history, the sinking of Titanic; this casualty gives us the opportunity to examine the reported facts, to reflect and understand human error and avoid those mistakes from being repeated that others have made.
The UK P&I Club recently held a webinar on the maintenance and proper use of mooring ropes; the webinar received an overwhelming response with attendees from more than 50 countries worldwide.
QCR Winter 2020: Bow Jubail - The Court of Appeal in The Hague, Judgment dated 27 October 2020
Bunker spill from an oil and chemical tanker in ballast – Is the tanker a “ship” as defined in the CLC Convention when in ballast, and not carrying persistent oil?- Is limitation to be determined under CLC 1992 or the Bunker Convention 2001/ LLMC 76/96?
The question of whether environmental claims in Brazil are subject to time bars, and if so, what the prescription periods would be, has finally been put to rest. Loggers had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court (STF), Brazil’s constitutional court, to challenge the judgments of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Brazil’s highest court for non-constitutional issues. The latter had repeatedly ruled that environmental damage could not be barred by the passage of time.