和歌山県沖で６人乗り組みの台船遭難、海保が救助活動

２７日午前１時３５分ごろ、和歌山県日ノ御埼沖西約７キロの海上で、パナマ船籍の台船 「ＭＡＲＩＮＡ　ＩＲＩＳ（マリナ　アイリス）」＝１３９トン、インドネシア国籍の 乗組員６人＝から遭難警報が発信された。田辺海上保安部が巡視船４隻航空機２機で 付近を捜索していたところ、同７時３０分ごろ、乗組員２人が乗ったゴムボートを発見、 救助にあたっている。

　同保安部では、台船は２６日午後５時ごろ神戸港を出港、シンガポールに向かっていた。 現場付近は当時、約２０メートルの風が吹き、波の高さは５メートルだった。

(2003/12/27) 読売新聞

６人乗りタグボート沈没　紀伊水道、２人を収容

２７日午前１時４０分ごろ、和歌山県・日ノ御埼の西約７キロの紀伊水道で、インドネシア人６人乗り組みのパナマ船籍のタグボート「マリナ・アイリス」（１３９トン）が発信したとみられる遭難警報を第５管区海上保安本部（神戸）が受信した。
　田辺海上保安部の巡視船などが付近の海域を捜索したところ、同７時半ごろ、乗組員とみられる男性２人が乗ったゴムボートを発見。うち１人を収容したが、もう１人はボートから転落し行方不明となった。８時３５分ごろには、救命胴衣を付けて浮いていた別の男性１人を収容した。いずれも生死を確認中。 　同保安部は、船体が見つかっていないことから沈没した可能性が高いとみて、残る乗組員らを捜索している。 　当時現場付近は、風速１２メートル、波の高さは約３メートルだったという。 　同船は２６日夕、神戸港を出港、シンガポールに向かっていた。

共同通信

Four dead in tugboat sinking

Four dead in tugboat sinking
From correspondents in Tokyo, Japan 27dec03

FOUR Indonesian sailors are feared dead and two are missing off the Japanese coast overnight as their tugboat is believed to have foundered in rough seas.

The Panamanian-registered Marina Iris sent a distress signal at around 1.40am local time (3.40am AEDT) off the coast of Mihama Town, about 500 km west of Tokyo.

The Japan Coast Guard found four of the crew and were continuing to search for the other two, said an official at the local branch of the coast guard.

The four are feared dead "as their pupils have already enlarged", the official said, adding a doctor was likely to confirm their death later tonight.

The tug had been bound to Singapore from the western Japan port of Kobe where it was bought from a Japanese shipping company.

The sea was "turbulent" with violent winds and high waves when rescue boats arrived there early today, the coast guard official said. The tug was believed to have sunk, he added.

From Sunday Times (news.com.au)

和歌山県日ノ御埼沖の海上で沈没したパナマ船籍の「マリナ　アイリス」(MARINA IRIS)について 面白いＨＰを偶然に見つけた。これは押船MARINA IRISに掛けられた保険についてシンガポールの 裁判所で争われた記録のようである。

なぜ下記の記事が面白いのか。海保がまとめた報告書がどのような内容だったのか知らない。 しかし、事実＆判決の中で下記のようなことが書かれている。

★押船MARINA IRISは沿海船として建造され、遠洋船として建造されていない。
★押船MARINA IRISを操船した船員の中に船長は３人いたが、本船の船長としての船員免状の 資格を持っていなかった。
★復原性の問題があり、押船MARINA IRISは(UNSEAWORTHINESS)航海に適していなかった。
★保険会社の専門の検査官は、船長は押船の復原性についての情報が与えられてなかった。そして 復原性資料は押船に積まれていなかった。
★押船に必要なパイロットブックや重要なチャートが積まれていなかった。押船に設備されていた 安全備品は十分に検査されていなかった。
★押船MARINA IRISは適切に操船されていなかった。
★押船MARINA IRISの神戸からシンガポールへの航海は危険を伴う航海だった。
★押船MARINA IRISは神戸を出港するとき、(UNSEAWORTHINESS)航海に適していなかった。

沈没したパナマ船籍の「マリナ　アイリス」(MARINA IRIS)のようなケースは多くある。 日本の外国船舶監督官や海保は、このような状態を放置してきた。未だに放置している。 第十一管区海上保安本部の活動は部分的なものなのか 第七管区海上保安本部もＨＰで 日本の港から回航中に海難をおこし放置された船舶 も紹介されているので、問題について知らないことはない。 ここで紹介されている情報は日本では公開されていない。外国の情報公開を 感謝する。問題を指摘する人達もいない。 尾道から出港したフェリーや 宮崎で座礁したタブボート も同じようなケースだったに違いない。しかし、日本の外国船舶監督官や海保の対応は遅い。

Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd

Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd Singapore High Court: Tan Lee Meng J: [2005] SGHC 238: 30 December 2005
Haridass Ho and Partners for Marina Offshore Pte Ltd
Rajah and Tann for the insurers
MarinE Insurance: Breach of Warranty as to the recommended route of the voyage: Seaworthiness of the vessel: Whether loss of the vessel caused by unseaworthiness or perils of the sea

Summary This case involved a claim against insurers for the total loss of a coastal tug whilst on an ocean voyage from Japan to Singapore. The court held that the insurers were entitled to deny liability on the grounds that 1) there had been a breach of the express warranty in the policies regarding the recommended route to be taken by the tug; 2) the tug was unseaworthy at the commencement of the voyage and that, on the balance of probabilities, unseaworthiness was the cause of her loss, rather than perils of the sea; 3)the tug’s initial unseaworthiness represented a breach of the warranty of seaworthiness implied in voyage policies under s.39(1) of the Singapore Marine Insurance Act and 4) the shipowners were privy to the unseaworthiness in breach of s.39(5) of the Act

DMC Category Rating: Confirmed

This case note has been contributed by Ang & Partners, the international contributors to the Website for Singapore

Facts
Marina Offshore Pte Ltd ("Marina Offshore") purchased a steel-hulled coastal tug, ""Marina Iris". The tug was insured by China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd ("CIC") and AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd ("AXA").

The tug was constructed as a coastal vessel and not as an ocean-going one. Prior to the finalisation of the purchase, Marina Offshore instructed TG Marine Services Pte Ltd ("TG") to conduct a pre-purchase condition survey while the ""Marina Iris" was in Kobe. The TG report set out a fairly comprehensive list of matters that required Marina Offshore’s attention before the "Marina Iris" could begin trading operations in Singapore or within South East Asia. Marina Offshore decided to have a large part of the repair work done in Singapore. Instead of being shipped on board a carrier, Marina Offshore decided that the "Marina Iris" was to sail on her own propulsion from Kobe across the Pacific Ocean to Singapore during the December monsoon.

Marina Offshore insured "Marina Iris" with CIC and AXA for one year. The cover included the delivery voyage from Kobe to Singapore. Both CIC and AXA required a condition survey to be carried out before the"Marina Iris" sailed from Kobe. TG carried out this survey as "warranty surveyor". It was not disclosed to the insurers that TG had previously carried out the pre-purchase survey.

The condition survey contained six recommendations, one of which consisted of the route of the voyage from Kobe to Singapore in fair weather conditions.

Although gale warnings had been issued, the "Marina Iris" left Kobe on 26 December 2003 with 6 Indonesian crew members. The tug sank when she was only 50 miles from Kobe. All 6 crew members perished.

Marina Offshore claimed an indemnity against CIC and AXA, on the grounds that the ship had been lost by the insured risk of "perils of the sea". Both insurers denied liability.

Judgment

1. Considering that the insurers were affording cover to an unclassed tug, which was built for operations in coastal waters, to undertake a voyage across the Pacific Ocean and that both policies expressly required the warranty surveyor’s recommendations to be complied with before the tug sailed from Kobe, the recommended voyage route had to be regarded as an insurance warranty. The significance of this is that the warranty must be complied with, whether it be material to the risk or not. TG’s recommended route was for the tug to navigate along the inside coast of Japan via the Inland Sea. The tug did not follow this recommended route. The tug instead exited the Inland Sea and headed towards the North Pacific Ocean. Marina Offshore had thus breached the warranty and was not entitled to an indemnity under the policies.
2. As for the risk of "Perils of the sea", this does not cover every loss or damage of which the sea is the immediate cause. There must be some casualty, something which could not be foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the adventure.
3. If the ship was seaworthy when she set out on her voyage and she then sank, on the balance of probabilities she must have sunk due to "perils of the sea". The question of the seaworthiness of the "Marina Iris" thus had to be considered.
4. Seaworthiness does not refer to a fixed standard but to a relative standard varying according to the ship and exigencies of each voyage. A vessel must have a competent master and a sufficient number of competent crew. The "Marina Iris" was reported to have "three masters" but none of them possessed the necessary qualifications to be a master of the "Marina Iris" for the delivery voyage from Kobe to Singapore. As she was improperly manned, she was unseaworthy when she left Kobe.
5. The "Marina Iris" was also unseaworthy in that her stability was also in issue. The insurers’ surveyor expert stated that the superstructure of the tug was unusually high in comparison to the depth of its keel. The master was not provided with the requisite information on the stability of the tug and the stability booklet was not on board the "Marina Iris".
6. There were other aspects of unseaworthiness. The tug lacked the necessary pilot books and possibly important charts. The safety equipment on board was not adequately checked. There was also a suspicion that the tug did not have proper equipment to receive weather reports.
7. In view of the fact that the "Marina Iris" was improperly manned and insufficient attention was paid to her stability for the delivery voyage, it would take much more to persuade the court that the tug was lost as a result of "perils of the sea". Marina Offshore had not established that the loss was due to a peril of the sea and its claim under this heading should also be dismissed.
8. The Court also considered whether the warranty of seaworthiness was implied under section 39(1) of the Marine Insurance Act (Cap 387, 1994 Rev Ed). Section 39(1) applies only to voyage policies. The Court found that the insurance polices in question were mixed policies. First, there was the voyage from Kobe to Singapore, which was a "voyage risk". Secondly, after being repaired and classed in Singapore, insurance cover was afforded for trading activities within the limits of the "Singapore home trade including Indonesian waters" which was a risk covered on a time basis. Therefore, a section 39(1) warranty of seaworthiness was implied for the voyage from Kobe to Singapore. As the "Marina Iris" was unseaworthy when she left Kobe, the insurers were entitled to avoid liability on this ground too.
9. Even if the policies were time policies, CIC and AXA were also entitled to rely on section 39(5) of the Marine Insurance Act to avoid liability, since the vessel was sent to sea in an unseaworthy state with the shipowner’s privity, and was lost as a result of its unseaworthiness.

Comment

This case serves as a useful illustration of the relationship between seaworthiness and perils of the sea in the marine insurance context. Given the facts of the case, the Judge’s decision is not surprising.

Sections 39(1) and (5) of the Marine Insurance Act provide as follows:-
Warranty of seaworthiness of ship
39. -(1) In a voyage policy, there is an implied warranty that, at the commencement of the voyage, the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure insured. (5) In a time policy, there is no implied warranty that the ship shall be seaworthy at any stage of the adventure, but where, with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness.

Unseaworthy Vessel Not Lost to 'Perils of the Sea' (International Law Office)

March 22 2006

Facts
Decision
Comment

In Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 238 the insurers of a vessel lost at sea denied liability on the grounds that a diversion from the vessel's recommended course constituted a breach of warranty. The Singapore High Court was also asked to consider whether the vessel was unseaworthy at the start of the voyage.

Facts

Marina Offshore Pte Ltd purchased a steel-hulled coastal tug, the Marina Iris. The tug was insured by China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd. A pre-purchase survey was conducted before the tug sailed from Kobe in Japan to Singapore.

The tug was constructed as a coastal vessel, not an ocean-going vessel. Before the purchase was finalized, Marina Offshore instructed TG Marine Services Pte Ltd to conduct a condition survey while the Marina Iris was in Kobe. The survey report listed a number of matters which required Marina Offshore's attention before the Marina Iris could begin trading operations in Singapore or elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Marina Offshore decided that a large part of the repair work should be carried out in Singapore. Instead of being shipped on board a carrier, the Marina Iris was to sail under its own propulsion across the Pacific Ocean during the December monsoon.

Marina Offshore insured Marina Iris with China Insurance and AXA for one year. The cover included the delivery voyage from Kobe to Singapore. Both insurers required that a condition survey be carried out before the Marina Iris sailed. TG Marine Services carried out this survey. It was not disclosed to the insurers that the same company had previously carried out the pre-purchase survey. The condition survey contained six recommendations, one of which was the recommended route from Kobe to Singapore in fair weather.

Although gale warnings had been issued, the Marina Iris left Kobe on December 26 2003 with six Indonesian crew members. The tug sank 50 miles from Kobe with the loss of the entire crew.

Marina Offshore claimed an indemnity against the two insurers; both denied liability.

Decision

Considering that the insurers were affording cover to an unclassed tug, built for operations in coastal waters, to undertake a voyage across the Pacific Ocean, and that both policies expressly required the warranty surveyor's recommendations to be complied with before the tug sailed, the recommended route for the voyage was to be regarded as an insurance warranty. The significance of this point was that no question arose as to the materiality of the risk. The survey recommended that the tug navigate along Japan's Inland Sea coast. The tug did not follow this course; it left the Inland Sea and made for the North Pacific Ocean. It was found that Marina Offshore had breached the warranty and was not entitled to an indemnity under the policies.

Not every instance of loss or damage of which the sea is the immediate cause may be attributed to perils of the sea; such an attribution requires an element of casualty arising from something that could not have been foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the venture. If the ship was seaworthy when it set out, on the balance of probabilities it must have sunk due to perils of the sea. Therefore, the seaworthiness of the Marina Iris had to be considered.

The term 'seaworthiness' refers not to a fixed standard, but to a relative standard which varies according to the ship and the exigencies of the voyage. A seaworthy vessel must have a competent master and a sufficient number of competent crew members. The Marina Iris was reported to have three masters. However, none of them possessed the qualifications required to be a master of the vessel for the voyage in question. As the vessel was improperly manned, it was unseaworthy when it left Kobe. In addition, it was unseaworthy in that its stability was in doubt. The insurers' surveyor expert stated that the tug was unusually high. The master was not provided with the requisite information regarding the stability of the tug and the stability booklet was not on board. The vessel was also found to be unseaworthy on the grounds that: •it lacked the necessary pilot books and possibly important charts;

•the safety equipment on board had not been adequately checked; and

•there was reason to suspect that it had no equipment for receiving weather reports.

In light of the tug's inadequate manning and the insufficient attention paid to its stability for the voyage, it was found that it would take far greater evidence to persuade the court that the tug had been lost due to perils of the sea. Marina Offshore had not established that the loss was due to a peril of the sea and its claim was dismissed.

The court also considered whether the warranty of seaworthiness was implied under Section 39(1) of the Marine Insurance Act. Section 39(1) applies only to voyage policies. The court found that the polices in question were mixed policies. They initially covered the voyage from Kobe to Singapore, which met the definition of a 'voyage risk'. The tug was to have been repaired and classed in Singapore and insurance cover had been afforded for trading activities within the limits of the "Singapore home trade including Indonesian waters", a risk covered by the time policies. Therefore, a Section 39(1) warranty of seaworthiness was implied for the voyage from Kobe to Singapore. As the Marina Iris was unseaworthy when it left Kobe, the insurers were entitled to avoid liability. Even if the policies in question were considered to be time policies, the insurers were entitled to rely on Section 39(5) to avoid liability, as the vessel had been sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition with the shipowner's privity and had been lost as a result of its unseaworthiness.

Comment

This case serves as a useful illustration of the relationship between seaworthiness and perils of the sea in the context of marine insurance. Given the facts of the case, the decision is not surprising.

韓国人船員６人が乗る船舶の事故海域で２体の遺体発見「身元確認中」 04/09/22（hankyoreh）

　台湾海域で行方不明となった曳船「KYOTO1号」の事故海域で、2体の遺体が発見された。

　外交部の当局者は8日、「（2体の遺体の）身元確認手続きが進められている」とし、「海洋警察庁の警備艦（3000トン級）1隻が9日午前11時ごろ、潜水士の乗った潜水支援艦が11日午後9時ごろに事故海域に到着し、捜索作業を行う」と述べた。外交部のイ・ウソン海外安全管理企画官は同日、オンライン記者会見を開き、「政府はKYOTO1号の捜索・救助作業に全政府レベルで可能なかぎりの資源を総動員することを決めるとともに、本日付けで中央災害安全対策本部体制に転換した」とし、「行方不明の船員の所在と安全の確認、船員の家族の支援に最善を尽くす」と述べた。国外の災害に関する中央災害安全対策本部体制では、外交部長官が本部長権限を行使する。

　6人の韓国人船員が乗った曳船「KYOTO1号」（322トン）は、3000トン級のバージ船「KYOTO2号」を引き、釜山（プサン）港からインドネシアのバタム港へ向かう途中、台湾西方34キロの海域で遭難事故にあったことが、7日午前9時50分に台湾の海上捜索当局に通報されている。

　行方不明となっているKYOTO1号の6人の船員は全員が釜山に住む韓国人で、70代と60代がそれぞれ3人ずつ。KYOTO2号は搭乗者がおらず、8日夜に台湾南部の高雄港に曳航された。KYOTO1号は322トン、シエラレオネ船籍。船会社はアラブ首長国連邦の「シー・シスター・シッピング（Sea Star Shiping）」。

Korean pusher tug sank in Taiwan Strait, 6 crew missing 04/08/22（FleetMon）

by Mikhail Voytenko

Pusher tug KYOTO 1 issued distress signal on Apr 7 between Penghu islands and western Taiwan coast, Taiwan Strait, while pushing barge from Busan to Batam Indonesia. Understood all crew, 6 seamen, are missing, SAR under way. According to latest updates, tug sank.

Two bodies found after South Korea ship goes missing near Taiwan 04/08/22（Taiwan English News）

By Fabian Hamacher and Hyonhee Shin

An empty vessel reported to be Kyoto 2, which was towed by a ship that went missing on its way from the South Korean city of Busan to Indonesia's Batam port, is seen near the Penghu Islands, in the Taiwan Strait, in this screengrab taken from a video dated April 7, 2022. . Taiwan Coastguard/Handout via REUTERS
An empty vessel reported to be Kyoto 2 (L), that was towed by the missing ship on its way from the South Korean city of Busan to Indonesia's Batam port, is seen after being found near the Penghu Islands, in the Taiwan Strait, April 8, 2022. Taiwan Coastguard/Handout via REUTERS

TAIPEI/SEOUL, April 8 (Reuters) - Taiwan has recovered two bodies after a ship carrying six South Koreans went missing in the Taiwan Strait, and search and rescue operations are under way, the Taiwanese and South Korean governments said on Friday.

Reporting by Fabian Hamacher and Hyonhee Shin; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Taipei; Editing by Stephen Coates and Raju Gopalakrishnan

2 bodies found after Korean tug goes missing in the Taiwan Strait 04/08/22（Taiwan English News）

Taiwan’s National Coast Guard Administration personnel recovered two bodies this morning during a search for a Korean-owned pusher tug with six crew aboard that went missing after sending a distress call yesterday, April 8. The Sierra Leone-flagged tug Kyoto No. 1 was en route from the Port of Busan, Korea to Batam, Indonesia via the Taiwan Strait when the crew sent a distress signal from a position close to the Penghu Islands at 9:50 am, Thursday. Taiwan’s National Rescue Command