August14 , 2026

    Misdirected Grain Claim Highlights Risks for Marine Surveyors, Warns ITIC

    Related

    India’s Major Ports Improve Ship Turnaround Time; JNPA Ranks 22nd Globally

    India’s major ports have recorded a significant improvement in...

    CONCOR Launches New Domestic Rail Traffic Stream from Vallarpadam to Bihar

    A new domestic containerised rail traffic stream has commenced...

    V.O. Chidambaranar Port Records 215.75% Growth in Potassium Sulphate Handling

    V.O. Chidambaranar Port Authority has recorded an impressive 215.75%...

    Gujarat Pipavav Port Faces 80,000-TEU Loss as West Asia Shipping Disruptions Persist

    Gujarat Pipavav Port is expecting a significant decline in...

    Share

    A US$30,000 claim over an off-spec grain cargo has prompted the International Transport Intermediaries Club (ITIC) to caution marine surveyors about the legal and financial risks arising from unclear or poorly documented instructions.

    The case involved a marine surveyor appointed by a cargo seller to conduct a joint survey at the load port. The buyer accepted the cargo and subsequently resold it. However, at the discharge port, the final buyer alleged the shipment was off-spec due to the presence of ambrosia seeds and other impurities.

    Following a discounted resale, the original buyer sought to recover losses of US$30,000—initially from the seller and later from the seller’s surveyor—claiming negligence for failing to test certain parameters during the survey.

    Upon review, ITIC found that the surveyor had acted strictly within the scope of the seller’s instructions. Notably, the buyer had also appointed its own surveyor at the time of loading, operating under a separate mandate. ITIC concluded that the seller’s surveyor owed no duty of care to the buyer, rendering the claim misdirected and without legal basis.

    Mark Brattman, Claims Director at ITIC, said the incident underscores how surveyors can become exposed when assumptions are made about the scope of their work after disputes arise.

    “This case shows how vulnerable marine surveyors can become when parties later assume that certain checks or tests should have been carried out, even where those tasks were never part of the agreed instructions,” he said.

    ITIC noted that disputes of this nature are particularly common in grain and agricultural commodity trades, where expectations around testing can differ widely. Even when a specific test is not contractually required, its absence may still trigger disputes if it is considered standard practice within the trade.

    Brattman emphasised that clear documentation remains the strongest safeguard for surveyors. “If a principal instructs you not to carry out a check that would ordinarily be expected, record that instruction and reflect it clearly in the report,” he added.

    ITIC has urged marine surveyors to formally agree and document their scope of work before undertaking assignments. It also recommends that survey reports explicitly outline both the tests conducted and those excluded, helping to prevent disputes from escalating into liability claims.

    spot_img