ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
a foreign marine insurer has title to sue under the insured rights that have been subrogated to it, even if the foreign insurer is not listed in the Israeli insurance supervisor’s list as an insurer active in Israel and subject to the supervisor’s supervision. Under this decision, the court has given effect to the Israeli legislature’s wording and mean - ing when excluding the marine insurance from supervision and other liabilities according to the Insurance Agreement Act of 1982 (this decision was approved by the Supreme Court) In the similar matter of Civil Claim 31521-01-20 Nobel Energy v Zim, the Haifa District Court fur - ther ordered that the act of subrogation does not relate to the manner in which an insurer handles its insurance agreements; therefore, the act of subrogation should not be subject to local regu - lations and supervision. Limitation fund In the matter of MV Moraz (2022), the Haifa Maritime Court denied the owners’ application to constitute a limitation fund in order to limit its liability to damages caused as a result of an oil leak from the vessel while bunkered near Haifa Port and due to the fact that, for some reason, valves of the receiving tank, which should have been closed, were open. The Court held that the nature of the damages caused, namely the contamination of port facili - ties and the port area by ten tonnes of oil, should be construed as damages to “harbour works, basins and navigable water ways”, per Article 1 (1) (c) of the Brussels Limitation Convention of 1957. The Israeli Shipping Act (Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea Going Ships) of 1965 adopted the Brussels Convention of 1957 but excluded Article 1 (1) (c); therefore, the incident
is not included in the matters allowing a limita - tion fund to be constituted. In addition, the Haifa Maritime Court held that the incident was caused by the actual fault or privity of the owners – ie, by the actions of the local operators of the vessel, who did not issue the vessel’s crew with the required instructions and did not supervise the qualifications of the The Israeli Shipping Act (Vessels) of 1960 rec - ognises, under clauses 40–41 (4), the maritime lien for “Payments claimed by the master, crew and others who served on the vessel, as a result of their employment in the vessel, either by their heirs or their substitutes, which are due either according to an agreement, or for compensation for civil damages or by any other way”. In the matter of MV Moraz (2021), the Haifa Mari - time Court accepted that the costs of medical treatment provided by a local hospital to a crew member constitute the above-mentioned lien. In the matters of MV Stellar Pacific (2022) and Astrid L (2022), the Haifa Maritime Court accept - ed claims for compensations filed on behalf of the heirs of two Ukrainian seafarers who sadly lost their lives while serving on the respective vessels. In both cases, the owners denied liabil - ity and at the same time did not pay any com - pensation to the heirs, which led to the arrest of the vessels at their call at an Israeli port. In both cases, the amounts awarded by the Court exceeded the amounts stated in the collective agreements as compensation for the seafarers’ death. Although judgments were awarded with - out reasoning, due to the parties’ consent, the amounts awarded seem to imply the Israeli law proposition that owners’ limitation of tortious crew members. Seafarer’s rights
286 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook