SHIPPING remains one of the world’s most dangerous industries. While most Lloyd’s List readers are safely ensconced in desk jobs, some 1.9m seafarers face day-to-day occupational safety hazards considerably more menacing than repetitive strain injury or the occasional paper cut.
Thanks to advances in ship design, going to sea is arguably safer than it has ever been before. Large vessel losses have declined dramatically in recent decades.
But accidents such as collisions, groundings and fires haven’t gone away. There are also many new threats, such as the fallout from armed conflicts, 21st century piracy and the weather conditions caused by climate change.
So, before we all switch off our work laptops and join family and friends to indulge in our annual bout of bacchanalian overindulgence, it is sobering to revisit some of the big casualties of last year.
From a marine insurance point of view, one of the best yardsticks on offer is the state of the International Group pool scheme, the mechanism by which affiliates share the cost of significant payouts.
While no confirmed figure is available to the public at this stage, the best guess from brokers is that it is running a deficit in the region of $720m-$750m.
What we do know is that at the halfway point of the current policy year, five pool claims had been notified, compared with seven of considerably higher value last year.
An additional eight claims have been reported for 2024/25, bringing the total for that year to 23. There has also been deterioration on previously reported claims, with the total value of pool claims increasing by $147m to $614m between February and August 2025.
The current P&I policy year runs to February 20, and the weeks between now and that deadline will see the worst weeks of the northern hemisphere winter. The period typically sees several big losses for marine insurers.
The first pool claim of the current year was Solong, an Ernst Russ-owned boxship entered with Norway’s Skuld, which hit combi tanker Stena Immaculate in the North Sea in March.
The incident led to a blaze in which both vessels were heavily damaged. Clive Washbourn’s managing general agent Navium had a 40% line on the former, with Steamship Mutual providing the P&I cover. Allianz led the hull slip on the latter, which was entered with Skuld.
Also hitting the pool will be MSC Elsa 3, a boxship that sank off the coast of India in May after a total power failure and ballast system malfunction, releasing a toxic cargo, including calcium carbide.
The state government of Kerala is seeking $1.1bn in compensation from the vessel’s owner, Switzerland-based Mediterranean Shipping Company, which is seeking to limit liability.
According to P&I sources, the vessel is split between four clubs under a quota-sharing arrangement designed to ensure risk diversification. NorthStandard is acting as the claims lead.
Brokers believe that UK Club, Britannia and Steamship Mutual also have slices.
Another pool claim will result from boxship Wan Hai 503 (IMO: 9294862), which experienced a fire and explosion in early June, again in Indian waters.
Four seafarers were killed and five of the 18 crew members who were rescued were injured, pointing to a substantial crew compensation payout.
According to the Indian authorities, the cause was a misdeclared cargo of explosives and a criminal investigation of the ship’s master and crew has been launched. Wan Hai 503 was entered with Britannia.
The identity of the other pool claims could not be established. But likely candidates include either bulker Glengyle or boxship KMTC Surabaya, which collided on Vietnam’s Long Tau River near Ho Chi Minh City in April.
Both vessels were heavily damaged and there was oil pollution from Glengyle. General average has been declared on KMTC Surabaya’s cargo.
Among the biggest cargo claims of the year will be pure car and truck carrier Morning Midas, which caught fire and sank in June, resulting in a total loss.
The incident took 3,000 Chinese cars including electric vehicles and hybrids to the bottom of the Pacific, with an estimated value of $120m.
The ship was valued at $50m, with Allianz having a 15% position, with Convex, Fidelis and Ai believed to hold follow lines.
War risk losses
Hostilities in the Red Sea and the Black Sea and the clash between India and Pakistan last May have caused a number of war risk losses.
The Houthis campaign against merchant tonnage is on hold right now, thanks to the tentative ceasefire in Gaza. But missile and drone strikes mounted by the Yemeni insurgents lead to the total losses of bulkers Magic Seas and Eternity C. in July.
Vessel Protect has had a 100% line on Magic Seas, landing it with a $40m claim. By contrast, the loss Eternity C — which claimed four lives — was probably uninsured.
As Lloyd’s List revealed in a story that was widely followed up elsewhere, the latter had an annual baseline policy with Travelers.
But that company declined to write the trip, most likely on grounds of the risk level involved, so the loss will fall on Greek operator Cosmoship Management.
The Houthis were also behind the attack on Spliethoff-owned Minervagracht in September, in which one person was killed and another was injured. AXA XL led the war slip with Convex believed to have a follow position, according to market sources.
The war in Ukraine represents an ongoing risk for vessels transiting surrounding waters, and fighting appears to be hotting up.
Black Sea war risk rates jumped 250% in the opening days of December, following Ukrainian attacks on two shadow fleet* tankers, the suezmax Kairos and the LR2 Virat.
A couple of days later, there was a similar assault on chemtanker Midvolga-2, for which Kyiv denied responsibility.
But it has put its hand up last week for the attack on Qendil, a shadow fleet tanker in the Mediterranean, some 2,000 miles away from the main theatre of war.
Insurance details are unclear. But Western marine underwriters cannot lawfully cover sanctioned vessels, making it likely that most of these ships were uninsured.
There have also been at least six apparent attacks on tankers with recent involvement in lifting Russian petroleum products. Responsibility remains formally unclaimed, although Ukraine is the obvious suspect.
