Terminal Operators

Port Authorities can be categorised as either "active" or "passive" organisations, whereby "Active authorities are responsible for the management of Port Operations, and also take a direct and active involvement in such operations as stevedoring, shiprepairing, engineering etc. whilst "Passive" Authorities are more likely to lease out these operations to external contractors and experience suggests that by far the majority of Ports fall into the "Passive" category.

Port Authorities even if of a "passive" nature, are still responsible for the general efficiency and safety of the port and its approaches, and may therefore, incur liability from any number of sources. In addition to general public or third party liability exposure, most ports have entered into contracts, for such things as buildings leased, hired-in plant and equipment etc. and in many cases this aspect of contractual liability may be overlooked in a port's insurance programme.

Basic Cover

Legal Liability to Third Parties in respect of death, bodily injury and property damage arising within the port and occasioned through the Assured's activities.

Contractual Liability

In addition, various extensions of cover may be purchased dependant upon the ports requirements, including:

Liability for hired in plant and equipment.

• Tenants and occupiers
• Overseas travel
• Excess Protection and Indemnity for owned vessels
• Removal of wreck
• Unregistered vehicles

For too long, Port Authorities have tended to rely on an outdated and outmoded standard non-marine public liability form of cover. Whilst this does provide some element of protection at a low cost it is generally a false economy as it does not focus specifically on a port's "edge of the water" operations and therefore leads to either uninsured exposures (by design or accident) or a necessity to purchase a variety of different "top-up" insurances, adding to the overall cost and risking gaps in coverage.

Port Authorities have differing requirements dependant on their size, and scope of activities etc. The view is taken that a single co-ordinated programme is the most efficient thus wherever possible a specific, individual wording is designed and tailored to meet the particular requirements of individual clients.

In recent years the concept of packaging diverse elements of risk into a single policy has again become fashionable. In certain circumstances, packages can indeed be effective but by their very nature they also contain inherent disadvantages. The temptation is to automatically advocate packages as the ultimate solution in all cases but we are able to extend a liability policy to include physical damage elements where clear benefits are available.