Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

 

 


 


 

 

 

 

 

 

DANA MARINE
SERVICE GROUP

________________________________________________     MARINE SURVEYORS-________________________________________________

MARINE EVALUATORS & APPRAISERS

ARTHUR DAVID SERRY CMS

RI(BC) ret. FRIC.ret.

CONTACT: danamarineservice@dccnet.com

Telephone:604-946-9405

www.acms.com

 

21

 

World Class

 

 

 

 

BAE SYSTEMS wordmark. Click to navigate to front page.

Search

 

 

 

BAE SYSTEMS wordmark. Click to navigate to front page. HMS Montrose

Search

 

CAPABILITIES

 

BUSINESS UNITS & OPERATING GROUPS

 

GLOBAL LOCATIONS

 

 



About us



Online news room



Investor relations



Corporate responsibility



Careers


 

 

 



About us



Online news room



Investor relations



Corporate responsibility



Careers


 

Image: Astute class submarine.Image: Two Typhoons in flight. Photo by GH Lee.

Feature

Image: Photograph of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle on the cover of the BAE Systems 2005 Preliminary Report.

Click here for Investor Relations

Preliminary results webcast at 9.00am Click here

Latest news

23 February
BAE Systems Release Preliminary Results

20 February
Two “firsts” for BAE Systems at Asian Aerospace 2006

17 February
BAE Systems IAAPS program demonstrates capability to defeat kinetic energy threats under TARDEC survivability program

more news >>>

Photo gallery

 

 

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Image: Sample image from the photo gallery. Click on image to view more pictures.

Click on the images above to visit
our extensive photo gallery

 

 

 



BAE Systems’ share price

Today’s share price

20 min delay

GBp 428.50  

Today’s share price

20 min delay

click here to see the current
BAE Systems’ share price

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2006 BAE Systems. All rights reserved. Best viewed in IE 4.0+ at 800x600

Bottom of Form

CAPABILITIES

BUSINESS UNITS & OPERATING GROUPS

 

WORLDWIDE

Land

 

Air

Sea

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electronics, integrated systems & C4ISR

Support

 

Commercial aerospace

Aerostructures

 

Air Systems

CS&S

 

Customer Solutions

Electronic & Integrated Solutions

 

Integrated System Technologies (Insyte)

Integrated Systems & Partnerships

 

Land & Armaments

Naval Ships

 

Operation & Capital

Regional Aircraft

 

Shared Services

Submarines

 

Australia

Saudi Arabia

 

United Kingdom

United States

 

BAE Systems worldwide - addresses

·                     CAPABILITIES

·                     BUSINESS UNITS & OPERATING GROUPS

·                     WORLDWIDE

 

·                     Land

·                     Air

·                     Sea

·                     Electronics, integrated systems & C4ISR

·                     Support

·                     Commercial aerospace

 

·                     Aerostructures

·                     Air Systems

·                     CS&S

·                     Customer Solutions

·                     Electronic & Integrated Solutions

·                     Integrated System Technologies (Insyte)

·                     Integrated Systems & Partnerships

·                     Land & Armaments

·                     Naval Ships

·                     Operation & Capital

·                     Regional Aircraft

·                     Shared Services

·                     Submarines

 

·                     Australia

·                     Saudi Arabia

·                     United Kingdom

·                     United States

·                     BAE Systems worldwide - addresses

 

WE SURVEY SHIPS – ANY KIND OF SHIPS

ALL Purposes-All Registries—ALL INSURERS—ALL BANKS

IF YOUR BOAT FLOATS

We WILL SURVEY IT

 

OR  SHOULD BE FLOATING

WE SALVAGE AND Manage  the Restoration

 

IF YOUR VESSEL IS LAID UP

WE WILL RE--ACTIVATE IT

YOUR VESSEL IS IN THE SHIPYARD

WE ACT AS YOUR ONSITE SURVEYOR

ASSURING WORK QUALITY—COST CONTROL—AND PROGRESS

Bottom

NMREC

 

 

Links 


U.S. Shipyards (By Regions) 

EAST COAST

GULF COAST

GREAT LAKES

INLAND

NON-CONUS

WEST COAST

 


 

 

 Vicship - aerial.GIF (91509 bytes)

 

Site last updated Monday, January 30, 2006.

 

 

We APPRAISE and EVALUATE MARINE REAL--PROPERTY

PORTS HARBOURS MARINE LOGGING OPERATIONS

FOR BANKS OWNERS INSURERS

SELLERS BUYERS

 

THE FOLLOWING REPORTS
ILLUSTRATE  HOW WE CAN SAVE
YOUR COMPANY FROM BEING THE ONE
WHO SCREWS UP THE ENVIRONMENT
CONTACT US BEFORE
YOU SCREW UP.

 

Examples of these companies who did not  use our

Expertise

 

THEY SCREWED UP BIGTIME

 

Home

Cover

Title

Glossary

Preface

Introduction

Executive summary

Part I: Transnational logging companies

The need to control transnational logging companies

The Malaysian case study

Part II: Economic, political and legal framework

Trade, national economies and the Asian economic crisis

Politics, law and the logging industry

Land rights and policy

Maps

Part III: Impacts of the logging industry

Social impacts of logging

Environmental impacts of logging

Part IV:
Company profiles

Conclusions

References

 


AOKAM PERDANA BHD (FORMERLY AOKAM TIN BHD)

Teh Soon SengAokam Perdana, a tin mining company, was launched into the timber business in August 1990, when Managing Director Teh Soon Seng (left) undertook a reverse take-over of the company by injecting timber processor Pembangunan Papan Lapis (Sabah) Sdn Bhd (PPL) into Aokam.183 In exchange, Teh gained control of the listed company. By the end of 1994, Aokam was a stock market favourite, with shares worth US$1.6 billion and profits of 40-60% a year, one of the highest rates in the world for a timber company.184 The former company chairman, Tunku Abdullah, who retired in September 1997,185 is a close associate of Prime Minister Mahathir.186 The current chairman, Samshuri Bin Hj Arshad,187 is a former deputy speaker in the lower house and former MP of Balik Pulau (Penang).

A major advantage for the company has been its deal with Idris Hydraulic, through which Aokam obtained access to a cheap wood supply—RM170 (US$68)/tonne compared to normal price at RM400-540 (US$160-216)/tonne—from Idris Hydraulics' Sagisan concessions in Sabah, covering 256,000 ha.188 Aokam Perdana also has a 40-year joint venture for plywood manufacturing between wholly-owned subsidiary Aokam Resources Sdn Bhd (55%) and Changchun Plywood Plant (45%) in the Chinese province of Jilin and was reported to be seeking logging concessions in China,189 although this was later refuted by the company.190 Aokam has sought joint ventures with Idris Hydraulic in Myanmar and Laos.191 The company was reportedly offered concessions in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, but turned them down due to a lack of manpower.192

The former rising star of the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange has been in rapid decline, showing a net loss of RM144.73 million (US$57million) for the year ending June 1996.193 According to analysts, Aokam's timber complex became severely under-used, with a number of problems including inadequate supply of logs.194 In November 1997, Teh Soon Seng, who ceased being a director in March 1997,195 was wanted by the Malaysian police in connection with RM45 million (US$11.25 million) of missing funds. The police were investigating claims of misappropriation of funds in Aokam Perdana or the transfer of money into another company's account in which Teh also had an interest. The police were also looking for another Aokam company executive, Low Thian Hoe.196

The forestry subsidiaries of Aokam Perdana are likely to be involved in current efforts to restructure the company in the face of severe financial difficulties. As part of the restructuring plan, it has been proposed that Aokam Perdana buys timber harvesting rights from Idris Hydraulic.197 At the end of May 1998, it was reported that Aokam's subsidiary PPL was being sued by a creditor for non-payment of bills and the parent company had obtained a restraining order against PPL's winding-up until restructuring has been completed.198


ASSOCIATED KAOLIN INDUSTRIES BHD

In October 1996, Associated Kaolin Industries Bhd was reported to be acquiring a total of 104,758 ha of timber concessions in Gabon through the purchase of Winnerpac Sdn Bhd from Landzen Developments Sdn Bhd, which in turn had secured the rights to the concessions from a Gabonese company, Societe Forestiere de Makokou (SFM). The deal includes three areas in all: 80,000 ha under a 20-year concession, 15,000 ha under a 10 year concession and 9,758 ha under a 7 year concession. The total marketable timber was estimated to be around 6 million cu m.199

AKI stated that this acquisition would complement the activities of another subsidiary company, Caton Wood Industries Sdn Bhd in Malaysia, which manufactures plywood and veneer products, the Gabonese concessions ensuring a supply of logs for Caton's downstream processing operations in Malaysia. The deal would give the Gabonese company, SFM, 10% of pre-tax profits whilst the Malaysian company would get the remainder. AKI expected its subsidiary Winnerpac to be able to repatriate profits for the financial year to June 30 1998, subject to authorisation from the Gabonese finance minister.200

In April 1997, Caton Wood Industries was put into the hands of receivers due to the default on loans and banking facilities totalling RM22.5 million (US$9 million).201 In June 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between AKI and Landzen for the acquistion of SFM to be completed within six months, taking account of the Sale and Purchase Agreement signed in October 1996 and an independent valuation of the timber concession. 202


AUSTRAL AMALGAMATED TIN BHD

In December 1997, property-based Austral Amalgamated Tin Bhd was reported to have secured a 10 year timber concession in Cameroon, covering 60,000 ha. According to Mohd Karim, executive chairman of the company, the investment was seen as a cushion in times of slowdown and was expected to help boost group profits in 1998. It is not clear whether this deal went ahead or not. The group was also reported to be exploring opportunities in other African countries.203 Austral has a subsidiary called Million Quest Sdn Bhd, registered as a trader in logs, and another called Million Quest (Myanmar) Sdn Bhd, also registered in Malaysia.204


BERJAYA GROUP BHD

The Berjaya Group is a large, diversified conglomerate, including seven public and about 200 private companies, involved in gambling, textiles, tourism, hotels, financial services, industrial products, real estate and consumer marketing.205 It is based in Kuala Lumpur, and is controlled by Vincent Tan Chee Yioun. The company has gained a reputation at home for planning to build tourist resorts in ecologically sensitive environments, which have prompted environmental and public interest groups to launch two campaigns since 1990 against projects on Penang Hill (the project was cancelled) and on Redang Island (the project was reduced in size after ecological damage occurred).206

Tan Sri Vincent TanTan Sri Vincent Tan (left) has access to a number of significant political figures through some of his many companies. He took over the failed Tropical Veneer Company Bhd, which was in receivership at the time, and renamed the company Intiplus Bhd, bringing it under Berjaya's control. Datuk Haji Mohd Fatmi bin Haji Che Salleh was appointed as deputy chairman of Intiplus in March 1995, after the take-over. Salleh was a member of the Central Committee (EXCO) of UMNO Youth Malaysia,207 as well as having held various other official positions. Ramli bin Zahari, appointed as a director of Intiplus in 1995, was at the time head of UMNO Kuala Kangsar division.208 Danny Tan Chee Sing, Berjaya managing director, is one of the small group of new Chinese capitalists who are closely associated with leading Malay politicians209 and Jaffar Bin Abdul, appointed as a director in August 1997,210 is the former Inspector General of Police. In November 1994, Berjaya Textiles Bhd was taken over by Rimbunan Hijau.

The Group attempted to move into logging in several countries in 1994. In May of that year, Berjaya's wholly owned subsidiary, Berjaya Group (Cayman) Ltd, acquired a timber company in Solomon Islands, Star Harbour Timber Company Ltd. In September 1994, Berjaya Group Bhd bought 60% stake of the Canadian timber company Taiga Forest Products Ltd and aimed at expanding Taiga's operations into the US. Taiga's main activity is as distributor of building products like lumber, roofing, moulding and insulation; the deal valued the company at about C$50 million.211 Also in 1994, the group started negotiations in Guyana and Suriname for access to vast timber concessions.

Solomon Islands

Berjaya Group Cayman bought Star Harbour Timber Company Ltd for US$1 million cash, giving Berjaya access to 45,000 ha concession at the price of only US$ 22.22 (RM 58.43) per ha, inclusive of the sawmill, compared to an average of US$1,000 (RM2,500) per ha in Malaysia (without sawmill).212

Just a few months after the deal, the Managing Director of Berjaya Group (Cayman), Mr Tony Yeong resigned over allegations of an attempt to bribe the country's Commerce, Employment and Trade Minister, Mr Joses Tuhanuku. The Minister alleged that Mr Yeong attempted to bribe him with RM8,000 (US$3,200). The Minister refused the money and immediately informed Prime Minister Billy Hilly. Mr Yeong was asked to leave the country and resigned from the company. Mr Tuhanuku also said that Yeong insisted it was an accepted practice in the South Pacific, and indeed around the world, for a large company such as Berjaya to show its appreciation to those in government who assisted the company. Berjaya Group protested against the allegations.213

Berjaya had proposed to invest US$60 million (RM157.8 million) in the country, in exchange for which the provincial governments of Guadalcanal and Makira agreed to grant an aggregate minimum of 600,000 ha of forest concession. The US$60 million investment was to be for building an integrated timber processing complex in the Solomon Islands.214 It was later reported in Hong Kong that the company failed to raise the capital needed for the deal215 and eventually withdrew from the Solomon Islands altogether, following disputes with local landholders. One landowner described their withdrawal in the Solomon's press, "Thank God Berjaya pulls out... this news brings relief to our souls".216

Guyana

The Berjaya Group has sought to invest in Guyana since 1994. The company requested a 700,000 ha concession in the New River-Upper Berbice area with a proposed investment of US$112 million. The company also sought exemption from withholding tax on dividends paid to non-resident shareholders and on interest payments paid to offshore lenders, exemption from export duties on all processed wood products, exemption from import duties on all materials used by the company, a fixed ceiling on corporate tax rates, fixed royalty rates for the entire life of the contract, deductibility of all interest payments, an accelerated depreciation allowance, unlimited use of foreign labour when needed, and investment protection guarantees.217

No contract could be signed because the forest area in question was outside the State Forests and because the government—due to national and international pressure against the sell-off of the Guyanese forests—put a freeze on handing out of new logging concessions from October 1995. The moratorium is still in place.

However, in 1997, despite the fact that the Guyana Forestry Commission was still weak, the State Forests were extended by 4.6 million ha in the Southern part of the country and large tracts of forests were selected to be leased out as Exploratory Leases. Berjaya signed a memorandum of understanding with the Guyanese government for an exploratory lease in April 1997 for access to 760,000 ha of allegedly pristine virgin forest,218 which are also claimed by the Macusi and Wapisiana indigenous peoples.

Significantly, Berjaya has been operating through another Malaysian company, Tenaga Khemas Sdn Bhd, which owns 87,850 ha concession in the Berbice River area. Tenaga Khemas also controls two other companies, UNAMCO and Case Timbers, and Mr Villupillai Kanagalingam (Tenaga Khemas' representative) confirmed that he is associated to Berjaya.219 Berjaya therefore may hold, either in its own name or through its interests in Tenaga Khemas, Case Timber and UNAMCO somewhere around 1.5 million ha of forestry concessions in Guyana.

Suriname

As soon as Vincent Tan put his feet in Suriname in 1994, he made Mr Surinder Mungra, the brother of Suriname's Minister of Foreign Affairs, the director of his Suriname company. Immediately afterwards, Berjaya applied for a huge concession of 1.1 million ha which was prevented from being awarded only due to massive national and international outcry. A considerable part of the area requested by Berjaya is inhabited by Amerindian and Maroon peoples, who felt severely threatened by the concession. This sparked great opposition by indigenous peoples, environmental and human rights organisations.

In February 1997, after the government announced that the 1 million ha deal was probably going to be cancelled, Berjaya requested a different logging concession of 150,000 ha. It now appears that Berjaya has been awarded three exploratory permits, whereby the company can conduct an inventory of forest resources and produce a management plan but is not allowed to log, totalling 300,000 ha.

According to a newspaper report, Berjaya was already busily chopping down trees in 1996, despite not officially owning concessions. This was made possible through Berjaya's director Surinder Mungra, who arranged for Berjaya's equipment to be employed on concessions that had been worked for dozens of years by small-scale Surinamese companies. When journalists visited a couple of these concessions, armed men overseeing the logging operations said that they were there to protect Berjaya's property. The names of Mungra and Berjaya were repeatedly heard despite the fact that the concession belonged to someone else on paper and that under Surinamese law it is forbidden to transfer timber cutting permits to third parties, with the risk of a punishment of immediate withdrawal of the concession.220


BEST WORLD LAND BHD (FORMERLY BENTA PLANTATIONS BHD)

Kenneth Eswaran, a newcomer to the corporate scene, bought into Benta Plantations Bhd via a reverse-takeover, acquiring 31% of this company and 28.1% of Mun Loong Bhd. Eswaran's partner, who owned a further 30% of Benta, is Haji Ishak Ismail, of Idris Hydraulic221. Benta changed its name to Best World Land Bhd and, in 1994, Eswaran was reportedly interested in a 250,000 ha timber concession in Southern Laos and was expected to sign a deal with the Laotian authorities at the beginning of 1995 and to undertake logging activities during that year.222 The concession would allow logging for 6 or 7 years. Eswaran was reported to be setting up a new company, with both the listed vehicles in which he was involved (Benta—now Best World Land—and Mun Loong) investing 55% and 45% repectively in the new company. Total investment in the new concession was to be about RM60 million (US$24 million). Because the timber business was new to these companies, Eswaran was believed to be scouting around to hire timber experts.223 Best World Land Bhd sold its equity in Mun Loong Bhd at the end of 1995 for a loss, reportedly in order to concentrate on its core business of property development.224 It is not clear whether the Laos deal was successfully concluded or not.


DAMANSARA REALTY BHD (FORMERLY KESANG CORPORATION)

Damansara Realty's main business interests are in steel mills, property development, timber and oil palm plantations. In 1993, KUB acquired a 15% stake in Damansara Realty (then called Kesang Corporation).225 KUB is an UMNO members' co-operative which functions as an avenue for party members to pool their resources for investment purposes. The Johor Corporation, the Johor state government's development agency, currently owns 42% of Damansara Realty and the State-controlled Employees Provident Fund is also a shareholder.226 Damansara Realty owns 32% of the Long Huat Group.227

Damansara has incorporated in Papua New Guinea as Damansara Forest Products (PNG) Pty Ltd. In 1995, the company successfully completed a deal which granted it access to 121,000 ha of lush coastal forests in Aitape, West Sepik Province: 30,000 ha were slated for clearfelling for the establishment of oil palm plantations and the rest were to be managed for selective logging. The export of logs began in July 1996.228 The company had no plans to establish any downstream-processing facilities in Papua New Guinea and logs were to enable Damansara's complex to increase its production.229

The Papua New Guinea deal was controversial even before it was approved, with the then Forest Minister, Tim Neville, warning the Government against the project, officially called Aitape Agro-Forest Pty Ltd. The Catholic Women's Association in Aitape also condemned the deal230 and there were claims that the genuine landowners were never involved in any negotiations, and that the deal was being hurried through.231 The deal went through after Tim Neville lost his post, but local communities have been voicing opposition to the project on the grounds that they were not consulted and they were not ready to let a foreign company take over the forest. However, clearfelling started at the end of 1995 and logs were exported from Aitape in 1996.232 In July, 1998, the Papua New Guinea logging operations were halted due to "adverse market conditions", and the company plans to terminate all logging-related agreements and hopes to recover RM4.5 million (US$1.2 million) through arbitration proceedings.233


GENERAL LUMBER FABRICATORS AND BUILDERS BHD

General Lumber Fabricators and Builders Bhd (GLFB) announced in early 1998 that a company within the group, Rimyasa Development (PNG) Pty Ltd, had received approval from the Papua New Guinea National Forest Authority regarding a logging and marketing agreement with Basoma Holdings Pty Ltd. Under this agreement, Rimyasa was appointed to manage and undertake logging operations and marketing activities in respect of 9,800 ha of forest in Papua New Guinea. The timber permit area was extended for a further 10 years, commencing December 16th 1997, and Rimyasa's annual harvest quota is 120,000 cu m per year through the term of the timber permit. GLFB proposes to venture into sawmilling and other downstream processing activities in PNG.234 GLFB has substantial processing capacity in Malaysia through a number of its subsidiaries.


IDRIS HYDRAULIC (MALAYSIA) BHD

Idris Hydraulic and its subsidiaries are involved in a number of sectors, including property development, forestry operations and downstream processing. Idris owns various concessions in Keningau, Sabah, collectively known as the Sagisan Concession, totalling 256,000 ha. The concessions last for various periods, up to the year 2011. In order to efficiently exploit the concession, Idris entered into a joint venture agreement with Aokam Perdana Bhd in 1992 and there have been recent reports that these concessions will be transferred to Aokam as part of a rescue package for the latter company.235 In January 1997, 50% of the logs from the Sagisan concession were sold to Aokam and the remainder exported.236

Idris Hydraulic is managed by Ishak Ismail, who has been secretary for UMNO's Permatang Pauh division, under Anwar Ibrahim, deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister. Ismail was also a director of KUB, an UMNO members' co-operative set up as an avenue for party members to pool their resources for investment purposes.237 KUB controlled Idris Hydraulic at one stage.238 Idris' Chairman, Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen, is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs239 and former Defence Minister.

In December 1993, the company announced, after months of speculation in the financial world, that it was taking over a Myanmar plywood mill and forest concession of 3.4 million ha, in a joint venture with state-owned Myanmar Timber Enterprise. The mill was located in Monywa, in the Sagaing forest division. Forest studies by the Myanmar authorities indicated that the Sagaing concession had a good concentration of trees similar to meranti and had teak. 240 It was believed that Aokam Perdana would enter the deal on a 50:50 split with Idris. The deal appeared to be put on hold in 1994, as a result of a shake-up in the Myanmar Timber Authority.241 The deal was reportedly progressing once more in January, 1995.242

In January, 1996, the company was reported to be considering timber concessions totalling 1.25 million ha in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon.243 In June 1996, it was announced that Idris purchased a 51% stake in Societe Forestiere de Tchibanga for US$19.12 million. The Gabonese company has two forest concessions in Gabon, totalling 246,500 ha. The company's chairman, Rithauddeen, was quoted as saying that the group expected to produce about 6 million cu m over 20 years.244 Recent information puts Idris' holding in Societe Forestiere de Tchibanga at 48%.245 There is uncertainty surrounding the company's interest in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Anscan International Ltd, a subsidiary of Idris, has signed two concession agreements with the government of Laos. Pursuant to these concession agreements, it was reported that Anscan was to develop a 468MW hydroelectric power plant, Xekaman 1, and a 500 kv transmission line, in the southern Attapeu province. Power generated would be sold to Thailand.246 The construction of the dam would flood 15,800 ha of relatively pristine forests, including the north-west boundary of the Dong Ampham protected area and also penetrates into it.247 The Xekeman river feeds into the Se Kong river, which is a major tributary of the Mekong. The dam is expected to have severe ecological impacts on these three rivers' fisheries. Among the social impacts, the dam necessitates the relocation of more than 1,100 ethnic minority people. According to an Asian Development Bank report, people of the Kaseng ethnic group claim to have been moved out during surveying of the site in 1994, long before any need for clearance. "If this is confirmed it seems probable that the absence of indigenous people in the area will be used to press for support for future development at the site, under the spurious grounds that there is no resettlement problem."248. It is unclear whether the company is still committed to this project or not.


INNOVEST BHD

Innovest is a real estate company which has ventured into logging in the last two years, with the acquisition of substantial forest concessions in Africa. The company has recently proposed a name change to Inter-Pacific Ventures Bhd, for which approval has been given, but the change has not yet been effected.249

In 1996, it was announced that Innovest had acquired a 95% share in a joint venture with a local government in Congo (Brazzaville) to exploit forest concessions covering 336,000 ha under a 25-year agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the company is allowed to export logs in the first two years, after which it is expected to build a plywood mill and sawmill.250 A subsidiary has been established to operate the concession: Innovest Industries Congo S.A., 92% owned by Innovest Bhd, 5% by the state government of Mossendjo and 3% by an overseas investment holding company.251

Logging was due to start in September 1997, with Malaysian staff being sent to start work in July and August 1997. The total number of staff was 189 in August 1997, expecting to rise to 290 by the end of 1997 and to 500 by the middle of 1998, according to the executive director, Tan Sri Mohd Shariff Ahmad. He said that the company would also recruit some Congolese staff, but did not say how many. He said production was expected to reach 100,000 cu m by the end of 1997, rising to 500,000 cu m by end of 1998. By the middle of 1998, all logs would be processed to sawn timber and exported to the US, Europe and Asia.252

In November 1997, the company announced that it also proposed acquiring Tremendous Portfolio Sdn Bhd, which owns a substantial timber concession of 1.14 million ha in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Innovest proposed acquiring the company (which had an indicative price of not less than RM75 million (US$18.75 million)) through a combination of equity and cash.253 In December 1997, Innovest announced that it was buying two timber concessions totalling 707,000 ha in the Democratic Republic of Congo for US$3.5 million. It is not known if the two deals are related nor if they were concluded or not. Through the latter deal the company would gain the right to harvest timber in the concession for the next 25 years, with an option to extend for another 25 years. Innovest Executive Director Datin Loo Chooi Ting stated that 50% of the purchase price would be payable to La Societa Cofoa SARL on the transfer of the concessions to Innovest and the balance when logging began. Under the sale agreement, the company would transfer to Innovest all the concession rights for the commercial operation, management and extraction of all species of timber and other downstream activities.254

The larger concession, covering 500,000 ha, is located in the central Democratic Republic of Congo region of Lusambo in Kasai province, the smaller 207,000 ha concession is in the Western region of Idiofa in Bandunu province. Loo said logging was expected to start in 1998. The initial extraction rate would be 350,000 cu m per year and the timber would be exported to USA, Europe and Japan. It was also reported that the company intended to expand into downstream activities and would build a 300 km tolled highway between Kinshasa and Matudi for "not less than $40million". It was reported that the company would collect tolls for 30 years, with the contract renewable for another 30 years.255

Innovest has downstream processing capacity in Malaysia through its subsidiary, IB Timber Industries Sdn Bhd (formerly Wemberly Holdings Sdn Bhd). It also owns Innovest International Ltd, which is a timber-related business registered in the British Virgin Islands.256


KUMPULAN EMAS BHD

Kumpulan Emas Bhd's principal business prior to 1993 was engineering, plantation and oil palm consultancy and advisory services. In October 1993, the company acquired four Solomon Island forestry concessions via a British Virgin Island registered company (renamed Emas Pacific after the purchase). The four concessions are: Integrated Forest Industries Ltd. (holding a 158,174 ha concession in Makira Island), Rural Industries Ltd. (holding a 63,670 ha concession in Makira Island), Isabel Timber Co. Ltd. (holding a 234,000 ha concession in Santa Isabel Island) and Silvania Products Ltd. (holding a 10,299 ha concession in Vagunu island). Kumpulan Emas paid RM335 million (US$134 million) to buy the four companies. Rural Industries is dormant and Integrated Forest Industries ceased operating in 1996.257

At the time of the purchase, much was made about the potential of the concessions to contribute to group profits, despite Kumpulan Emas' lack of experience in the forestry sector: "Even companies with no experience in the timber industry have leapt onto the South Pacific logging bandwagon. Malaysia's Kumpulan Emas Bhd... has transformed itself within two years from an engineering group into a ruler of the rain forest".258

The prospective "injection of potentially lucrative timber assets into Kumpulan Emas will lift it from the doldrums and vastly enhance its earning profile".259 These predictions have proved correct and, according to company annual reports, the forestry operations in the Solomon Islands have been the primary source of profits for the group, including a profit guarantee.260 However, in the Solomon Islands, the company's operations are surrounded by controversy, becoming known for the environmental and social problems they have caused.

Between 1993 and 1995, Silvania Products Ltd (the most active of the concessionaires) had its operations suspended by the government on four separate occasions.261 Several site reports have highlighted the severity of problems associated with Silvania's and Isabel Timber Company's operations:

In February 1994, government representatives visited a Silvania site and found extensive damage to tambu sites (protected sites of spiritual and cultural significance). These sites had been clearly marked by the company, as required by the Standard Logging Agreement and provincial ordinance, and therefore were easily identifiable to workers. However, as the report states, "it appears that the damage caused by the logging operation is the result of a lack of understanding of what the tambu site markers represent or else there is total disregard for these sites by those involved in the logging process".262 The report made several recommendations, including better communication between Company management and other employees.263

In March 1994, a visit by representatives of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Conservation, accompanied by Silvania staff, took place to Silvania operations where road-building and tree-felling operations were taking place. Again, significant criticisms of the operation were noted. The visitors were "appalled at the level of environmental disturbance taking place due to inexperienced and unplanned logging operations" and 11 contraventions of the Standard Logging Agreement were observed. The report states: "The poor state of Silvania's logging operations was attributed to a recent change of ownership resulting in inexperienced and unprofessional staff conducting an environmentally destructive operation" and recommended the immediate cessation of tree felling and new road building. The report stated that all staff needed training and roads should be upgraded, provided with drains and gravelled. "In summary, the environmental impacts of Silvania's logging operation on Vangunu are among the most serious observed to date in Western Province....An immediate consequence of the logging operation is deposit of silt in Marovo Lagoon from rivers flowing down from the eastern slopes of Vangunu Island. "264

On 11 August 1994, Silvania Products Ltd. received a letter from the country's Commissioner of Forests temporarily suspending its logging operations.265 According to an Australian press report, Silvania Products was alleged to be resorting to "illegal and highly damaging practices" in carrying out its logging activities. The company was reported to have exceeded the export quota, failed to protect waterways and coral reefs from soil erosion and failed to build a local sawmill. Solomon Islands' Forest, Environment and Conservation Minister, Joses Tuhanuku said that this was not the first time that Silvania's licence was revoked, its licence having been revoked twice by the previous Minister.266

In November 1995, Silvania's logging operations were suspended again by the Commissioner of Forests, along with those of Isabel Timber Company, for failing to construct adequate roads prior to felling operations.267

An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment carried out on behalf of local landholders in April 1997 detailed the severity of impacts of Isabel Timber Company's logging operations on a number of plots on Isabel Island. The report detailed numerous contraventions of both the Standard Logging Agreement (the official agreement setting out operating requirements) and the Code of Logging Practice (introduced by the government in 1996, with the assistance of the Solomon Islands Forest Industries Association). The report concludes: "The description in this assessment of a litany of poor forest management practices points to little prospect for commercially viable stands of timber trees being available for harvest on realistic scales within time frames relevant to human development regimes. The post harvest forest condition is such that long term degradation of flora, fauna and substrate have occurred and will continue to occur both within the logged-over forest areas and adjacent affected sites e.g. rivers, estuarine and marine areas including fringing reefs."268

In addition to severe ecological damage, social impacts have been caused by Isabel Timber Company's operations. The difficulties in identifying all relevant landholders to take part in negotiations caused division amongst communities and there were allegations that landholders were tricked into signing documents they did not understand. Verbal commitments by the company to provide clinics and schools were not fulfilled. There was also distress at the level of water resource degradation caused by the logging activities.269

Isabel Timber Company is 30% owned by a customary landowners' trust, making it the only subsidiary not 100% owned by Kumpulan Emas. In theory, this should ensure that, as a shareholder, the trust is paid a proportion of the profits from logging equivalent to 30% of the dividend declared by the Solomon Island company. No dividends were paid to the trust until 1996, after protest from the community.270


LAND AND GENERAL BHD

In the early 1990s, under the chairmanship of Wan Azmi Wan Hamzah, this timber company, formerly known as General Lumber Bhd, began a rapid and successful strategy of diversification into areas such as property development, shipping and financial services. However, the company still holds a number of forestry related interests, and reportedly expanded to overseas operations in recognition of west Malaysia's limited forest resources.271

Wan Azmi is reportedly a close associate of Daim Zainuddin272 (economic advisor to the government, former Finance Minister and treasurer of UMNO), and has been linked to Aokam Perdana Bhd through the joint ownership of other companies.273 Lim Thian Kiat, a director of Land and General,274 is also understood to be one of a set of new Chinese capitalists said to be closely associated with leading Malay politicians.275

Irian Jaya/West Papua

By acquiring the British Virgin Island-registered investment holdings company Kinley Trading Ltd in 1995, Land and General gained control of an Indonesian timber complex and a log supply contract through Kinley's subsidiary, PT Wapoga Mutiara Industries. The complex has downstream timber processing and is in import and export trading. The log supply agreement amounts to 800,000 ha of forest at the Gulf of Candrawasih, Manokwari and Jayapura in Irian Jaya/West Papua. Part of the agreement included a profit guarantee for the first three years of US$13.5 million per year. The concessions are for a period of 20 years. 276

Cameroon

Conflicting reports have appeared concerning Land and General's investment holding company Overseas & General Ltd (OGL), and its proposed deals in Cameroon. The Star newspaper of Malaysia reported in July 1997 that OGL had acquired a 55% stake in Cameroon's Societe Forestiere et Agricole des Ruraux Africains SA.277 Financial analysts, GOH, reported in August 1997 that OGL had recently acquired rights to a 206,120 ha concession at minimal cost and would be setting up a 100,000 cu m capacity mill in Cameroon.278 It is not clear if these deals went ahead. According to the KLSE, in August 1998, the group owns 52.3% of Overseas and General SARL, which is registered in Cameroon, but this company's interests are listed as being "management and marketing".279

Papua New Guinea

In 1991, Land and General acquired the forestry operation Cakara Alam in West New Britain, Papua New Guinea. It has access to 193,281 ha of timber permits.280 The company's operations saw a pre-tax profit of RM1 million (US$400,000) for the first half of 1997.281 Cakara Alam has been dogged by controversy and is associated with poor environmental and social practices.

A report written by a former forester with Cakara Alam identified a number of breaches of the management plan for operations in the West Arawe timber area.282 Breaches included undersized trees being marked for felling; roads constructed along the top of ridges resulting in soil erosion; failure to carry out post-logging site rehabilitation; logging on slopes above 30 degrees; snigging and hauling across rivers and creeks; failure to demarcate or establish buffer zones. "In rivers, silts and debris resulting from timber exploitation is evidenced on stones and river banks in all major rivers and streams".283

In February 1995, angry landholders closed off a logging area in protest at a breach of contract by Cakara Alam to build infrastructure, including an airstrip and wharf, in the West Arawe timber area, five years after logging started.284

Land and General has recently acquired a majority stake in the Fenning's Timber group, which specialises in sawmilling and kiln drying, with operations in Fiji and Australia.285


LIEN HOE CORPORATION BHD

Lien Hoe started out as a building and construction materials manufacturer in 1969 but enjoyed only modest success. In early 1994, the company started to diversify via the acquisition of North Sumatera Timber Sdn Bhd, a small timber moulding plant complete with long-term log supply contracts covering 180,000 ha of forest in North Sumatra, Indonesia.286 Lien Hoe also owns 70% of Indonesian company PT Budi Tri Sakti, which manufactures timber mouldings.287

In 1997, it was reported that Lien Hoe owned 51% of Carlton Resources, a logging company with a 25 year logging concession covering 152,000 ha in Liberia. The company made the deal in 1995, paying US$2.50 per ha, but production was disrupted due to political unrest in the country. Logging resumed in November 1996 and the company was forecasting that profits would start coming in by March 1997.288


LONG HUAT GROUP BHD

Long Huat Group Bhd has recently been trying to expand its core business of manufacturing timber products to include logging, housing and shoe manufacturing. After recent restructuring of the Long Huat Group, the single largest shareholder is Damansara Realty Bhd.289 In early 1996, it was due to start operations on its 4,860 ha concession in Sabah, providing the group with 200,000 cu m of timber over the coming three years. Although the concession was for five years, the chairman Datuk Lew Sip Hon, said that logging would be completed in three or four years' time.290

In addition to the Sabah concession, Long Huat announced in 1997 that it was in the process of acquiring a logging concession in Papua New Guinea through the purchase of Landwell Resources Pte Ltd.291 Long Huat Group Bhd proposed to buy Unicorn Timber Industries Berhad (UTIB) and a 41% equity interest in Landwell (a 51% owned subsidiary of UTIB) as well as a 30% equity interest in C-Dragon (70% owned subsidiary of UTIB). Landwell was incorporated in Papua New Guinea in 1989, and its principal business is logging and sawmilling. C-Dragon was incorporated in Malaysia in 1993, and is a timber processing company. The major shareholders of UTIB, Landwell and C-Dragon were to enter into a profit guarantee agreement with Long Huat, providing a profit guarantee in each of the 3 financial years 31/8/99-2001. The application for this scheme was to be submitted to the Securities Commission at the end of December 1997.292 Business Times of Malaysia commented on December 31st 1997 that the company was looking at ways to finance the acquisition of Landwell with its merchant bankers. The company was said to be looking at the pricing of the new issue and the rights issue proposed earlier. According to the Managing Director, Wong Chong Leong, the company still hoped to proceed with its plans, despite the current constraint on credit facilities, as it is an export-based company.293 It is not clear whether this deal is still pending or has been aborted.


RIMBUNAN HIJAU GROUP

Datuk Tiong Hiew KingRimbunan Hijau (RH) is headed by Datuk Tiong Hiew King (left), one of Asia's largest timber tycoons.294 Forbes Magazine estimated the Tiong family worth to be US$2.5 billion.295 The group controls both listed and unlisted companies. In order to gain access to the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, Rimbunan Hijau undertook a reverse take-over of Berjaya Textile Bhd in November 1994, renaming the company Jaya Tiasa Holdings Bhd. The Tiong family retains control of approximately 30% of Jaya Tiasa.296 The other listed vehicle is Subur Tiasa Holdings Bhd.

The group has a number of high level political connections: Mohamad Arip bin Mahmud, the brother of Sarawak's Chief Minister (who controls the allocation of logging concessions), was appointed as a director of Jaya Tiasa on 13/4/95;297 a sister of the Chief Minister is also one of Tiong's business partners.298 Other directors of Jaya Tiasa include Tiong Thai King (Tiong's brother), who is a member of the Malaysian Parliament,299 and Abu Talib bin Othman, former Attorney General.

Tiong is said to control an estimated 800,000 ha of logging concessions in Sarawak and his family dominates the logging industry in Papua New Guinea.300 The company has also acquired forestry operations in Brazil; Cameroon; Equatorial Guinea; Gabon; Vanuatu, New Zealand and the Russian Far East. Other subsidiary company operations include a US$58.5 million soft-wood plantation development in New Zealand, a sawmill in Shanghai, a cattle ranch in Australia, property in Singapore, as well as interests in banking, newspapers and oil-palm plantations. Rimbunan Hijau also owns a 40% share in Limbang Trading Sdn Bhd, which has a 310,000 ha concession in Sarawak until 2009 (55% of Limbang is owned by Sarawak's Minister for Environment and Public Health, James Wong Kim Min).301 Recent rumours suggest that Rimbunan Hijau owns, or is in the process of acquiring, Primegroup Holdings, a company registered in British Virgin Islands with logging concessions in Guyana and Papua New Guinea.

Sarawak

Rimbunan Hijau's operations in Sarawak have brought the company into direct conflict with indigenous people over land rights issues. For example, in 1987, Kayan villagers in Uma Bawang erected a blockade in protest at the activities of Marabong Lumber Sdn Bhd, one of the Tiong family concerns, which was polluting the waterways and threatening their livelihoods. 42 farmers were arrested, but later released after prosecutors dropped all charges against them;302 In 1993, complaints were made to Sarawak officials regarding damage to fruit trees and farm lands caused by Rimbunan Hijau Sdn Bhd.303

Papua New Guinea

Rimbunan Hijau has become the largest timber operator in Papua New Guinea and, through a complex and opaque network of companies, is estimated to control between 50 and 80% of Papua New Guinea's timber production,304 with concessions estimated at nearly 2 million ha.305 In 1992, the annual turnover of Rimbunan Hijau companies in Papua New Guinea was estimated at K700 million (US$722 million) out of the country's K800 million timber industry.306 Rimbunan Hijau set up a newspaper to strengthen its position in the country, providing itself and the industry with favourable media coverage.307

Many claims of environmental degradation have been levelled against Rimbunan Hijau and its subsidiary companies in PNG. For example:

§ After a site visit to RH subsidiary Niugini Lumber's operation in LAK TRP, Dr Franz Arentz, a forestry specialist, remarked that this was the worst example of tropical forest logging he had seen anywhere in the world;308

§ An official report documented that staff operating in some sites were not aware of the company's commitments in its own Environmental Plan nor that they had a copy of the Plan available on site. The report by the Department of Environment and Conservation recommended that subsidiary, Nuigini Lumber, be prosecuted for breaches of its environmental plan.309 Virtual clearfelling of some sites on steep slopes over 25 degrees led to sheet soil erosion and there were also cases of fuel-oil widely contaminating logging camp sites and washing into nearby marine environments;310

§ Complaints have also been made about employee welfare. In a report from a follow-up sanitary health inspection of camps 1 and 2 in their Aria Vanu operation, the health inspector stated that RH had "totally neglected the recommendations specified in the [previous] inspection report of 8/12/93". The letter covered recommendations concerning sanitory facilities, water supply, overcrowded and poor housing, a lack of safety equipment and a number of other matters.311

Allegations of illegal activities against RH include:

§ RH subsidiary Pacific Logging's illegal logging within the no-logging zone around Port Moresby;312

§ Pacific Logging's operation in Vanapa was found to meet only 3 of the 26 conditions of its own environmental plan, a plan that itself had not met any of the preliminary conditions of PNG government approval in the first place;313

§ RH subsidiary New Guinea Lumber excavated live reef for use as road and log pond surfacing. The same company was fined US$30,000 for harvesting in a concession for 18 months without being registered. It was estimated that the company had exported US$48 million worth of logs;314

§ In March 1997, the Governor of Milne Bay (and former Forest Minister), Tim Neville, confirmed that Saban, a contractor of Rimbunan Hijau, was caught exporting rosewood logs, which are a prohibited export in log-form in Papua New Guinea.315

In March 1994, Forest Minister Tim Neville and a film crew from the Australian documentary programme 'Four Corners' who were making a documentary on Rimbunan Hijau caught the company 'red handed' with piles of undersized log on the dock awaiting export.316

As illustrated in the political section (see above), the timber industry has had, and continues to have, great influence on the political processes in the country, including the development of forest legislation. It has been alleged that RH has chartered planes, paid hotel bills and arranged for selected landowners to lobby against the First Forestry Act in East New Britain.317 The company has publicly lobbied against the raising of taxes, stating that companies would have to look to Africa and Latin America if higher operating costs were incurred in PNG.318

At the beginning of 1997, Francis Tiong, head of the Rimbunan Hijau operations in Papua New Guinea, was appointed to the board of the National Forest Authority, the agency charged with monitoring forest management in the country, due to its position as president of the Forest Industries Association. Due to the clear conflict of interests of Mr Tiong, the Papua New Guinea Forest Owners Association threatened to stop all logging operations in the country if landowners were not represented on the National Forest Authority Board.319

In June 1998, Rimbunan Hijau was reported to be shipping K6 million (US$2.4 million) of equipment to Russia, due to poor market conditions and lack of government support (see below).320

Cameroon

In Cameroon, Rimbunan Hijau's subsidiary, Shimmer International, is the contractor for the MPL (since 1995) and CAFECO (since 1996) concessions, of 114,650 ha and 26,200 ha respectively. Both concessions are part of the Korup Project area, which is intended to conserve the Korup National Park. All of the timber was reported to be exported as logs to Asian and European markets.321 MPL is currently not operational. Rimbunan Hijau has other interests in Cameroon, and Shimmer itself is divided into many subsidiaries within the country, a structure which "is by its nature susceptible to evade the Cameroonian law which limits the concession size to 200,000 ha by company".322

The suitability of these two areas for timber exploitation was called into question by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the concessions undertaken in February 1997, which states that these two concession areas "cannot be considered appropriate for timber exploitation". The report found that "the actual timber exploitation is not sustainable at all" in these two concessions, and that the concessionaires had no management plan in place.323 A number of environmental impacts were identified in the report, including:

§ construction of roads on steep slopes, resulting in considerable erosion; high density of large roads and skidding trails leading to opening of the forest canopy;

§ road construction of a poor quality thus liable to require major reconstruction at a later stage;324

§ poor felling techniques; enormous waste of valuable timber;

§ a lack of limitations on timber harvesting, either in terms of number of trees or volume of cu m to be extracted per ha.325

Neighbouring trees were felled and the canopy was opened up or even completely destroyed over large areas326 leading to soil erosion, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall.327

Although the two concessions provided unskilled jobs for locals, who were initially happy to have roads, there are negative social impacts associated with the logging. The MPL and CAFECO forest concessions are inhabited by 7-10,000 local people belonging to four tribes, and nearly all villages have a mixed subsistence and cash economy, with hunting being part of the regular routine. Fishing is also an important part of life, mainly for the women, and impacts on streams through erosion threaten this traditional food source. Forests and fallows are needed by all villagers to provide subsistence and income, a source of potential conflict with logging operations. Non timber forest products were reported to be under threat, and highly economic trees used by the villagers were disappearing. Safety measures for workers were deemed inadequate by the survey team.328 The team also anticipated social unrest as infrastructure development was seen to be unsatisfactory or inadequate to the local people's needs.329

Equatorial Guinea

Shimmer is also operating in Equatorial Guinea. In 1996, it produced 115,000 cu m of logs out of a total for the country of 471,000 cu m and forecasts for 1997 were that it could produce 400,000 cu m.330

Gabon

Rimbunan Hijau are reported to be operating in Gabon.331

Vanuatu

Santo Veneers and Timbers Limited and Pacific Veneers were acquired by Rimbunan Hijau in 1994. Santo Veneers is the main operator in the country, logging on Santo Island. Vanuatu has a log export ban and Santo Veneers has invested in a massive sawmill in Luganville. The sawmill has a processing capacity of 50,000 cu m per year.332

The Santo Veneers operation has been a source of conflict with local landholders since it started operating. In 1995, locals burned a Santo Veneers bulldozer in protest at the company logging in an area for which they had no contract. The supreme court acquitted the local family concerned "after hearing evidence that Santo Veneers and Timbers Limited were logging in an area where they had no contract and continued to log the area even after the burning of their bulldozer and a court injunction not to log there".333

Recent unconfirmed reports indicate that the company's activities on the island of Santo remain controversial:

§ An official inspection visit on one occasion in 1997 identified trees which had been cut illegally;

§ the company is believed to be entering into contracts after having identified only a few of the legitimate landholders, rather than all of them as required by law;

§ there are also believed to be other contractual irregularities and reports of logging in protected areas.

Brazil

According to the 1998 report of the Brazilian congressional hearing on the activities of TNCs in the Amazon, Jaya Tiasa Holdings Bhd created a Brazilian subsidiary Verde Vivo Ltda, a holding company under the presidentship of George Fan Yin Yon, which in turn set up Verde Compensados S.A. to handle its timber operations. Verde Vivo Ltda is also interested in establishing oil palm ventures in Brazil. Verde Compensados S.A. took control of two Brazilian companies, Maginco Compensados S.A. and Selvaplac Industria Madeira do Para Ltda, and created 2 further enterprises, in partnership with Brazilian interests, Maginco Verde S.A.(constituted on the 1st April 1997) and Selvaplac Verde S.A (constituted on the 4th April 1997). The total area under the control of the group is 53,997 ha, situated in the state of Para. The Brazilian companies acquired by the group all had records of infractions, suspensions of operations or land tenure conflicts.334

Russian Far East

Rimbunan Hijau have been awarded a 48 year lease agreement in the Russian Far East for harvesting over a 305,000 ha area. The annual allowable cut is 550,000 cu m. The company has said it will invest in downstream processing facilities in the region but the initial focus will be on the export of logs. The concession is located in the Sukpai watershed in the northern part of the Sikhote-Alin mountain range in the Khabarovsk region. This project is expected to be controversial because the forests are habitat for the Siberian tiger and are part of a "Territory for Traditional Natural Resource Use" for local indigenous peoples.335 In June 1998, the Rimbunan Hijau owned 'National' newspaper in Papua New Guinea reported that the company was sending some K6 million (US$2.4 million) worth of plant and equipment to Russia, including construction, road building and logging equipment, because of the low log prices on the regional log market for tropical hardwood and lack of Papua New Guinea Government support for the industry.336


SAMLING GROUP

The Sarawak-based Samling Group of companies was founded by Datuk Yaw Teck Seng in the early 1960s. Operating from the town of Miri, the group started with three concessions from which it expanded to the point where it controls 1.5 million ha of forest concessions in Sarawak, another 1.69 million ha in Guyana and almost 800,000 ha in Cambodia. In November 1993, the group succeeded in taking control of Lingui Developments Bhd, which became its main listed vehicle. Some securities analysts view the Samling Group as the country's largest and most aggressive fully integrated timber group. The group's other overseas business stretches to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the US and Canada.337 The Samling group of companies are still controlled by Datuk Yaw Teck Seng and Yaw Chee Ming, father and son (left) respectively.338

Sarawak, Malaysia

Samling's logging operations in Sarawak have been highlighted by forest peoples' communities as having been destructive and disrespectful of their livelihoods in many instances. The most recent occasion was in March 1997, when about 70 Penan, a nomadic hunting and gathering people whose traditional livelihoods almost totally depend on forest products, went to the Samling Plywood (Baramas) Sdn Bhd and Samling Timber Sdn Bhd companies to protest about the destruction of their forests and to hand over a letter petitioning the companies to cease operations on their ancestral land. Instead of meeting with company representatives, the Penan were met by a group of the Police Field Force, armed with machine guns, tear gas and knives, who verbally abused the Penan and then assaulted and beat them with machine gun butts, boots and knives. Four of the Penan were then arrested by the police for allegedly damaging company machinery. The four were seriously ill-treated in jail and then charged on a technicality of 'illegal assembly' before being released to await trial. The case is still pending.

Guyana

In a joint venture with the Korean Sung Kyong group, Samling Strategic Corporation Sdn Bhd set up a locally-incorporated consortium, the Barama Company Ltd (BCL), in Guyana. Samling controls 80% of the company. In October 1991, Barama was granted a 1.69 million ha forest concession in the North-West of Guyana that by itself is larger than all the indigenous peoples' titled land in the country.339

The agreement between Barama and the Guyanese government grants the company a 25 year licence (automatically extendible for another 25 years) to log the concession for export of raw logs, sawn lumber, veneer and processed plywood. The company enjoys a ten-year exemption from income tax, corporation tax, withholding tax, consumption tax, property tax, most import duties and timber export taxes. The royalties have been fixed in Guyanese dollars over the first 20-year period with no provision for adjustment as inflation devalues the currency.340 Estimates based on data provided by the company itself and the Guyana Forestry Commission show that Barama pays the equivalent of less than 1% of the value of the goods exported in taxes,341 resulting in very little gain for the country.

Barama is alleged to have set up an extensive patronage network in Guyana. The late President Jagan's Asian fund-raising tour in 1993 was financed by the company; Barama also paid for fencing the President's residence in the capital Georgetown; it took on the ex-head of Guyana's Natural Resources Agency as a consultant. He had previously negotiated the original Timber Sales Agreement with Barama on behalf of the government, .342

An environmental assessment of the concession by the Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests (ECTF), contracted as a consultant by the company, concluded that 'timber harvesting may not be biologically sustainable at planned extraction levels'343 and that this was a major risk that "could potentially jeopardise the objective of the entire BCL programme".344

Although it is recognised that Barama addressed environmental problems through the ECTF study, complaints have been filed stating that pollution of river downstream of one of Barama's log ponds is responsible for health problems among local residents.345

Those who are set to suffer most as a result of the Barama concession are the indigenous forest people. The concession overlaps the lands of an estimated 1,200 Amerindians, including four communities with titles and land proposed as a reserve for the Carib people by the Lands Commission in 1969. The concession also encloses a large number of Amerindian homesteads without land titles, scattered along the main rivers. ECTF, which visited the area in 1993, reported some potentially serious negative impacts of BCL's operations, including the reduction or elimination of traditional food, shelter and other forest resources of local communities; increased hunting; wildlife trade; illegal timber felling; social conflicts over jobs; split communities; culture shock for remote communities; pollution from chemical spills; and introduced diseases.346

The Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) has strongly criticised the way in which the concession was awarded: no consultation with the indigenous communities and no respect for the Amerindians' land rights. Since 1993, the organisation repeatedly called on the Minister for Amerindian Affairs to review the contract and subsequently called for an international boycott of Guyanese timber. At that point, the Minister promised to institute a Commission of Enquiry to review the Amerindians' claim and the Barama contract, but up to now the promise has not been honoured. Meanwhile, Amerindians near the logging camps have also complained to the Ministry about illnesses caused by the pollution of their waters, forced resettlement, the bulldozing of crops, low wages, delayed payments and lack of injury benefits.347

In November 1994, a field survey conducted by the World Rainforest Movement in co-operation with the APA in the concession area, revealed that dozens of communities of Amerindians, both Caribs and others of mixed descent, living in scattered groups throughout the concession, were hearing for the first time about the Barama contract. They were obviously upset and unhappy to learn that they now lived within a logging concession belonging to a foreign company. Most of them did not have land titles despite having claimed land ownership over the land they inhabited for generations. A small Amerindian community of Oronoque, which established a co-operative and planted fruit trees on a 40 ha piece of land allocated to them in 1966, was relocated in 1991 to make way for Barama's log pond and office complex. Those affected claim that they have not yet received compensation for the fruit trees and the land promised to them. They now live in tiny lots of untitled land in poorly constructed wooden houses mostly without water pipes. They also allege that their graveyard was desecrated, some of the graveyard bodies were accidentally bulldozed up by a BCL worker and clumsily reburied in a single grave.348

In December 1994, the APA called on the Government to establish a small Amerindian Land Commission to survey the Barama concession more completely, to assess the Amerindian land claims and to legalise their land ownership and to require the logging operations to stop activities in the vicinity of the communities.

In June 1997, the Carib people of Port Kaituma lodged a petition against the exploitation of their people by Barama to the country's president.

Cambodia

In August 1994, SL International Ltd, a Samling Group company, signed an agreement with the Cambodian Government giving the company two timber concessions totalling 787,000 ha to log and manufacture downstream wood products such as plywood. One of the concessions, covering 464,000 ha, is located in Kratie, Mondul Kiri and Kompong Cham Provinces, while the other, of 323,000 ha, is in Koh Kong and Kompong Speu Provinces. Construction of Samling's huge sawmill (the site covers about 2 square km), located close to Highway 1 to Vietnam, 12km from the Neak Loeung ferry crossing, started in early 1995 and is now operational.349 Samling have also recently acquired the former 54,784 ha concession area of the Cambodia Timber Company in Kampot. This concession area is close to Bokor National Park, with the possibility that 15,000 ha overlaps the park boundaries.350

As with the allocation of other concessions in the country, there was controversy surrounding the awarding of the Samling concessions. The terms of the contract are extremely favourable, granting the company an eight year tax holiday and a 60 year concession. Furthermore, charges payable to Cambodia by the company do not reflect the true value of the timber and no effective reforestation strategy is included. A draft management plan was submitted to the Forestry Department but was not approved because, among other things, it did not satisfy sustainability requirements of the 1988 Forest Management Law.351

After completing the access road for logging in one of their concessions, Samling refused to allow locals to travel along it, destroying one of the central positive claims put forward on behalf of Samling's operation, namely, that the road would open up the province to the local populace, and bring development. Locals have only been able to use the road following pressure from the Provincial Governor. Locals are also prevented from collecting timber, both for firewood and for building. Promised levels of employment have not been realised, with many Vietnamese being hired in place of Khmers.352

The pressure group Global Witness have received reports that Samling were buying illegal timber (nearly exclusively deluxe quality) from army units in Military Region No.2, and from local people, much of it cut in the Snoul Wildlife Sanctuary. In addition, Samling were alleged at one stage to be paying the Khmer Rouge US$350 per truck per month in order to remove logs from the concession.353

Minister of Agriculture Tao Seng Huor wrote to Mr Han Chen Kong, the Director of SL (Samling) International in April 1997354 stating that Samling were guilty of:

§ Starting to cut before receiving a permit.

§ Cutting in areas not permitted by Forestry Department officials.

§ Cutting undersized logs.

§ Continuing exploitation despite the logging ban which came into effect on 31st December 1996.

Brazil

There are a number of unconfirmed reports of negotiations between Samling and forestry ventures in Brazil. These include a possible joint venture with the Chinese company Tianjin Fortune Timber and the government of China (16,850 ha), the acquisition from North American interests of AMACOL, covering ownership of 76,844 ha and access to a further 400,000 ha belonging to third parties (negotiations suspended or not concluded). There are also unconfirmed reports that the company was trying to buy 500,000 ha of land.355 (Brazilian congressional report, 1997).

New Zealand

Samling-controlled Glenealy Plantations (Malaya) Berhad owns 100 % of the following companies: Hikurangi Forest Farms Limited, Tasman Foresrty (Gisborne) Limited and TreeOne (NZ) Limited.356


TIMBERMASTER INDUSTRIES BHD

The principal activities of TimberMaster are provision of management services and investment holding. It is involved in manufacturing, trading and exporting doors, frames and timber-related products. In 1995, it diversified into manufacturing plywood, veneer, sawn timber and acquired a timber concession of 12,100 ha.357 TimberMaster's Keningau (Sabah) complex has a production capacity of 12,000 cu m per month, but in early 1997 was running at only 10,000 cu m per month. TimberMaster was reported to be expanding into African countries due to restricted availability of logs in Malaysia and Asia Pacific as a result of tightening government controls.358

In 1996, TimberMaster's British Virgin Islands subsidiary, TimberMaster Group International Ltd, signed a joint venture agreement with the Madagascar Development Corporation for an 80% stake in a joint venture to secure up to 500,000 ha of forest resources359 through the setting up of a subsidiary, TimberMaster Industries (Madagascar) Limited.360 The Madagascar government are reported to offer numerous incentives to draw foreign investment. The TimberMaster joint venture comes with a 7 year tax free status and the purchase price of RM20 million (US$8 million)was considered low by analysts, who therefore anticipated a good contribution to the company's profits from this deal.361

A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed with the Malawi government for a 60% stake in a joint venture which includes 120,000 ha of pine plantation and plywood and furniture manufacturing facilities.362

In early 1997, the company acquired a 220,000 ha timber concession in Gabon through the purchase of Bois et Scierie du Gabon for US$17.6 million (an estimated RM 50 million i.e. RM40(US$14)/ha) from Dushan Holdings Ltd. This was considered a very good deal for TimberMaster since the assets of machinery etc. were valued at US$11 million. Bois et Scierie du Gabon is involved in forestry exploitation, sawmilling and trading of wood, including log exports. The timber can be harvested over a 17 year period.363

In addition to the above deal, it was reported in April 1997 that TimberMaster was believed to have secured the rights to log a further 1 million ha in Gabon, next to the existing 220,000 ha site, about 150km from Libreville. This new agreement was estimated to provide 300,000 cu m per year and the company secured the rights via arrangements made with over 100 local residents who hold timber concessions, or 'family cut' concessions in the Njolie area. The Star newspaper in Malaysia quoted a source close to the company, who claimed the site comprises virgin forest and can be logged over a five year period. Extraction rates were expected to be 25,000 cu m per month, rising to 50,000 cu m per month in 1998. In April 1997, the company had a staff of 270 in Njolie and 62 units of heavy machinery.364

The 1million ha Gabon deal was expected to contribute around US$9 million (RM22.5 million) net profit. It was reported that a nominal tribute would be paid to the concession holders per cubic metre of timber logged on their land. The company apparently committed to investing US$30 million (RM75 million) to set up an integrated timber complex at Port Gentil, Gabon's second largest port.365

The current status of the various African ventures is unclear, with a recent search showing no African-based subsidiaries listed to TimberMaster and the British Virgin Islands-registered subsidiary, TimberMaster Group International Ltd, being dormant.366 A recent announcement to the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange suggests that a Gabon deal has been aborted.367


WTK GROUP

The WTK Group is the oldest of the big five Sarawak timber giants. It is owned by Datuk Wong Tuong Kwang, the maternal uncle and logging tutor of Datuk Tiong.368 The group is managed by two sons of Wong Tuong Kwong: Wong Kie Yik and former Senator Wong Kie Nai. They are both prominent financiers of James Wong's Sarawak National Party (SNAP), Wong being the Minister of Environment. WTK holds huge logging concessions in Sarawak totalling about 400,000 ha.369

WTK Holdings Bhd, the KLSE-listed wing of the group, requested a 6 month extension from the Securities Commission for the purchase of 11 timber companies at the end of last year but did not indicate why.370 The deal included a pre-tax profit guarantee of RM126.6 million (US$31.6 million) per year for 3 years. The companies concerned, and now listed as subsidiaries of WTK Holdings, were: Cairnfield Sdn Bhd; Gopoint Sdn Bhd; Sarawak Moulding Industries Bhd; Woodbanks Industries (M) Sdn Bhd; Kuching Plywood Bhd; Sanitama Sdn Bhd; Limpah Mewah Sdn Bhd; First Count Sdn Bhd; Song Logging Co. Sdn Bhd; Ninjas Development Sdn Bhd; Sut Sawmill Sdn Bhd. The list includes concession holders in Sarawak and downstream processing and marketing companies371. More recently, on 22/6/98, the Board announced that the High Court of Malaya had granted it a 60 day restraining order to stop creditors and others from taking court action including winding-up proceedings.372

WTK's main activities overseas have been in Papua New Guinea, where WTK Realty has been operating a 287,000 ha concession in Vanimo, Sandaun Province (West Sepik) and elsewhere in the country.

Sarawak, Malaysia

WTK logging operations in Sarawak have encountered resistance by indigenous people since 1986. The Penan of the Magoh-River region were threatened and intimidated when they started refusing small gifts from the company in exchange for permission to log in their area. Penan and Kelabit people were arrested in 1986-87 for blockading logging roads serving WTK logging operations. Local people have also complained that WTK is responsible for the destruction of a number of significant cultural and spiritual sites such as graves and for the decimation of important tree species used for making dart poison and many important fruit trees which form part of the staple diet for the people of the region.373

Papua New Guinea

Local reports in 1995 highlighted severe environmental and social problems caused by WTK's activities. During the same year, the Vanimo Landowners Association urged the Minister of Forests to undertake an urgent review of the Project Agreement signed between the State government and WTK, "before PNG's forests and natural environment is completely destroyed under the dictatorship of the foreign contractor company WTK Realty". The Vanimo Landowners Association highlighted the fact that the company had breached the Project Agreement on several grounds, including forest destruction, soil erosion and water pollution, total disrespect of indigenous people. Even the legality of the deal between WTK and the company which previously owned the concession was questioned. The Landowners' Association called for the termination of the contract as WTK had clearly failed to comply with the Agreement and the conditions in the timber permit.374

In April 1997, WTK was reported to be pressing for a new concession in the Whitemen ranges, an area of high biodiversity priority in West New Britain Province. Andrew Baing, the pro-logging Forest Minister let the Forest Board know that he wanted WTK to get the timber permit in the Asengseng Forest Management Area. Originally, the Government had said that there was to be no logging in that area because of ecological priority and the morphology of the area, which has slopes steeper than 30 degrees. Any logging in that area would breach the Logging Code.375

Brazil

WTK Group has aimed to establish itself in the state of Amazonas through two operations, the acquisition of the company Amaplac, which has downstream processing facilities near Manaus, and through buying a large area of forested land in Carauari municipality of 313,719 ha. In March 1996, both Amaplac and the company WTK Brasil Florestal (established in December 1995) were taken over by Datuk Wong Kie Nai, Wong Kie Chie, Wong Kie Yik and Wong How Yeong.376

In fact the purchase of land by WTK has been the subject of some confusion, with reports stating that the company was buying 1.2 million ha of forested land but discovered that 900,000 ha of that was indigenous land and had to be returned.

According to the Malaysian Ambassador to Brazil, WTK has purchased a sawmill and about 300,000 ha of timber concession in a remote area of Amazonas State. The area was said to be situated between the Jurna and Purus River, not far from the borders with Peru and Bolivia. However, a WTK official refused to confirm the deal and said the company had not yet started any timber activities in Brazil.377

Other companies / interests


ATLANTIC INDUSTRIES LTD

Atlantic Industries has been granted a logging concession covering 80,000 ha in traditional Maya land in Belize. Atlantic is reported to be a subsidiary of a Malaysian company but the actual owners have not been identified. The concession is located in the Columbia River Forest Reserve and was bought for the reported sum of US$1.50 per ha. The concession overlaps the lands of 10 Maya villages, who have strongly protested the hand-out of concessions on their lands and are actively fighting to get the concession withdrawn. However, Atlantic has already built one of Central America's largest sawmills on Maya land—over the protest of the Maya and without the Environmental Impact Assessment required under Belize law.378 The company is also reported to have cut forest outside the concession area and taken out trees during the rainy season, accelerating soil erosion.379


CHEW PIAU / EASTERN ERA

In May 1995, it was reported that Chew Piau signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Eastern Era to work three concession areas totalling 507,300 ha for a period of 90 years in Papua New Guinea. 30% of the area was to be developed into oil palm plantations and the proposed venture included setting up an integrated industrial complex for the down-stream processing of logs from the concession areas. Chew Piau would hold 51% stake in each of the joint venture companies established to operate in the concession areas.380


HASEDAT / ZIMMAL HOLDINGS

ZimMal Holdings is a joint venture between Development Trust of Zimbabwe and a Malaysian company, chaired by Dr Hassan Ali, called Hasedat. Sources told the Zimbabwe Independent that in return for putting up 12,000 houses in the Matabeleland, the Malaysian investors were given logging rights covering 50,000 ha of both Forestry Commission and indigenous communal land under forest. The newspaper also reported that Malaysian businessmen visited the northern part of Matabeleland, which is rich in teak, mukwa and mahogany.381


KTS GROUP

KTS, headed by Datuk Lau Hui Kang,387 has bought the company Carolina Industria and Comercio de Madeiras Tropicais Ltda, based in Itacoatiara, Amazonas state, Brazil, from interests in the Cayman Islands. Carolina has forest management plans covering 15,400 ha, but these are currently suspended for being in the Abufari biological reserve. There are also unconfirmed reports that KTS has bought around 400,000 ha of forest in the Vale do Rio Madeira.388


MAFIRA GROUP

In 1997, Mafira entered into a joint venture with Kwitaro Investments, the first company to have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Guyanese government for an Exploratory Lease to 760,000 ha of forests in Southern Guyana. The deal was signed on 3 April 1997 between the then Guyanese President, Sam Hinds, Kwitaro's Director, Rudy James and Kwitaro's parent company in Guyana (Kurupukari Development Inc.), whose Executive Director is Lockman Sirin. The Exploratory Lease is in Region Nine between the Essequibo, Kuyuwini and Rewa Rivers. Kwitaro will pay US$0.50 per ha annually under the exploratory lease.389

Rudy James, in a letter to the press on 16 April 1997, described his foreign partner, the Mafira Group of Malaysia in the following terms: "We have researched to find a joint venture partner with vast experience in the industry and a good track record. They have earned excellent environmental audit rating." The Guyana Human Rights Association conducted a company search of Mafira and the only details they received indicated that Mafira Techniques Sdn Bhd, managed by Lt. Gen. Dato' Jaffa Mohammed, was established in 1990 and deals in helicopters, warship lifeboats, missile and rocket launchers, revolvers and pistols. In a press release of 17th April, 1997, the Guyana Human Rights Association urged both the Government and Dr. James to provide more specific information of the claimed "excellent environmental audit ratings" of Mafira.390


NILA WOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD / MAVING BROTHERS LTD

Maving Brothers Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nila Wood Industries Sdn Bhd and one of the two main shareholders in the company is also a member of the Board of Directors of New Zealand Wood Products, a company linked through shareholding to IB Holdings Limited, which is owned by Primegroup Holdings.391

Maving Brothers became one of the most controversial companies operating in the Solomon Islands when the Solomon Islands' Government gave it the right to log 895,000 cu m (worth US$130 million) in Pavuvu, the largest island in the Russell group. The island is inhabited by 2,000 local people, who were due to be resettled on another island to make way for logging.392 The islanders refused to move and threatened to burn any logging equipment brought onto the island. Later in the month of April, soldiers with semi-automatic rifles detained 56 islanders, armed with knifes and axes, who tried to stop logging.393 In May, even the Catholic Church publicly condemned the logging of Pavuvu. In July of the same year, the media reported that 12 policemen were deployed to protect the timber workers and to prevent protesters from disturbing the first ship-loading (bound to Japan). On 3rd July, three bulldozers were burnt by angry local people.394

Local reports claim illegal logging on customary land, logging of undersized and protected nut trees, pollution of a freshwater stream and logging close to watercourses.395 On 30 October, Martin Apa, Russell Island's anti-logging leader, was found dead on Yandina wharf. This was viewed by many as a suspiscious death, possibly a murder by pro-logging locals, but no government investigation was carried out.396


PARKLANE

Very little is known about this company apart from its logging interests in Vanuatu, a cluster of 80 islands in the South Pacific. In 1994, Parklane had cut about 8,000 cu m of logs in less than two months of operation on the island of Erromango. On 20 June, 1994, the Vanuatu government announced a ban on round log export in order to safeguard Vanuatu's forest resources. The ban led to Parklane's logs being left on the island. The government intended to introduce legislation that would put a gradual ban on export of undressed, sawn timber and white wood and ask foreign companies to venture into downstream processing.397 On a visit to Malaysia in November 1994, Vanuatu's Prime Minister Maxime Carlot Korman said that the ban would be forever and that the republic's authorities were going to meet soon with five Malaysian companies affected by the ban to re-negotiate their contracts. In May 1995, new deals were made, through which timber cutting quotas were reduced. Parklane's yearly maximum on Erromango was slashed from 78,000 cu m to 30,000 cu m and the company was asked to build sawmills.398 Parklane did not cut logs in 1995 or 1996.


PRIMEGROUP HOLDINGS LTD

Primegroup Holdings Limited is registered in the British Virgin Islands. It acquired several companies from the UK-based Inchcape Plc in 1993, including SK Timber Corporation of Malaysia, BP Batu Ampar Wood Industries of Indonesia, Turama Forest Industries of Papua New Guinea and Forest Management Service of Singapore. The group has so far been operating in Guyana and Papua New Guinea, but it seems to be linked to other large timber companies. Recent rumours suggest that Primegroup is owned by, or is in the process of being taken over by, Rimbunan Hijau.

Guyana

The group incorporated in Guyana as Mazaruni Forest Industries Limited and allegedly gained a Wood Cutting Lease to 600,000 ha on the Middle Mazaruni area in 1994. The same group, calling itself Primegroup, relinquished the Middle Mazaruni area in favour of being allowed to take over Demerara Timbers Ltd (DTL) from United Dutch, with its 800,000 ha concession. The DTL concession overlaps unresolved Amerindian land claims.399

Primegroup, through DTL, is planning to construct a US$20 million plywood plant at Dallawalla, inluding a sawmill capable of producing 2,000 cu m of timber per month and has expressed interest in palm oil cultivation along the lines of its palm oil operations in Malaysia.400

Papua New Guinea

Primegroup is also active in Papua New Guinea . It controls PNG Forest Product South Coast Pty Ltd, which started logging in Morobe South Coast in 1996, and Turama Forest Industries, operating in the Gulf Province since the early 1990s. An official inspection of Turama logging operations in the Gulf Province in May 1991 revealed a number of breaches of the terms of their concession licence, non-compliance with forestry regulations and environmental degradation. Following this inspection, the activities of Turama were suspended by the Department of Forests. Considering the substantial losses declared by the company, suspicions were also raised of downgrading of logs and transfer pricing, whereby profits were transferred to offshore companies to avoid the payment of taxes to the Papua New Guinea government. At the time of these operations, Turama Forest Industries was owned by the UK based Inchcape Plc and was being bought by Primegroup in February 1993. All staff, including the chief executive officer continued with the new owners. Since 1993, Turama / Primegroup operations continue to attract criticism. A permit to log a new large concession area in the Gulf Province was issued to Primegroup without tender in 1995, contravening the Forestry Act. A preliminary report by the Ombudsman Commission is allegedly critical of the allocation process.401


SOLID TIMBER SDN BHD

Solid Timber is a Sarawak-based company incorporated in 1980 in Sibu (Sarawak), and active in purchase and sales of timber logs and hire of logging equipment.402 It is directed by Dato Ding Lian Cheon, who has been connected with Magnum Resources Pte Ltd and Solid Timbers (PNG) Pte Ltd.403 Both of these companies are active in Papua New Guinea, but Solid Timber's main operation will be in Guyana. Solid Timber is also reported to have a 500,000 ha concession in Malaysia.404

At the beginning of 1996, the company applied for a 728,000 ha concession in Guyana. The Guyanese Government did not approve that application but signed a Memorandum of Understanding for an Exploratory Lease of 760,000 ha with Solid Timber in May 1997. The lease is in the Southern part of the country, between the Corentyne River and the King Edward River, on the left bank of the New River. The company plans to carry out an inventory in the area during the first two years, after which it plans to set up plywood and furniture industries. A representative of the company thanked the Government and said that Guyana was conducive for promoting investment and bringing benefits to the people, especially the disadvantaged groups.405 However, Amerindian organisations and environmental groups strongly criticised the deal.


SYUEN CORPORATION

Syuen Corporation, based in Ipoh, Penninsular Malaysia and managed by Yan Kok Yuen, has been mainly involved in property development. In 1996, the company entered into a joint venture with the Laos Defence Ministry and set up the Lao Syuen Development Corporation. In 1997, the company started to develop Laos' biggest resort project to date on more than 18,000 ha of National Park land at Nam Ngum lake. The plans for the US$211 million "Phou Khao Khouai—Nam Ngum Eco-tourism Resort" include a number of hotels, golf courses, casinos, and many other facilities such as a "lover's paradise center".

The project is also expected to create spin-off industries such as furniture industries. Syuen has already cleared 20 ha of land to operate a sawmill to process the timber logged from the development area. "Our sawmill will buy logs locally, process them and use some for making furniture. We need lots of timber products, and lots of plants and flowers, for the Nam Ngum resort and entertainment project" said Lao-Syuen Development executive director Yan Gah Weng.406

The project involves the resettlement of four Yao villages with some 1,200 people.407 The Yao, also known as Lao Sung (one of the hilltribes found in Laos) have already voiced concern and about the resettlement project. Many say that they have not been consulted at all about the status of the project. According to one disgruntled farmer, while they had a verbal agreement with Lao-Syuen to be compensated for their fruit orchards, the construction workers destroyed the fruit trees before there was any written agreement. "They said that they would provide all of us with new housing, cultivable land for planting, financial compensation and employment opportunities. But so far we have not received anything from the operators of this project" adds another farmer.408 The project has been described as an "ecotourism" project within what is supposed to be a "National Park".


TENAGA KHEMAS SDN BHD

Tenaga Khemas is chaired by Dato' Kanagalingam Veluppillai and it is recorded as a dormant company in Malaysia.409 Towards the end of 1995, the company secured a 87,854 ha. concession in the Berbice river region of Guyana. Tenaga Khemas owns 85% and 80% of two other companies operating in Guyana, UNAMCO and Case Timbers respectively.410

UNAMCO has been logging a 96,000 ha concession since 1991, and has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding for an Exploratory Lease (see above) of 345,000 ha.411

Case Timbers has owned a 62,000 ha concession since 1993, and is scheduled to obtain an Exploratory Lease of 202,500 ha contiguous with its existing concession and the concession held by UNAMCO. On July 21, 1997, Case Timbers signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the government for the construction of a US$40 million plywood plant. The plant, which is estimated to produce 7,000 cu m of plywood per month is expected to be operational by the end of 1998.412

Villupillai Kanagalingan, the head of Tenaga Khemas, has openly admitted that he holds an interest in both Case Timbers and UNAMCO for Berjaya Sdn Bhd. Both Case and UNAMCO are working jointly with Berjaya in existing concessions in Guyana.413

While inspecting a logging road in November 1997, an officer of the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) discovered that UNAMCO had been logging its concession without permission. Less than a week after the discovery of this illegal logging, the President of Guyana held a ceremony to open the main logging road in the concession, despite the fact that the EIA on the road had been rejected as inadequate by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EIA for the road still had not been approved in April 1998.414 It was later confirmed that UNAMCO had cut at least 15,000 trees illegally and was operating without approval for its Environmental Impact Assessment for the logging concession, Forest Management Plan and Operations Plan. This is also illegal in Guyana. The company was fined a paltry US$7,142 by a special government committee established to investigate the situation. The estimated value of the illegally felled trees is US$6.75 million. UNAMCO owes the government US$37,142 in outstanding acreage fees on other concessions since the beginning of 1997. UNAMCO claims that it has not made a Guyana cent from its operations in Guyana for the past three years. The illegal logging activity took place either in UNAMCO's Timber Sales Agreement concession or in the controversial Exploratory Lease issued recently to the company by the Government. There are conflicting reports in both the media and from the Government concerning exactly where the illegal activity took place.415 Since the fine was announced, UNAMCO has aggressively tried to have the Guyana Forestry Commission removed from any further dealings with the matter. In a letter to the President of Guyana, UNAMCO's director described relations between his company and the GFC as "critical." He urged the president to intervene directly and "decisively" to resolve the dispute. As a result, the UNAMCO files were taken out of the GFC's hands.416

As stated in an editorial in the Guyanese newspaper, the Starbroek News in February 1998, "The intervention by President Janet Jagan effectively took the issue out of the ambit of the GFC and the Minister responsible for forestry. It sent a signal that big forestry operators could bypass essential requirements set out by the GFC by appealing directly to the head of government. It thereby undermines the authority of the GFC which has sweeping and onerous obligations in acting as conservator of forests and ensuring that operators abide by the tenants of good forestry practice." The GFC is weak and understaffed as it is, if it has to constantly worry about logging companies undermining its authority by running to the President, it will never have the credibility or authority needed to ensure that logging operations are conducted sustainably.417

According to the Amerindian Peoples Association, Guyana's primary indigenous organisation, "The recent case of the UNAMCO highlights the inadequacy of the GFC to monitor logging operations. If this situation has been taking place with UNAMCO and has only now been found out, how many other irregular activities are taking place in other concessions throughout Guyana? These concessions were granted without Amerindian participation, without regard for Amerindian land and other rights and as illustrated by this case, these companies are abusing the forest on which many Amerindians depend for their basic livelihood. The Wapisiana people in Region 9 have previously expressed concerns about an Exploratory Lease allocated to Malaysian company, Kwitaro, that includes their ancestral lands. In light of these events, the APA once again calls upon the Government to halt logging operations, until the rights of Amerindians to own and control their ancestral territories and forest resources are fully recognized in accordance with international law."418


BACK

TOP

NEXT

 


 

Marine Insurance

Introduction | Case Summaries

Introduction

Marine insurance in Canada is governed by the Marine Insurance Act which is modeled on the English Act.

For Frequently Asked Questions relating to Canadian Marine Insurance click here.

To review a paper entitled Warranties in Marine Insurance click here.

To review a paper entitled Additional Assureds and Co-Assureds click here.

Case Summaries

Marine Insurance – Warranties – Deviation - Waiver & Estoppel – Arbitration Agreement – Right of Appeal

McAsphalt Marine Transport Limited v Liberty International Canada, 2005 ONSC 13459

This was an application for leave to appeal the decision of an arbitrator. The Applicant was the owner of the barge “Norman McLeod” which it had purchased in China. Arrangements were made to have the barge towed from Shanghai to Vancouver together with another barge also destined for Canada. Prior to the tow the Applicant arranged with its underwriters for the barge to be included on its existing insurance policy. The Respondent underwriters agreed to hold the barge covered provided: the tug was approved by a surveyor; the surveyor “attend and approve all stages of the towing operation”; the surveyor “approve prevailing weather conditions or stipulate acceptable weather criteria for each stage of the towing operation”; and, the recommendations of the surveyor were complied with. A surveyor did issue a Certificate of Approval which required, inter alia, that the departure from Shanghai or intermediate ports take place in favourable weather and on receipt of a suitable weather forecast. The tug and two barges departed Shanghai on 30 April 2001. The contemplated route was to proceed via Japan where bunkers were to be taken aboard. However, after leaving port the Master decided to take on bunkers at Nakhoda, Russia which was done. Within a few hours of leaving Nakhoda the flotilla encountered rough weather. The two barges collided and both were damaged. The Applicant paid $2.5 million to repair the “Norman McLeod” and suffered an additional $500,000 in losses. Subsequent to the incident the Applicant and Respondent entered into an agreement to submit any dispute to “final and binding” arbitration. At the arbitration, the arbitrator found that the survey warranty and Certificate of Approval constituted true warranties and that they had been breached in that the departure from the intermediate port of Nakhoda did not take place in favourable weather conditions and no surveyor attended at Nakhoda. In addition, the arbitrator found that the change of course was a deviation within the meaning of s. 43(2) of the Marine Insurance Act. (The held covered clause in the policy would have protected the Applicant if it had given the requisite notice.) Finally, the arbitrator held that there was no waiver or estoppel on the part of underwriters in sending a surveyor to survey the loss and in approving the continuation of the tow. The first issue the Court had to consider on this application was whether the parties had excluded a right of appeal. The Court noted that if the parties had provided that the arbitration was “final and binding with no right of appeal” there could be no serious argument on the issue. However, the agreement merely provided the arbitration was to be “final and binding” and therefore the Court had to determine the intent of the parties. The only evidence of this outside the agreement was a statement by the lead underwriter that “a judicial resolution would have no value in this case other than to result in heavy costs to the parties, to the benefit only of their lawyers”. The Court held that this statement taken together with the wording of the agreement indicated the parties wished their dispute to be resolved by the arbitrator without any appeals. This was sufficient to dispose of the application but the Court nevertheless continued to consider whether the issues on appeal were questions of law, upon which an appeal could be allowed, or questions of fact for which there could be no appeal. The Court held that the issues as to whether the weather warranty and the warranty requiring surveyor approval at intermediate stages were true warranties were questions of law. The arbitrator's findings with respect to notice and waiver and estoppel were, however, questions of fact upon which no appeal was allowed.

Marine Insurance – Bad Faith – Limitation Period - Pleading – Striking – Reasonable Cause of Action

Forestex Management Corp. et al. v Underwriters at Lloyds et al., 2004 FC 1303

“Many years ago when small boys wore suspenders and ships had gender...” So begins the Reasons for judgment of Prothonotary Hargrave in this application by the Defendants to strike out the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff. The facts were that on 4 August 2000 the “Texada” went aground in a passage in the Queen Charlotte Islands and was subsequently declared a constructive total loss. The Plaintiff gave underwriters notice of the casualty on 8 August 2000 and underwriters denied coverage for breach of the trading warranty on 10 August 2000. The Plaintiff subsequently commenced an action against underwriters for coverage under the policy of insurance. That action was, however, dismissed following a status review on 9 January 2003. The dismissal was appealed by the Plaintiff but the appeal was not served. The Plaintiff attempted to bring on a motion ex parte to extend the time to serve the appeal but was ordered to serve the underwriters. This was not done and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for delay on 13 January 2004. The Plaintiff subsequently commenced the present action against underwriters alleging bad faith. The Defendant underwriters filed a Statement of Defence and brought the present motion to dismiss the action on various grounds. However, as they had filed a Statement of Defence the Prothonotary held that they were only entitled to argue that the Statement of Claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The thrust of the Defendants argument was that there could be no action for bad faith without an initial finding that there was coverage under the policy. The Prothonotary first considered the requirements of an action for bad faith. He reviewed American and Canadian authorities and noted that although a claim under a policy and a claim for bad faith are two distinct causes of action they are related in that a claim for bad faith cannot succeed unless there is a finding that there is coverage under the policy. He next considered the effect of the dismissal of the claim under the policy and held that an order dismissing an action for delay does not set up a res judicata defence and therefore, subject to any time bar defence, does not prevent a Plaintiff from re-commencing an action. The Prothonotary next considered whether there was a limitation period that would bar the Plaintiff from re-commencing an action on the policy. The Court was referred to s. 39 of the Federal Court Act which incorporates provincial limitation periods and was urged to apply the one year limitation period set out in section 22(1) of the British Columbia Insurance Act. However, the Prothonotary questioned whether the British Columbia Insurance Act extended or ought to extend to marine insurance, a federal undertaking. The Prothonotary did, however, apply the two year limitation period in the British Columbia Limitations Act and applying that period held that the action was not time barred. (The denial of coverage occurred on 10 August 2000 and the bad faith action was commenced on 9 August 2002.) Accordingly, the Prothonotary noted that the existing bad faith action could be amended by adding a supporting claim under the policy and held that if this was done it was not plain and obvious and beyond doubt that the Plaintiff's action could not succeed. In result, the motion to strike the claim was dismissed.

Marine Insurance – Breach of Warranty

Gartsman et al. v Elite Insurance et al., 2004 ONSC 11157

The Plaintiff in this matter purchased a vessel from the Defendant marina and asked the marina about insurance. She was told that the marina could not provide insurance but was given the name of a broker who arranged insurance with the Defendant insurer. A temporary binder was issued for 30 days that was conditional on the vessel being laid up at the dock pending receipt of a completed application and survey. It was also conditional on the vessel not being used except for instructional purposes by the marina. Although the Plaintiff alleged she was not advised of these conditions the Court did not believe her. In breach of the conditions the Plaintiff took the vessel on a cruise during which it was damaged. Predictably, the insurer denied coverage and the Court upheld the insurer's denial.

Marine Insurance – Jury Trials

Nelson Marketing International v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance, 2003 BCSC 439

The issue in this appeal was whether the Master had correctly set aside a jury notice. The underlying facts were that a cargo of wooden flooring carried from Malaysia to Long Beach, California was damaged. The cargo was insured by the Plaintiff with the Defendant but the Defendant denied coverage on various grounds. At first instance the Master set aside the jury notice served by the Plaintiff on the grounds that the principal issues in the case were ones of construction of the terms of the insurance policy, a matter not within the purview of a jury. The Plaintiff appealed arguing that there were many factual issues that were within the purview of a jury and that the Master had misconstrued the case. The appeal Judge held, however, that the Master was correct in his analysis, holding that the proper test was whether the construction issues would remain once the factual issues were resolved. If so, the principal issues are ones of construction and the matter should be heard by judge alone.

Marine Insurance – Sue and Labour – Proportion payable when insured and uninsured property involved

North Coast Sea Products Ltd. v. ING Insurance Company of Canada, 2004 BCCA 95 affirming 2003 BCSC 592

The insured Plaintiffs incurred expenses in recovering trays and the oysters in them from the seabed when the lines of their oyster farm were vandalized. The Plaintiffs were insured for the loss of the trays but not for the oysters themselves. They claimed under the sue and labour provisions of their marine insurance policy for all the expenses incurred in recovering the trays and oysters. Underwriters claimed that only a portion of the expenses could be claimed and that the claim should be in rateable proportion to the value of the insured trays to the uninsured oysters. The policy wording included provisions for reducing recoverable sue and labour expenses where the property was underinsured but was silent with respect to cases where there was both insured and uninsured property. The matter was disposed of by Special Case. The underwriters relied on English case law from 1902 (Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Marten) that appeared to state that sue and labour expenses should be recoverable ratably where expenses are incurred for both insured and uninsured property. However, the trial Judge found for the insureds because the terms of the policy did not specify what would happen when expenses were incurred in respect of insured and uninsured property. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial Judge holding that the sue and labour clause of the policy only limited the insurer's obligation in the specific circumstances identified in that clause, none of which applied.

Insurance – Direct Action Against Insurers – Interpretation of Policies – Limits of Coverage

Solway v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2005 ONSC 13407

In this matter the Plaintiffs arranged for a motor carrier to move and store their personal belongings. The truck was stolen and the Plaintiffs' belongings were never recovered. The Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the carrier which was not satisfied. The Plaintiffs then commenced this direct action against the carrier's primary and excess liability underwriters. Both underwriters agreed that the Plaintiffs' loss was covered but disagreed as to how the loss should be apportioned between them. The primary underwriter argued that the limit of its policy was $500,000 as provided for in the transportation section of its policy. The excess underwriter argued that the applicable limit was that in the warehouse and storage section of the primary policy of $1,000,000. The issue was then one of interpretation of the primary policy. The Court noted that the normal rule for construction of insurance contracts requires a search for an interpretation which, from the whole of the contract, advances the true intent of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. The Court further noted that the general principles of interpretation of insurance contracts include: 1) the contra proferentum rule; 2) the principle that coverage provisions should be construed broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly; and 3) the desirability, at least where the policy is ambiguous, of giving effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties. The Court then considered in detail the provisions of the primary policy and ultimately concluded that the applicable limit depended on the proper characterization of the claim against the carrier either as breach of a transportation contract or breach of a storage contract. The Court held that since liability was imposed on the carrier at the trial for breach of a term relating to storage of the Plaintiffs' goods, the limitation of $1,000,000 for warehousing or storage was applicable.

Insurance – Interpretation – Exclusions – Delay – Deck Cargo – Concurrent Causes – Timber Trade Federation Clauses – Bad Faith – Punitive Damages

Continental Insurance Co. v Almassa International Inc., 2003 ONSC 10422

This case concerned a shipment of lumber carried from Canada to Saudi Arabia, some of which was loaded on deck and some of which under deck. During the voyage the vessel suffered engine failure and had to be towed to Piraeus, Greece for repairs. The shipment was insured under an open cargo policy. The assured was concerned about the possibility of the lumber cargo becoming damaged during the repair process by lack of ventilation. In the event, some of the cargo was damaged before the engine problems had been repaired. Believing the cause of the damage was the failure to properly ventilate the holds, a covered peril, underwriters agreed to advance the assured approximately US$350,000. Notwithstanding this agreement, underwriters advanced only approximately US$260,000. After the cargo arrived in Saudi Arabia, it was surveyed by a surveyor appointed by underwriters. The essence of that surveyor's opinion was found to be that the damage to the cargo was caused by delay although other factors contributed. Underwriters denied the claim on the basis of an exclusion for delay in the Timber Trade Federation Clauses. The underwriters argued that this clause excluded all damages caused by delay even if delay was only a contributing cause. At the trial the Judge did not accept the evidence of the underwriter's surveyor because that surveyor had received “input” from counsel and/or another surveyor also retained by underwriters. The trial Judge found as a fact that the damage was caused by lack of ventilation and was therefore not excluded under the policy. In any event, the trial Judge held that the exclusion clause would only be operative if delay was the sole cause of the loss. A secondary issue concerned whether the cargo carried on deck was covered by the policy. This issue arose because the Timber Trade Federation Clauses differentiate between under deck and on deck cargo. Under deck cargo is subject to all risks coverage whereas on deck cargo is subject to specified perils coverage. The damage was not caused by any of the specified perils applicable to on deck cargo and, therefore, it appeared that the deck cargo should not be covered. However, the trial Judge found that there was an ambiguity in the policy when read together with the certificate of insurance in that it was not clear whether an on deck bill of lading was required to have been issued to bring into effect the on deck clauses. She resolved the ambiguity in favour of the assured and held that the on deck cargo was afforded all risks coverage. Finally, the trial Judge considered allegations of bad faith made against underwriters and a claim for punitive damages. In the course of her reasons on this issue the trial Judge was critical of the way in which underwriters handled the file. The criticisms included the following: making an interim payment of only US$260,000 when underwriters had agreed to pay US$350,000; interfering with and attempting to influence the surveyor; failing to list relevant documents and lying about same on discovery; and, raising allegations the damage was caused by inherent vice when underwriters knew there was no basis for this defence. She concluded that there was definite evidence of unfairness and deception. However, and notwithstanding these findings, she declined to order punitive damages on the grounds that the conduct was not so outrageous that punitive damages were required to act as a deterrent.

Charters– Bailment – Waiver of Subrogation

North King Lodge Ltd. v Gowlland Towing Ltd. et al., 2004 BCSC 460

This matter concerned liability for the sinking of the barge “Sea Lion VI”. The barge had been hired by the owner to the first Defendant for use as an accommodation barge at a remote logging camp. One of the terms of the agreement was that the owner would provide a watchman. When the logging operations had ceased the second Defendant, the towing company, was retained to remove the log booms. In doing so the crew of the tug untied the port side mooring lines of the “Sea Lion VI” which had been tied to the log booms. Shortly thereafter the “Sea Lion VI” went aground and sank. The trial Judge found as a fact that the removal of the port lines caused the sinking. The Plaintiff, the owner of the barge, commenced proceedings against both the hirer and the towing company. The Plaintiff contended that the hire contract was a charter party by demise or, alternatively a bailment and that the hirer was responsible for the safekeeping of the barge. The hirer, on the other hand, argued that it did not have possession of the barge and that the contract was a time charter. The trial Judge held that it was not possible to fit the agreement between the parties into one of the traditional forms of charterparty since the barge was not chartered for a voyage and had no master or crew. He held that the agreement was one of bailment but declined to imply all of the usual obligations that a contract of bailment entails. Specifically, he held that the owner's obligation to provide a watchman made the owner primarily responsible for the safe moorage of the barge. (At the time of the sinking and for some time previous there had been no watchman on the barge and this was known to the hirer. The fact that the hirer failed to complain about the removal of the watchman by the owner was held not to be a waiver of the owner's obligation to provide a watchman.) The trial Judge also found that the hirer owed an obligation to take reasonable care of the vessel and that it breached this duty by failing to promptly advise the owner when it became apparent that the barge was in danger. With respect to the liability of the towing company, the trial Judge found that owner of the “Sea Lion VI” committed an act of trespass in tying the barge to the log booms and that the duty owed by the towing company to a trespasser is to not intentionally harm the Plaintiff, act recklessly or without common humanity. He held that although the towing company did not act with reasonable care it did not breach the duties it in fact owed to the trespasser. In the result, liability for the sinking was apportioned 80% to the owner and 20% to the hirer. One final issue considered in the case was whether the hirer was immune from suit by reason of clauses in the hull insurance policy including charterers as additional assureds and waiving subrogation against charterers. The trial Judge held that these clauses were not effective since the policy also contained an express clause which provided that the benefits of the insurance policy would not automatically extend to third parties but would only be extended if the option was exercised by the owner. The trial Judge found that the owner did not exercise this option.

Bad Faith - Punitive Damages

Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18

Although not a marine insurance case, this decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is of significant interest to marine insurers. The facts were that the Plaintiff’s home was destroyed in a fire. The Defendant, the Plaintiff’s insurer, denied the claim made under the insurance policy on the grounds that the fire had been deliberately set even though the local fire chief, the Defendant’s own fire investigator and the Defendant’s initial expert all agreed that there was no evidence of arson. At trial, the jury awarded the Plaintiff $1 million in punitive damages against the Defendant for bad faith denial of coverage. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the punitive damage award was reduced to $100,000.00. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that although the $1 million award of the jury was higher than the court would have made it was within the high end of the range where juries are free to make their assessment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reinstated the jury’s punitive damage award of $1 million for failure to act in good faith.

Liability Policies - Interpretation - Illegality - Pay to be Paid

Conohan v The Cooperators, 2002 FCA 60

This case arose out of a collision between the "Lady Brittany" and "Cape Light II" off Prince Edward Island. At the time of the collision the "Cape Light II" was at anchor. Following the collision, blood alcohol readings were taken from the Master of the "Lady Brittany" which indicated his blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. An action was commenced by the owners of the "Cape Light II" against the "Lady Brittany". The insurers of the "Lady Brittany" refused to defend or participate in that action alleging that the insured was in breach of the terms of the policy in that the vessel was being operated in an illegal manner. The owner of the "Lady Brittany" thereafter admitted liability for the collision, confessed to judgment and assigned all of his rights of claim against his insurers to the owners and underwriters of the "Cape Light II". The owners and underwriters of the "Cape Light II" then brought this action against the Defendant, the insurer of the "Lady Brittany". The Defendant denied it was liable on various grounds. First, it alleged that there was a breach of the implied warranty of legality contained in s. 34 of the Marine Insurance Act. Second, it alleged that the collision was caused by "wilful misconduct", an excluded peril under s. 53 of the Marine Insurance Act. Third, it alleged that the collision was caused by "drunken or impaired operation of the vessel or other wrongful act", an excluded peril under the policy of insurance. Finally, it alleged that it was only liable to pay the insured if the insured has "become liable to pay and shall pay by way of damages to any other person any sum...". As the insured had not actually paid any sum it argued that its liability was not invoked. At trial the Trial Judge held: first, that the implied warranty of illegality did not apply to the third party liability portions of the policy; second, that there was no "wilful misconduct"; third, that on a proper reading of the policy the exclusion of "drunken or impaired operation of the vessel or other wrongful act" did not apply to the third party liability clause of the policy as that clause contained its own separately enumerated exclusions. The Trial Judge did, however, hold that the policy was, in fact, a pay to be paid policy and that the Defendant was, accordingly, not liable. The Plaintiff appealed. The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the case authorities relating to “pay to be paid” clauses and affirmed the decision of the Trial Judge.

Liability Policies - Exclusions - “course of transit”

Garfield Container Transport Inc. v Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada, (2002) 114 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1100

The Plaintiff was a transportation company specializing in taking cargo from ships and delivering such cargo to the customs clearance warehouse and, eventually, to the purchaser. The Plaintiff was insured by the Defendant under a policy which provided coverage for goods shipped under a bill of lading and in due course of transit. In this instance the Plaintiff delivered equipment to the customs clearance warehouse as required by the bill of lading. While the equipment was at the warehouse the Plaintiff contacted the purchaser and was instructed to deliver the equipment to another trucking firm. The Plaintiff transported the equipment to another warehouse where it had the specialized loading equipment necessary to do the task. During the course of loading the equipment was damaged. The Defendant insurer denied coverage saying that the carriage under the bill of lading and in the due course of transit came to an end at the customs clearance warehouse. This argument was accepted at first instance. On appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal, however, the Court of Appeal held that the carriage and course of transit did not come to an end at the customs clearance warehouse despite the fact that the ultimate destination was not specified in the bill of lading. The Court held that the Plaintiff was obliged to deliver the equipment to the ultimate destination and temporary disruptions that were not unreasonable did not break the chain of transit.

Service Ex Juris - Stay of Proceedings

Continental Insurance Co. v Almassa International Inc., [2002] O.J. No. 202, affirming [2001] O.J. No. 3229

This matter concerned a cargo policy taken out by a Quebec merchant from an Ontario based insurer insuring a cargo of lumber carried from Quebec to Saudi Arabia. During the course of the voyage the ship suffered engine damage and called at an intermediate port for repairs. As a result of the delay, the lumber cargo was damaged and a claim was made under the policy. The insurer initially made a payment on account but later denied coverage. The assured brought an action in Quebec against the insurer and the insurer brought an action in Ontario against the assured to recover the monies paid. The assured brought the present motion to stay the Ontario proceedings. The motion was granted. The motions Judge held that mere residency of the insurer in Ontario was insufficient to create a real and substantial connection with Ontario and that the appropriate forum was Quebec. The judgement was appealed. In a short endorsement the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the motions Judge.

Warranties - Authority of Broker

Elkhorn Developments Ltd. v Sovereign General Insurance Co. et al., 2001 BCCA 243, [2001] B.C.J. No. 630

This was an application by the Defendants for summary dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for coverage under a hull and machinery policy. The policy contained a warranty that any movements of the barge would be subject to underwriters’ prior approval. In breach of this warranty, the barge was moved without any notice to underwriters and sank four days after the move had been completed. A marine surveyor was appointed but he was unable to come to a firm opinion on the cause of the sinking. Subsequent to the sinking, the insurers and the broker agreed to cancel the insurance policies effective the day of the move. The issues in the case were whether the warranty was a true promissory warranty or merely a suspensive condition and was the insurance policy properly cancelled retroactively. At first instance the motions judge held that in order for a clause to constitute a promissory warranty there must be “a substantial relationship between the warranty and the loss incurred”. The motions judge further held that in order to answer this question there was a need for further evidence concerning the cause of the sinking of the barge. The motions judge therefore dismissed the application and ordered that the matter proceed to trial. On appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the motions judge erred in requiring that a “substantial relationship” exist between the warranty and the loss incurred. Such a test was retrospective in nature and would be a serious practical impediment to the marine insurance business. The Court of Appeal went on to find that the clause in issue was clearly intended by the parties to be a promissory warranty the breach of which discharged the insurers from any liability. The Court of Appeal further held that the cancellation of the policy by agreement between the insurers and the broker was effective as the broker had the apparent or ostensible authority of the assured.

Stay of Proceedings

Waterworks Construction Ltd. v Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2001 NSSC 125, [2001] N.S.J. No. 355

This action arose out of the sinking of a concrete casing which was determined to be a hazard. The Plaintiff alleged that its liability for the cost of removal of the casing was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Defendant. There was, however, a second action between the Plaintiff and other parties relating to the liability for the sinking. The Defendant insurer brought this application to stay the insurance action pending the outcome of the liability action. The Court declined the stay holding that there were separate issues in the two actions.

Subrogation

Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada v Cast Line Ltd., [2001] Q.J. No. 2363

This was a subrogated action by a cargo insurer against an ocean carrier for damage occasioned to a container of cheese. The Defendant carrier brought this motion arguing that the Plaintiff insurer had no right to bring the action as it had no rights of subrogation. The Defendant relied upon the terms of the receipt signed by the assured which referred to the payment by the insurer as a loan. Notwithstanding the language of the receipt, the court held that the payment by the insurer was a true insurance indemnity as it was reimbursable by the assured only in the event that it should obtain indemnification from another source. In result, the Defendant’s motion was dismissed.

Cargo Insurance - Cancellation - Misrepresentation

Nuvo Electronics Inc. v London Assurance et al., (2000) 49 O.R. (3d) 374(Ont. S.C.)

This matter arose out of the loss of 15 cartons of integrated circuits valued at US$1,403,000.00 and carried by air from San Francisco to Toronto. The shipment left San Franciso on August 10, 1996, and arrived at Toronto on the morning of August 11, 1996. It was then placed in the Air Canada cargo warehouse but was never seen again. The Plaintiff consignee commenced this action for the value of the lost cargo against its cargo underwriter and the air carrier. (That part of the judgment dealing with the claim against the carrier is considered below under "Carriage of Goods".) The cargo underwriter denied coverage on the basis that it had cancelled the policy of insurance prior to the loss and also on the basis that the assured had failed to disclose prior losses. The shipment was insured under an open cargo policy that provided that it could be cancelled upon 30 days written notice "but such cancellation shall not affect any risks which have already attached hereunder". The policy further provided that notices mailed to the broker were deemed to have been received by the assured. On July 10, 1996, the underwriter faxed a notice of cancellation to the broker giving 30 days notice of cancellation and stating that the cancellation would be effective on August 10, 1996. The underwriter took the position that the policy was cancelled as of 12:01 a.m. on August 10, 1996. The Court, however, held that there were three problems with the underwriter’s notice of cancellation. First, the notice of cancellation was vague and imprecise in that it did not say how the 30 days was to be calculated and did not specify the exact time on August 10, 1996, the cancellation would be effective. The Court held that the notice of cancellation could be interpreted to mean that coverage would be in force for the entire day of August 10, 1996. Second, the policy required that the notice of cancellation be mailed to the broker. Third, the policy also contained statutory conditions which contained clauses dealing with termination that were different from those in the body of the policy and which the underwriter made no attempt to comply with. The Court therefore held that the policy was ambiguous and the underwriter had failed to give proper notice of cancellation.

The Court next turned to the issue of whether the policy was void ab initio by reason of the assured’s failure to disclose at the time it applied for the policy that it had suffered prior losses. The evidence disclosed that the assured’s broker had advised the underwriter that there had been no losses except for one lost package (value $300.00) three years earlier. This information was not accurate. In fact, the assured had suffered a series of losses in the hands of its courier totalling $18,000.00. This information did not come to the attention of the underwriter until after the loss in issue. The underwriter submitted that these facts were material to the risk and should have been disclosed. The underwriter led the evidence of an expert independent underwriter to the effect that the courier losses would have caused him to either increase the premium or modify the conditions of carriage. The Court, however, found as a fact that the Defendant underwriter would have written the risk even if it had been advised of the prior losses. Under these circumstances it was irrelevant what an independent underwriter would have done. The Court held that a successful defence on the basis of material non-disclosure requires proof that, if the facts had been disclosed, the underwriter who wrote the risk would have declined the risk or required a higher premium and evidence from an independent "prudent" underwriter to the same effect. Accordingly, the Court held that the underwriter had failed to prove material non-disclosure and the underwriter was held liable for the insured value of the lost cargo. (Note: The underwriter was not without a remedy as there was a recovery from the air carrier which is detailed below under "Carriage of Goods".)

Liability of Agents and Brokers - Material Facts - Onus of Proof

1013799 Ontario Ltd. v Kent Line International Ltd., [2000] O.J. No. 3074, (2000) 22 C.C.L.I. (3d) 312 (Ont. S.C.)

This was an action against a freight forwarder and insurance broker for breach of contract and negligence arising out of damage to a cargo of chocolate bars shipped to Trinidad. The cargo was insured subject to the Institute Frozen Food Clauses which only provided coverage in the event of mechanical breakdown of the reefer units for a period longer than 24 hours and such coverage ceased 5 days after discharge from the ship. The Plaintiff was unable to meet these conditions and, hence, there was no insurance coverage. The claim against the freight forwarder and insurance broker for breach of contract was based on an alleged contractual agreement that the Defendants were to procure "all risks, warehouse to warehouse" insurance coverage for the shipment. The Court found, however, that although the Plaintiff had initially requested "all risks, warehouse to warehouse" coverage it later instructed the freight forwarder to procure coverage subject to the Institute Frozen Food Clauses. Accordingly, the Court found that there was no breach of contract.

The Court next considered the question of negligence. The Court reviewed the authorities on the duties owed by insurance agents and brokers to their customers. These authorities established that the duty included: to review the needs of the customer; to provide information about available coverage and advice about which forms of coverage are appropriate; to exercise reasonable skill and care to obtain policies in the terms bargained for and to service those policies as required; to advise the customer if they are unable to obtain the policies bargained for; and to point out gaps in the coverage and advise the customer how to protect against those gaps. The Court held that although the Plaintiff had been advised of the limiting conditions of the Institute Frozen Food Clauses, the Defendants had a duty to do more. Specifically, the Court found that extended coverage was available and that the Defendants should have advised the Plaintiff of this coverage. The Court rejected the Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiff had not proven that it would have been granted the extended coverage if it had so requested. The Court held that there was no onus on the Plaintiff to prove this.

An additional argument advanced by the Defendants was that there had been material non-disclosure on the part of the Plaintiff. The Court rejected this argument saying that even if there had been material non-disclosure the effect would be to make the contract of insurance voidable and not void ab initio. As the underwriter never exercised the right to void the policy the Defendants could not rely upon the voidability of the policy as proof that the Plaintiff suffered no loss. Further, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence that the facts not disclosed were material. The Court noted that the onus was on the Defendants to lead evidence from the underwriter that it, in fact, regarded the non-disclosure as material and also to lead expert evidence of an independent underwriter that a prudent underwriter would be of the same view.

In the result, the Defendants were liable for failing to obtain the proper insurance coverage.

Cargo Insurance - Insufficiency of Packing

Rainbow Technicoloured Wood Veneer Ltd. v The "Canmar Conquest" et al., (June 28, 2000) No. T-2580-97 (F.C.T.D.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1032

This was an action by the Plaintiff against its cargo insurer for damage to a guillotine press in an amount in excess of $100,000.00. The Defendant insurer argued that coverage was excluded by clause 4.3 of the Institute Cargo Clauses (A) in that the press was insufficiently packed and prepared for shipment. The Court reviewed the evidence of the surveyors, all of whom gave the opinion that the securing of the press in the container was inadequate, and dismissed the action.

Unseaworthiness

Laing v Boreal Pacific, (October 13, 2000) No. A-166-99 (F.C.A.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1665

This was an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing a claim under a marine insurance policy for the loss of an excavator. The excavator was loaded on the self-propelled barge, "Palaquin", and was being carried across the Strait of Georgia. During the crossing the seas became rough and the excavator shifted and ultimately fell overboard. The Plaintiff settled an action brought by the owner of the excavator and brought proceedings for indemnity pursuant to the terms of his insurance policy. The Defendant insurer denied the claim on the basis that the vessel was unseaworthy at the commencement of the journey. The Trial Judge found that the barge was unseaworthy in that it was too heavily laden for the sea conditions that could reasonably be expected and the excavator was not properly secured. She further found that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the facts that made the vessel unseaworthy. In result, the Plaintiff's action was dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Trial Judge correctly applied the test of privity, ie. whether the shipowner had knowledge of the facts constituting the unseaworthiness and knowledge that those facts rendered the ship unseaworthy or turned a blind eye to the facts giving rise to the unseaworthiness. In the result, the appeal was dismissed.

All Risks Coverage - Wear and Tear

Bevan v Gartside Marine Engines Ltd. et al., [2000] B.C.J. No. 528 (B.C. Prov. Ct.)

This was an action against a repairer and an insurer under an all risks policy for damage caused when a transmission overheated. The Plaintiff alleged that the repairer had been negligent in performing prior repairs to the trolling valve control linkage. The Plaintiff further alleged that the damage was covered by his all risks policy. The repairer denied negligence and the insurer defended on the basis of an exclusion in the policy excluding liability for damage caused by wear and tear and mechanical breakdown. The Court found that there could have been multiple causes of the transmission failure including pre-existing damage, wear and tear and improper use of the trolling gear by the Plaintiff or previous owners. As a result, the Court held that negligence on the part of the repairer had not been proven. With respect to the claim against the insurer, the Court noted that there are limits to the coverage afforded by an all risks policy and that the Plaintiff was required to prove that the cause of the transmission failure "was due to a casualty". The Court held that the Plaintiff had not proven that the loss was due to a casualty and coverage was denied.

Waiver of Subrogation - Additional Assureds - Privity of Contract

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v Can-Dive Services Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 108 (S.C.C.).

This was an action by the owners and underwriters of the derrick barge "Sceptre Squamish" against the charterer of the barge. The "Sceptre Squamish" was lost in the Strait of Georgia when it was left by the charterer unattended in heavy weather. The charterer defended the action alleging that the loss of the barge was due to the negligence of the owner, that there was an agreement that the owner would insure the barge for the benefit of the charter, and that the action, which was a subrogated action by hull underwriters, was barred by reason of a waiver of subrogation and "additional insureds" clause in the hull policy. The waiver of subrogation clause waived subrogation against charterers. The "additional insureds" clause gave the owner permission to charter and made the charterer an additional insured under the policy. The owners and underwriters argued that the charterer was not entitled to rely on these terms because it was not a party to the policy and because the owners and underwriters had executed an agreement following the loss in which they agreed to proceed with legal action against the charterer and in which the owner waived any rights it had under the waiver of subrogation clause. At trial (reported at (1995), 9 B.C.L.R. (3d) 260), the court held that the loss of the barge was due to the negligence of the charter, that there was not sufficient evidence of an agreement to insure, and that the doctrine of privity applied to prevent the charterer from relying upon the waiver of subrogation and "additional insureds" clauses. On appeal (reported at (1997), 39 B.C.L.R. (3d) 187), the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld that part of the trial judgement holding that there was no agreement to insure. The Court of Appeal then embarked on a lengthy analysis of the doctrine of privity and concluded that the doctrine of privity no longer applied to prevent a third party from taking the benefit of a waiver of subrogation clause. The Court of Appeal further held that the agreement entered into between underwriters and owners following the loss was ineffective as the charterers rights had crystallized upon the happening of the loss. On further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that new exceptions to the doctrine of privity must meet a two part test: 1. the parties to the contract must intend to extend the benefit to the third party seeking to rely on the contractual provision; and 2. the activities performed by the third party must be the very activities contemplated as coming within the scope of the contract in general, or the provision in particular, as determined by reference to the intentions of the parties. Applying this two part test, the court found that there could be no question that owners and underwriters intended to extend the benefit of the waiver of subrogation clause to a class of third parties (charterers) that included the charterer and that the relevant activities arose in the context of the charter relationship, the very activity anticipated in the waiver of subrogation clause. With respect to the agreement entered into between underwriters and owners following the loss, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the happening of the loss crystallized the charterer’s rights and that the waiver of subrogation clause could thereafter not be amended without the agreement of the charterer.

Contribution Among Insurers

Trenton Cold Storage Ltd. v St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., (1999), 11 C.C.L.I. (3d) 127, (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).

Although not a marine insurance case this decision relates to an issue that marine underwriters are often called upon to deal with. The case concerned a fire at the assured's warehouse which resulted in damage to goods belonging to one of its customers. The assured had two liability policies; a warehouseman's legal liability policy and an umbrella excess policy that also provided comprehensive general liability coverage. The insurer under the warehouseman's legal liability policy settled the claim with the assured's customer and sought a 50% contribution from the insurer under the second policy. The court first considered whether the second policy was a true umbrella policy and held that it was not. The court next considered the "Other Insurance" clauses in the two policies. The clauses were virtually identical, each providing that their own insurance was excess. The court held that the two clauses were mutually repugnant and cancelled each other out. In result, both underwriters were required to share equally in the settlement. The insurer under the second policy was not, however, required to contribute to the defence costs as these costs were excluded in its policy.

Discovery - Privilege

Commercial Union Assurance Company PLC. v M.T. Fishing Co. Ltd., (1999), 162 F.T.R. 74, (F.C.T.D.), affirmed (1999) 244 N.R. 372, (F.C.A.).

In this matter the Plaintiff insurers paid out a fire damage claim. Subsequently, it was learned that the fire may have been intentionally set. The insurers then instituted a fresh investigation into these allegations which ultimately resulted in commencement of the present action to recover the insurance moneys paid. At issue in this motion was whether the reports and information subsequent to the commencement of the second investigation were privileged from production. The court at first instance reviewed the law of privilege and ultimately held that the dominant purpose of that investigation was to commence an action to recover the insurance moneys paid out. Indeed, the court could see no other reason for such investigation. On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, it was noted that the motions Judge did not determine if litigation was in reasonable prospect when the reports were prepared or whether litigation was the dominant purpose for the creation of the reports. The Court of Appeal noted that this was because counsel had agreed that they could determine what documents and information had to be disclosed if the Judge merely determined whether the dominant purpose of the investigation was to commence an action to recover the insurance moneys paid. In light of this agreement, the Court of Appeal found no error in the finding of the motion Judge and dismissed the appeal.

Marine Insurance - All Risks Policy

Russell v Canadian General Insurance Co.,(1999), 11 C.C.L.I. (3d) 284, (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).

In this matter the Plaintiff claimed under an all risks marine policy for damage caused to a sailboat by the accumulation of water in the interior of the vessel. The damage to the sailboat occurred during the period from 1990 to 1993. The assured put the vessel into storage at the end of the summer in 1990 and left it in storage until October 1993 when it was discovered to be full of water. The accumulation of water had rendered the vessel a constructive total loss. The insurer denied coverage on the basis that there was wilful misconduct on the part of the assured, that the Plaintiff "courted the risk" and that the damage was caused by wear and tear, an excepted peril under the policy. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the assured periodically inspected the vessel while it was in storage. The assured testified that he did periodically inspect the vessel. The insurer led expert evidence to the effect that the assured could not have possibly inspected the vessel given the amount of water that had accumulated. The court, however, held that there was no requirement that the assured inspect the vessel. The court also held that there was no "wilful misconduct" on the part of the assured as he did not intend to damage the vessel and there was no deliberate courting of the risk as the damage was not foreseen. Additionally, the court found the damage was not caused by wear and tear as the damage was highly unusual and not the result of an occurrence ordinarily to be expected.

Breach of Warranty of Inspection

Shearwater Marine Ltd. v. Guardian Insurance Co. et.al., (October 1, 1998) No.CA022988 (B.C.C.A.)

The Plaintiff claimed under a marine insurance policy for the constructive total loss of a 93 year old converted wooden fish packer. The vessel sank while moored to a log boom breakwater. The Defendant insurers denied coverage arguing that the assured had breached a warranty that provided: "Vessel inspected daily basis and pumped as necessary." The vessel was not boarded on a daily basis for the purpose of "inspection". It was, however, observed from a distance (often of 300 yards) and pumped as necessary. The trial judge held that compliance with the warranty did not require daily boarding of the vessel but, rather, that daily observation by a knowledgeable observer was sufficient. The trial judge further went on to consider whether the warranty was a "true warranty", the breach of which would void the policy, or merely a suspensive condition, the breach of which merely suspends the policy while the breach continues. The trial judge held that the warranty was a suspensive condition. This was relevant as the vessel had been boarded and pumped the day before the sinking. A final issue concerned whether the vessel was truly a constructive total loss, i.e.. whether the cost of repair exceeded the insured value. This, in turn, depended on whether the assured's normal labour charge-out rate was used to calculate the repair cost or whether the actual cost to the assured (i.e.. without a profit element) was used. The trial judge held that the normal charge-out rate should be used. The insurer appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that "the trial judge reached the right conclusions for the right reasons" and dismissed the appeal.

Insurance - Extent of insurer's obligation to repair

Lockwood v Moreira, (April 24, 1998) No. C21444 (Ont. C.A.)

In this matter the insured's pleasure craft was broken into by vandals who used citronella candles in the interior of the vessel. As a consequence, a thick sooty substance covered the interior of the vessel. The assured made a claim under the insurance policy and the insurers responded by having the interior of the vessel cleaned. The assured was not satisfied with the first cleaning so the insurers authorized a second cleaning. The assured was still not satisfied and took the position that the only way the vessel could be restored to its original condition was by removing the deck and replacing the interior at a cost of $100,000. The trial judge held that the insurer's obligation under the policy was to restore the boat to substantially the same condition it was in before the vandalism, which had been done. The insurer was not required to restore the boat to the exact condition it was in before the vandalism. The trial judge further rejected a claim of bad faith against the insurer, holding the insurer had responded promptly to the claim and without malice. The insured appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal in a brief endorsement noted that they agreed with the trial judge that the boat "was substantially repaired" and dismissed the appeal.

Cargo Insurance - Exclusions - Institute Frozen Meat Clauses

Queen Charlotte Lodge Ltd. v Hiway Refrigeration Ltd. and Royal Insurance,(January 7, 1998) Vancouver Registry No. C946385 (B.C.S.C.)

In this matter the Plaintiff had purchased a used refrigeration unit from one of the defendants for use in transporting meat and vegetables to the Plaintiff's fishing lodge in the Queen Charlotte islands. The goods were insured under a policy of insurance that included the Institute Frozen Meat Clauses A-24. These clauses contained an exclusion excluding any loss arising from "unfitness of container... where loading therein is carried out prior to attachment of this insurance or by the assured or their servants". While in transit the refrigeration unit ceased functioning and the goods within were spoiled. The Plaintiff sued both the vendor of the refrigeration unit and the insurer. The Court found that the cause of the failure of the refrigeration unit was a defective part. With respect to the liability of the vendor of the refrigeration unit, the Plaintiff argued the vendor was liable for breach of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability in the Sale of Goods Act. The vendor argued that it had contracted out of the implied terms by the use of the words "No Warranty" in a quotation given to the Plaintiff. The Court held, however, that these words were not sufficiently clear to exclude the implied terms. With respect to the liability of the insurer, the Court held that the loss was excluded by the terms of the policy and the insurer was not liable. In reaching this conclusion the Court noted that the insurer did stipulate for the inclusion of the Institute Frozen Meat clauses in its negotiations with the broker and that the broker was, as a matter of law, the agent for the assured.

Liability Insurance - Coverage

Strangemore's Electrical Limited v Insurance Corporation of Newfoundland Limited, [1997] I.L.R. I-3475 (Nfld. S.C.)

This was an action under a policy of commercial insurance. The Plaintiff was in the business of servicing and repairing vessels. One such vessel (which incidentally was owned by the President of the Plaintiff company) was destroyed by fire while in the possession of the Plaintiff for servicing. The boat owner brought an action against the Plaintiff who, in turn, requested coverage under the liability provisions of the insurance policy. The Defendant insurer denied coverage, relying on an exclusion in the policy that excluded coverage for "personal property in your care custody or control". However the policy also contained a specific exclusion for watercraft which provided that the exclusion did not apply to "watercraft while ashore on premises you own or rent". The Court held that clearly the boat in issue was on the premises of the assured and therefore the policy applied.

Negligence of Broker

Percy v West Bay Boat Builders and Shipyards Ltd. et.al., (October 28, 1997) No. CA021807 Vancouver Registry (B.C.C.A.).

This was an appeal of a decision in which an insurance broker was found liable for not obtaining the proper coverage for its client, a yacht builder. The issue arose when the builder was sued by a customer after the customer's yacht caught fire. The customer alleged that the boat was negligently manufactured by the builder. The action by the customer was settled out of court for a substantial sum. The builder sought reimbursement of the settlement funds and of its full legal costs from the broker. The builder alleged that the broker had enticed it away from another broker/insurer by promising "full coverage" at better rates. As it turned out, the policy obtained for the builder by the broker did not provide the same coverage as was provided by the prior policy. Specifically, it did not cover the product liability claim of the builder's customer. If the prior policy had been in place, the builder would have been covered for this claim. The broker was found liable both at trial and on appeal for failing to properly review its client's prior policies and for failing to properly advise the client of the exclusions to coverage.

Late Reporting

Demitri v. General Accident Indemnity Co., (November 26, 1996) No. S031296 New Westminster Registry (B.C.S.C.).

This is not a recent case but it is one which we have only recently become aware of. The Plaintiff was injured and his vessel was damaged when it was rammed by a vessel insured by the Defendant. The Plaintiff obtained judgement against the assured but was unable to recover from the assured and was therefore attempting to recover direct from the insurer pursuant to statute. The insurer denied liability on the grounds that its assured had failed to give it prompt notice of the claim as required by the terms of the policy. The accident occurred in September of 1991 but the assured did not give notice until November of 1992. The Court held that the assured had failed to give prompt notice and declined to give relief from forfeiture. In result, the Plaintiff was not able to recover from the insurer.

Breach of Lay Up Warranty

Marler v Royal Insurance Company et.al, (October 3, 1996) No. C12405/93(Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)

This was an action by a vessel owner against his underwriter and insurance broker. The underwriter provided the broker with a quotation for insurance which contemplated issuance of an All Risk policy upon compliance with all survey recommendations and a re-survey. It also included a warranty: "Warranted laid-up and out of commission". The quotation was provide to the assured who instructed the broker to procure the insurance. The assured subsequently put the vessel in the water. When the broker learned of this she advised the assured that the warranty did not permit the boat to be in the water. The insurer later advised the assured that the policy was cancelled. Nine days later the vessel sank. The Court held that the assured, an experienced sailor, boat owner and marine lawyer, was aware of the meaning of the warranty and had breached the warranty by putting the vessel in the water. Accordingly, the action was dismissed.

Tower's Legal Liability

Catherwood Towing Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. et.al.,(July 17, 1996) Vancouver Registry No.CA019997 (B.C.C.A.)

The issue in this case was whether the tug owner's P&I policy offered coverage in respect of loss of or damage to cargo on board a barge. The barge and cargo were owned by the same person and were being towed by the tug owner pursuant to a contract of towage at the time of the loss. The insurer denied coverage on the basis of a clause in the policy that excluded "all liability in respect of cargo". The tug owner relied on the wording of a Tower's Liability endorsement which extended coverage to the "tow or the freight thereof or to the property on board". Both the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal held that the cargo exclusion in the policy applied only to cargo on board the insured vessel (i.e.. the tug) and not to cargo on board the barge which was owned by the cargo owner and not insured under the policy. Further, it was held that the word "freight" in the endorsement meant goods transported in a vessel. In result, there was coverage under the policy. 

Tower's Legal Liability

Burrard Towing Co. v Reed Stenhouse Limited, (April 23, 1996)Vancouver Registry No.CA019659 (B.C.C.A.)

This case involved the interpretation of a Tower's Legal Liability Policy. The facts were that a barge under demise charter to a tug company capsized while under tow and the cargo was lost. The barge was an insured vessel under the tug company's policy. The issue in the case was whether the tug company had legal liability coverage for the lost cargo. The policy contained an express exclusion for "liability in respect of cargo on board vessels insured herein". It also, however, contained an endorsement which provided: "coverage is extended to include Legal Liability of the Assured...in respect of loss of, or damage to...her tow...or the property thereon...". The Tug company argued that this endorsement extended the coverage to cargo on the barge notwithstanding the exclusion. The Court of Appeal held, however, that in interpreting the insurance policy it was necessary to distinguish between liabilities arising out of contracts of towage and those arising out of contracts of carriage. The Court held that the endorsement applied only to contracts of towage and not to contracts of carriage. It further held that, as the tug and barge were both supplied by the tug owner, the contract was one of carriage. Accordingly, the cargo exclusion applied and the Underwriters were not liable under the policy. 

Exclusion for Household Resident - Estoppel

Snair v Halifax Insurance, (1995), 145 N.S.R. (2d) 132, (N.S.S.C.)

In this matter the Plaintiff sought a declaration of coverage. The Plaintiff had earlier been found 100% liable for a very serious boating accident that rendered his former housemate a quadriplegic. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds of an exclusion in the policy excluding coverage to " any person residing in your household" . The Court held that by the time of the accident the assured and the injured party " were no longer a unit that possessed the elements of intimacy and community" such that the exclusion could apply. In any event, the Court held that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage on the grounds that it had defended the assured in the liability action for over four years. During this period, no denial of coverage was ever issued, no reservation of rights letter was sent and the assured was never asked to sign a non-waiver agreement.

Breach of Warranty

  Lewis v Canada, (July 20, 1995), No. T-1028-93, (F.C.T.D.)

This case concerned a total loss of a vessel due to fire. At the time of the fire the vessel was under the command of someone other than the assured. The policy, however, contained a provision that prohibited anyone other than the named insured from operating the vessel without the prior approval of the insurer in writing. The Plaintiff, assured, claimed he had sought and obtained verbal approval to substitute another as master. The insurer denied that any approval had been sought or given. The Court found in favour of the insurer and held that there had been a breach of warranty and, accordingly, there was no coverage under the policy.

Fraud?

Poirier v Laurentian Casualty Co.,(November 8, 1995), No. 65F, (Ont.Ct. Gen.Div.).

This case concerned a claim under an insurance policy for theft of a boat and trailer allegedly left on the side of a road when the trailer tire became flat. The Court held that the assured and his witnesses were not credible and concluded the assured had failed to prove his case. In reaching its conclusion the Court took into account that the assured had serious financial problems and the vessel was for sale at the time of the alleged theft.

 

 

YOU RUN YOUR SHIPS

WE RUN INTERFERENCE

TO PROTECT YOU

FROM THE COMPLEXITIES

 

CRUISE SHIP SAFETY INSPECTIONS

SOLAS INSPECTIONS

Plate Thickness Measurement

INSPECTIONS FOR CLASS

 

Contact:danamarineservice@dccnet.com

 

www.danamarineservice.org

 

Wise Owners Ask our ADVICE

 

BEFORE BEING CAUSUALTIES

 

 

 

 

 

name here">