A marine surveyor has successfully defeated a claim exceeding US$5 million (around £3.8 million) after cargo insurers repeatedly missed legal deadlines. The case illustrates how expensive it can be to win, and why the cover underpinning that defence matters as much as the indemnity limit itself.
The claim, highlighted in the October 2026 edition of the International Transport Intermediaries Club's (ITIC) Claims Review, arose after a yacht being transported as cargo aboard a heavy-lift ship was lost overboard during heavy weather. Cargo insurers alleged that the securing arrangements the surveyor certified before the voyage were inadequate and sought to hold the surveyor liable for the full value of the loss.
The surveyor had inspected the loading and lashing arrangements prior to departure and issued a certificate confirming they were satisfactory. That certificate also set out ongoing requirements, including regular inspections during the voyage and tightening of lashings, and recommended avoiding severe weather where possible.
The claim was first presented nearly six years after the incident. The ITIC, which insures marine professionals including surveyors on a professional indemnity basis, assisted the surveyor in denying liability and funded over US$200,000 (around £151,000) in legal costs to defend the matter. Although cargo insurers were initially granted an extension of time to bring proceedings, they failed to commence before that extended deadline expired. They subsequently attempted to pursue the claim in a second jurisdiction with a longer limitation period, but again missed the applicable time limit. The courts upheld the time-bar defence. That points to something PI policies are expected to absorb but rarely discussed openly: the cost of a successful defence.
Nine in 10 PI market professionals expected claims to increase over the next few years, and 74% anticipated rising severity, according to Clyde & Co’s 2024 UK PI Market report. Those pressures make the defence cost component of a PI policy harder to ignore. The coverage brokers place for marine professionals needs to reflect both sides of that equation: what a claimant might recover, and what it costs to prevent them from recovering it.
Mark Brattman (pictured), claims director at ITIC, said the case underscores how limitation periods function as a meaningful line of defence, rather than a procedural technicality. “A marine surveyor may only be involved in an operation for a short time, but the risk of a claim can remain for years,” he said. “When something goes wrong, their work may come under scrutiny long after the assignment has ended. This is why limitation periods are an important defence even when a claim appears significant.”
Under the Limitation Act 1980, the standard period for a professional negligence claim in contract runs six years from the date of breach, while a claim in tort runs six years from the date the damage was suffered, or from the date of knowledge, if later.
The difference between those two starting points is one reason why limitation disputes become complex, and why an expired limitation period, as the Limitation Act 1980 makes plain, amounts to a complete defence. The forum-shopping in this case, where claimants attempted a second jurisdiction after failing in the first, reflects how parties seek to exploit those differences when domestic avenues close.
Brattman pointed to the practical steps that determine whether a surveyor can actually mount a defence years after the event. “Surveyors need to be clear about the scope of their appointment, document any conditions or ongoing requirements and retain their records,” he said. “When a claim arises years later, inspection reports, certificates and correspondence can make a significant difference to the defence.”
In this case, the certificate issued by the surveyor, which documented both the findings and the conditions attached to them, provided a clear record of the scope of the appointment. It also placed responsibility for ongoing compliance with those conditions on the vessel’s crew rather than the surveyor. ITIC’s published guidance on PI cover for marine professionals identifies this distinction as a recurring theme in marine surveying claims: what a surveyor certified versus what they were responsible for maintaining.
“This case shows why professional indemnity insurance is about more than paying compensation," Brattman added. "Defending a claim can be expensive, even when the claim is unsuccessful. In this instance, legal costs alone amounted to over US$200,000.”
