Even if insurers do pay, it'll be at current valuations, and the shipyards responsible for these massive things are on like a decade plus wait. Insurers at this scale do not insure future expected income. So the owners will be able to pay off the loans and reimburse the suppliers and then hang around for 10 years with their thumbs up their asses. Yeah, no established capital is taking that risk.
That would be UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
And honestly I really like the dry humor that some Wikipedia entries (strait of Hormuz in this case) are written:
To traverse the full length of the strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Although Iran has not ratified the UNCLOS convention,[19] most countries, including the U.S. which also has not ratified it,[20] claim the right of passage as codified in the convention.
I wonder if insurers already listed clauses to contracts protecting themselves from claims resulting in the destruction of tankers whose owners might choose to navigate through dangerous war zones.
And, if so, I would imagine the owners of those tankers would be well aware of this.
There's a common clause in most commercial B2B agreements called "Force Majeure" which protects one or more parties in case of an unforseen event. War is usually one of the points in such a clause.
13 Comments
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today · 50 pts · 119d
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 119d
Intertanko is saying this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Independent_Tanker_Owners
They're third party shippers and if tankers have to pay, that's their profits.
But the oil companies are gonna pay it anyways, be ause they get the increased profits from the price of oil.
Greyghoster@aussie.zone · 17 pts · 119d
Don’t pay the toll and get attacked? Insurer’s will go for that! Let’s sail!
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 119d
Even if insurers do pay, it'll be at current valuations, and the shipyards responsible for these massive things are on like a decade plus wait. Insurers at this scale do not insure future expected income. So the owners will be able to pay off the loans and reimburse the suppliers and then hang around for 10 years with their thumbs up their asses. Yeah, no established capital is taking that risk.
Greyghoster@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 119d
Yep, the Demented one has really caused a big mess that’s beyond his control.
yesman@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 119d
wpb@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 118d
What international norm says you can't charge people for using your territory?
Wrufieotnak@feddit.org · 11 pts · 118d
That would be UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
And honestly I really like the dry humor that some Wikipedia entries (strait of Hormuz in this case) are written:
Eximius@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 118d
That's hilarious. Just pure historical irony.
wpb@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 118d
I learned sth new! Pretty funny indeed
nkat2112@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 119d
I wonder if insurers already listed clauses to contracts protecting themselves from claims resulting in the destruction of tankers whose owners might choose to navigate through dangerous war zones.
And, if so, I would imagine the owners of those tankers would be well aware of this.
Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 119d
Pretty sure most ship insurers have suspended coverage for vessels around that area.
PlantJam@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 118d
Fun fact, war is a commonly excluded cause of loss in insurance policies.
Unimperfect@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 118d
There's a common clause in most commercial B2B agreements called "Force Majeure" which protects one or more parties in case of an unforseen event. War is usually one of the points in such a clause.