Civil Case (Haifa) 50975-11-21 The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hafnia Tankers Ship Holdings Singapure Pte Ltd

Judgment

This proceeding concerns a monetary claim against the background of damage due to a marine accident.

Overview

1. On October 11,2015, the ship HAFNIA ROBSON (hereinafter - the "Ship") arrived at the port of Ashdod, for the purpose of loading fuel intended for export by Paz Ashdod Refinery Ltd. (hereinafter - "Paz").

Upon arrival at the port area, a team from the Israel Electric Company (hereinafter - IEC), headed by Captain Rami Gidron (hereinafter - Corporal Gidron), boarded the ship for the purpose of navigating and tying it to a maritime link belonging to IEC (hereinafter - "the Liaison").

The ship was tied and attached to a connector by means of anchors, as well as cables and ropes that were tied to buoys.

After the start of the process of loading the ship with fuel, the wind direction changed, and its speed increased to about 25 knots, and at around 5:00 P.M., the refueling operation was stopped, according to the procedure agreed upon in advance between the ship's crew and Corporal Gidron.

A few hours later, the cables and ropes to which the ship was tied began to detach and tear, which eventually led to the decision to completely disconnect and leave the place where it had docked.

As a result of this chain of events, damage was caused to the link, which was estimated at about ILS 900,000, and the operation of loading the ship with fuel was moved to the port of Ashkelon, at a cost estimated at about ILS 600,000.

2. The plaintiffs before me - IEC (the owner of the link), and the Phoenix Insurance Company, which insured Paz at the time of the accident and indemnified her for the cost of relocating the ship's loading, sought to charge the defendant, the ship's owner and the person who employed her crew, for the aforementioned damages.

The plaintiffs' argument is that the defendant is responsible for the events that led to the damage, whether due to a defect in the ship's equipment, or even more so in the winches to which the torn cables and ropes were tied; whether due to the negligence of the ship's crew; or due to misleading on their part about the ship's data and capabilities.

3. On the other hand, the defendant is of the opinion that the full, and at least decisive, responsibility for the aforementioned events lies with the crew that was responsible for the navigation of the ship and the process of loading it, headed by Corporal Gidron, who acted on behalf of IEC.

At the same time, the defendant disputed the amount of the alleged damage.

4. The parties submitted affidavits of the main witness and the opinions of various experts, which will be detailed below as needed. The hearing of the evidence was spread over three sessions (8 June 2025,13 July 2025 and 16 November 2025), most of which were recorded.  After the hearing of the evidence, the parties submitted written summaries, including mutual responses to the summaries.

Discussion and Decision

5. After hearing the evidence and weighing the arguments of the parties, I found that the claim should be dismissed.

The sequence of events on the day in question

6. The sequence of events that needs to be addressed arises from the body of evidence presented to me.

This is mainly the case from an incident report prepared in real time by Corporal Gidron (Appendix 1 to the Gidron affidavit, hereinafter: the Gidron Report); a real-time incident report prepared by the ship's crew (Appendix 2 to the ship's captain's affidavit); An investigation of an incident conducted by the Shipping and Ports Authority (hereinafter: Raspan), marked N/7, as well as testimonies heard before me, including by Corporal Gidron and a member of the ship's crew.