Sea Eagle Fisheries (No 2) Pty Ltd v Dame Pty Ltd
[2004] QDC 16
•13 February 2004
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Sea Eagle Fisheries (No 2) Pty Ltd v DAME Pty Ltd [2004] QDC 016
PARTIES:
SEA EAGLE FISHERIES (NO 2) PTY LTD ACN 077 874 732 as trustee for the SEA EAGLE FISHERIES TRUST (No. 2)
Plaintiff
v
DAME PTY LTD ACN 009 944 852
DefendantFILE NO:
D822 of 2003
DIVISION:
Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
13 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20, 21, 22 January 2004
JUDGE:
Samios DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant
CATCHWORDS:
NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE – fishing vessel – repairs to engine - DAMAGES ASSESSED
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld)
Uniform Shipping Laws Code s9, cl.16.6
Navigation Act 1912 (Cth)
COUNSEL:
Ms C. Heyworth-Smith for the plaintiff
Mr Oliver for the defendantSOLICITORS:
O’Shea Corser & Wadley for the plaintiff
Hemming and Hart for the defendant
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of $211,401 for damages for negligence on the part of the defendant.
The plaintiff conducts the business of commercial long line tuna fishing and operates for this purpose a vessel known as the “Sea Kay” (the vessel).
The defendant conducts the business of undertaking repairs of marine engines.
There is no dispute that in about May 2000 the engine in the vessel sheared its mounts and caused the shaft to the gear box to break. The defendant repaired the engine and the vessel returned to fishing on 21 July 2000. However, on 23 August 2000 a rubber hose disconnected from a pipe in the engine whilst in use on the vessel, resulting in the vessel sustaining major flooding whilst at sea off the Queensland coastline.
There is also no dispute between the parties that when the defendant repaired the engine in the vessel the defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty of care to exercise due care and skill in the performance of the repairs.
The plaintiff claims that the cause of the rubber hose disconnecting from the pipe in the engine whilst in use on the vessel was the negligence of the defendant.
Particulars of the alleged negligence are as follows:
(a) the defendant failed to properly re-install and fit the rubber hosing to the adjoining piping in the engine from the gear box oil cooler;
(b) the defendant failed to properly provide appropriate piping or otherwise engineer the installed piping with “tails” or any other preventative measure to prevent the rubber hosing from dislodging from the piping;
(c) the defendant welded a “mould” around the piping that was in the circumstances unsatisfactory;
(d) the defendant failed to ensure that the clamping would not loosen, dislodge, separate or otherwise come away and failed to ensure that double clamping was used;
(e) the defendant failed to comply with section 9, clause 16.6 of the Uniform Shipping Laws Code as per the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) and the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld) by failing to install not less than two corrosion resistant clips to the rubber hosing in the adjoining piping.
The plaintiff claims that as a result of the negligence of the defendant the vessel was unable to be used in the plaintiff’s commercial fishing business for a period of approximately 5.1 months.
It is not in dispute the defendant re-designed the cooling system for the engine when it repaired the damaged gear box output shaft. The defendant fabricated a stainless steel pipe (the pipe) to replace a copper pipe that was used to transfer sea water from the pipe through to the coolers. The defendant also supplied a heavy duty hose to go from the pipe to the oil cooler. The defendant welded a tail on the end of the pipe. A bead of weld around the weld joint where the tail was welded onto the pipe was left and not ground off. To connect the hose to the pipe the defendant used a single clamp which could be tensioned with a spanner.
Section 9 of clause 16.6 of the Code states:
“16.6 Securing a flexible pipe
The method of securing a flexible pipe to a rigid pipe or fitting shall be by co-resistance clips or pressed ferrules.For flexible piping of 25 mm internal diameter and above not less than two clips shall be fitted at each end” (Exhibit 11).
Following the incident at sea on 23 August 2000 further repairs were carried out to the engine of the vessel. These were not carried out by the defendant. For these repairs double clamping has been used on the connections between rubber hosing and metal pipes. This double clamping can be seen in the photographs (Exhibit 1).
A number of witnesses were called by the plaintiff and the defendant.
Mr Price who is a qualified diesel mechanic worked for the defendant until about two years ago. He spent about ninety per cent of his working time working on diesel engines for vessels. He undertook the repair work to the engine in the vessel following the incident in May 2000, and installed the pipe and the heavy duty hosing and the clamp connecting the heavy duty hose to the pipe. He told me that the bead of weld remaining on the pipe would give more purchase or more crushing on the actual hose as he described it when the clamp was tightened. He said when he did the repairs he pushed the hose over the pipe and then proceeded to put the hose clamp on and tighten it with a spanner firmly enough to hold it on there without doing damage to the clamp. He said he tightened it extremely tight. He then did not pull on the hose but he did twist it and there was no movement, nor did he feel any movement. Following the refitting of the cooling system, sea trials were undertaken to check the performance of the vessel, including looking for any leaks. After the sea trials he went back and did another service after the vessel had run for some time to check everything. This was on 28 July 2000. He said he would have specifically checked this hose line and would have gone over all the clamps and he found no problem. Then when the incident of 23 August 2000 occurred and he was made aware of the engine room flooding he travelled to Mooloolaba. When he arrived the vessel came in under tow. Mr Price went on board and looked at the hose and he could get the hose clamp and actually run it freely up and down the rubber hose. He found it in a loosened condition. He said if the clamp had been tensioned over the weld and it had vibrated off the weld, and the hose had become dislodged from the pipe, one would not be able to move the clamp up and down the hose. He took two photographs; one showing the hose in place and one showing the hose not in place. These are Exhibit 18. Mr Price said the use of one clamp was more than adequate to do the job and he saw no advantage in using two clamps. He thought two clamps were a waste of time and would be overkill. He said the weld was not put there specifically to be clamped on to. He said when he placed the clamp probably most of it, about 20 mm, would have been sitting right at the edge of the weld. He disputed that a majority of the clamp was on the open side of the weld and only 5 mm of the clamp was on the S bend side of the weld. He said he precisely remembers every clamp that he does up and he does not miss any clamps. He said he would have pushed this pipe up as far as it would have gone and then clamped it up at the end of the pipe, as would be his practice. He agreed it would be preferable to clamp the hose between the weld and further along towards the S bend of the pipe. By doing so he said one would get more purchase on that side of the weld than if one actually clamped over the top of the weld. In his opinion if one clamp became undone then the other would become undone. He did not agree that grooves should have been placed in the tail of the pipe to make it less likely the hose would come off the pipe because he thought as the pipe was a thin walled pipe, placing grooves in the pipe would end up collapsing the pipe. He agreed that if one put aside a third party coming along and actually undoing the screws, there is no alternative to the pipe coming off other than it was not put on properly in the first place. When re-examined he said that when one clamps onto the weld, it is going to embed it into the weld, and one would find an indentation inside the hose evidencing the clamp being placed on the weld. He did not think it would make any difference whether the clamp was placed 5 mm or any other distance over the weld. He also said that if the hose came away from the pipe you would expect the hose clamp would still be in the position it was in when it had been clamped on to the hose, whereas he found it half way down the hose moving freely.
Mr Bova, who is also a qualified diesel mechanic and the principal of the defendant, gave evidence. He was satisfied with the design of the cooling system before its installation and the method by which the tail was welded at the end of the pipe. He said the weld was not ground off as it was left on so that it could be used as an anchoring point for the rubber hose. He said it provided some resistance as an extra precaution. He also said the clamp that was used by Mr Price was a very good clamp and they are called super clamps or heavy duty clamps. The advantage with this type of clamp is that it can be tensioned down with a spanner. He said the bead of weld was useful because the hose being soft, the bead would bite into the hose. He also disputed constructing the tail with grooves to allow for clamping. He said it could not be done with the pipe as the wall of the pipe was too thin and it would reduce the strength of the stainless steel and that would be dangerous. He said by machining grooves around the tail, it was the same thing as what the bead of weld did in any event. As far as he was concerned the requirement of the Uniform Shipping Code required one clamp above the water line. In his opinion the single clamp used was more than adequate and a second clamp would not do any more. He thought that if the clamp had not been properly tensioned then there would have been evidence of a leak. He said the only way he had ever seen the hose dislodge itself from a clamp was through the failure of the clamp due to it fracturing due to corrosion. He said the photographs that showed the clamp had been tightened on to the hose and the indentation on the inside of the hose indicated the clamp had been applied with enough pressure to create those indentations to its full maximum load capacity. When he was cross-examined he agreed that he could not say when those indentations occurred. He also agreed he had to trust his staff to do the job properly as he did not himself fit the clamp, nor was he present during the sea trials or the following service. However, he said that if the clamp had been loose it would have shown a leak. He maintained that the Code’s requirements only required a single clamp if the pipe was above the water line. He believed the clamp had been put on correctly in the first place. He agreed that two clamps would provide two points of resistance.
Mr Crosby, who is retired and was a consulting marine engineer and ships surveyor, gave evidence. He has been a marine engineer since 1957. In his opinion the use of the single clamp was a clear contravention of the Code. In his opinion the partial flooding of the engine room was caused by the failure of the defendant to fit two clamp bands to the pipe. He said the requirement of two clamp bands is a “belt–and–brace situation”. He said the engineers and surveyors who came up with the Act thought it was manifestly better to have two clamp bands. He agreed with that philosophy. He agreed that the evidence of the indentations on the exterior of the hose from the clamp band and the interior of the hose from the bead of weld indicates that at some stage the hose was tightened properly. He did not agree that if the single clamp was going to fail to hold the hose onto the pipe that a second clamp would have no effect. In his opinion if the clamp bands were correctly tensioned then they would stay correctly tensioned and would not pull off because the forces being exerted are of considerable magnitude, in the order of a half ton of hoop stress. He thought it was a simplistic suggestion but one that might be appropriate that if one clamp is good then two is going to be better. He agreed that there is an alternative to the code namely the performance based criteria provided for by the legislation. He said this performance based criteria was introduced to allow designers more flexibility in their interpretation of the rules and how a vessel would perform. He agreed the use of a single clamp being a heavy duty clamp could comply with a performance based approach. However, when re-examined he said the performance based approach could be followed if it were demonstrated that it worked better. He said he had never heard of it being demonstrated that one clamp band as opposed to two clamp bands was necessarily better. Finally, he said that in his opinion the proper and correct method of fixing the flexible rubber hose to the metal pipe in this engine was to have two clamp bands either side of the piece of flexible rubber pipe.
Mr Mills a marine engineer since the mid 1970’s also gave evidence. He went on board the vessel after Mr Price on 23 August 2000. In his opinion the pipe was not prepared in a manner which would normally be expected for good marine practice. That is there was no method used to hold the hose on to the smooth stainless steel pipe other than the single clamp used. He accepted the clamp was a good heavy duty type that should have held reasonably well even on the smooth pipe if tightened correctly. He thought it was strange the pipe showed no sign of leaking before the problem of when it completely came off. He was of the view that if the clamp had been partly over the weld on the join of the pipe and had moved off then it would have become loose and could have worked off. In a report to an insurer dated 24 August 2000 Mr Mills stated that it seemed like the clamp was not correctly fitted when the defendant refitted the engine to the engine room of the vessel. Through his investigations Mr Mills established the bilge alarm failed to operate therefore allowing the engine room to flood without notice. The crew had made no observations of any change in the performance of the vessel. He also thought apart from the machining of grooves on the tail of the pipe to assist the rubber hose to hold on to the pipe when the clamp was fastened around it the two clamps would certainly have assisted. He said firstly the hose would have had to be further on to the pipe and one of the clamps would most probably have incorporated the weld in a far better position and would have held it. He said double clamping was normal procedure. He accepted this particular clamp was a very good and very strong clamp and that when one does talk of double clamping one is normally talking of a lesser significant clamp. He agreed the indentations on the outside and the inside of the hose indicated the clamp had been tightened down. He would not agree that these indications showed the clamp had been sufficiently tensioned to hold it in place. He said that he could not say so categorically that a clamp regardless of how tight it is would hold a smooth rubber hose on a smooth stainless steel pipe. He took the view that although there was evidence the clamp had been tensioned down it was not sufficiently over the weld. He said this vessel had an extremely large pump with a high volume of coolant water going through it. He said the water was still under pressure and with the revving of the engine and the stopping and starting of the engine and increasing of heat of the engine the hose is going to flex. He said it was going to flex at different temperatures and he did not believe the hose clamp was far enough over the weld assuming the weld was there to hold onto it to start with and not a coincidence to have held it. He did not agree that the bead of weld provided a point of purchase. He said if the bead of weld had been left for a point of purchase then he would have pushed the hose past the weld and would have put the clamp past the weld. He said the bead of weld served a useful purpose by default rather than by design. In his opinion if the clamp had been put past the weld and clamped for the hose and the clamp to have come off would have to had expanded to the extent of the weld of the pipe which he thought was highly improbable. He said that as the clamp was partially on the weld, if there was movement at all through expansion and contraction and the clamp would only have to move a small amount that it effectively would have become loose. When cross-examined he agreed that if two clamps were used there would have been smaller clamps and without grooves machined into the tail of the pipe, two clamps would not have been sufficient. That is, he did not believe that the pipe being smooth would have been sufficient to hold the hose on even with two clamps. His view of the provision of the tail of the pipe without grooves was that if that was engineering practice, he said: “I’m glad I’m not on the boat”.
Finally on the issue of liability, another qualified marine engineer, John Carlson, gave evidence. He became aware of the engine flooding as a consequence of the hose becoming dislodged from the pipe. He viewed photographs of the pipe and the rubber hose that was used for that purpose. He is familiar with the Code requiring the fitting of two corrosion resistance clips for pipe connections below the water line. He is also aware of the water pressure running through the hose and the nature of the hose. He states in his report, Exhibit 21, that although the Code provides for specified clips to be used on hose fittings, this is subject to performance based criteria as set out in the legislation. If one can be satisfied that the adopted method is of a higher standard than that provided by the Code, then the performance based criteria overrides the Code. That did not seem to be disputed by Mr Crosby. Mr Carlson said in his experience it is common practice to use a heavy duty hose, together with a heavy duty clamp of the type depicted in the photographs. In addition, it is common place to weld a bead around the stainless steel pipe so that there is a greater point of purchase when the clamp is tightened on the hose on to the stainless steel pipe. The bead of the stainless steel pipe creates a point of resistance for the hose should there be vibration or the clamp is loosened. If the clamp is tightened sufficiently at installation, there is no reason it should become dislodged. In his opinion the method adopted by the defendant was certainly satisfactory and superior to simply fixing the rubber hose over the stainless steel pipe without a bead and applying two corrosion resistant clips of a worm screw type.
Mr Carlson was present when the sea trials were conducted after the boat was repaired following the May 2000 incident. The sea trials took approximately two hours and during the time he inspected the engine compartment, all fittings, including the subject fitting, did not show any signs of water leakage from this fitting. Further, he states the clamp used is a heavy duty stainless steel clamp, and far superior to the worm type clamp which, if used, would comply with the Code for above water line fittings, and if below, the use of a second clip. In his opinion the method adopted by the defendant whether the fitting was below or above the water line is far superior to using standard hose with two worm drive clips. When he was called to the boat after the flooding on 23 August 2000 he was made aware by the operator of the vessel the vessel had operated for 497 hours before the flooding occurred. He was aware the vessel was fitted with a bilge alarm system which ought to have sounded when the engine room started to flood. Further, he states in his experience operators of a vessel such as this should check the engine compartment on a daily basis, as well as the oil and other componentry regularly. If there was any water leakage, drips of water would have been visible, as well as the building up of salt around the fitting. In his experience these signs should have alerted the operator of the vessel if there was a problem with the fitting, if in fact there was one.
When cross-examined, Mr Carlson agreed that the performance based criteria of the legislation was not intended to allow diesel mechanics to use only one clamp in circumstances where the Code otherwise required two. However, in his opinion, one would not have got the clamping pressure from screw drive clips which could answer the description of clips called for by the Code. He also thought that if there was a major problem with the design and the way the hose had been clamped on to the pipe it would have manifested itself earlier.
Although Mr Bova and Mr Price would not accept in the circumstances grooves ought to have been machined into the tail end of the pipe as claimed by Mr Mills, it seemed to me evidence from Mr Bova and Mr Price was consistent with Mr Mills’ opinion regarding the advantage to be gained from something similar to the grooves in the tail proposed by Mr Mills. In fact, Mr Bova claimed that the bead of weld was left in so that it could be used as an anchoring point for the rubber hose as it would provide resistance and act as an extra precaution. Further, Mr Price said it was preferable to position the clamp beyond the weld, or at least part of it on the weld also to provide resistance. However, Mr Price did not say the bead of weld was left for that specific purpose. On the other hand Mr Crosby did not state as part of his opinion the grooves should have been machined in the tail of the pipe as did Mr Mills. Mr Crosby seemed to me to take the stance that two clamps were required and nothing else mattered despite the two clamps may have been inferior to the single clamp used. Mr Mills gave evidence by telephone and I did not observe him in the witness box. However, I was favourably impressed by Mr Mills by the manner in which he answered the questions put to him and by the content of his answers.. I was not impressed with Mr Price. Notwithstanding some of these events occurred about three years ago, before any suggestion might have been made that he failed to properly tension the clamp on the pipe, he said he could precisely remember every clamp that he does. That is a claim I am not prepared to accept. I found Mr Carlson to be a nervous witness in the witness box. I came to the view that there was something troubling Mr Carlson as he gave evidence. Although it was suggested to him that he was aware that he might have been made a party to the litigation, he refuted that in any way it has influenced his opinion. In my opinion Mr Mills’ evidence that good engineering practice would call for machining grooves onto the pipe was supported by Mr Bova and Mr Price who claimed the bead of weld could provide resistance for the hose.
Having considered all the evidence I prefer the evidence of Mr Mills to that of Mr Bova, Mr Price and Mr Carlson.
I am satisfied the defendant breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff by failing to machine grooves into the tail of the pipe and by Mr Price’s failure to clamp the clamp beyond the weld between the weld and the S bend of the pipe, and by Mr Price’s failure to tension the clamp tightly.
I am satisfied that the breach of the duty of care by the defendant owed to the plaintiff caused the hose to disconnect from the pipe in the engine whilst in use on the vessel, and this caused the boat to sustain major flooding whilst at sea off the Queensland coastline as alleged in the plaintiff’s claim.
I am also satisfied that as a result of the negligence of the defendant the vessel was unable to be used in the commercial fishing business for a period of approximately 5.1 months.
Regarding the quantum of the plaintiff’s loss, Mr West, a chartered accountant, provided a report and gave evidence. He determined the reasonable estimate as to the profits foregone and the increased costs incurred as a result of the vessel being idle during the relevant period. He examined the relevant documents and averaged the monthly net fish sales for various periods following the return to fishing by the “Sea Kay”. During an eleven month period from February 2001 to December 2001 the average net fish sales were $56,871. There were other periods available producing other average monthly net fish sales. However, Mr West relied upon the $56,871 figure as being representative of the net fish sales per month. The net fish sales comprised gross proceeds from fish unloaded, less all costs paid to the fishing processor for fuel, mooring fees, bait and the like. He noted in his report the “Sea Kay” crew received thirty per cent of the net fish sales. While the vessel was disabled, crew payments were avoided, therefore the loss/profit portion of the net fish sales proceed represents seventy per cent of the net fish sales, the extent to which he says the plaintiff would have benefited from the fish produced. Therefore, his calculations are as follows:
Average Monthly Net Fish Sales $56,871
Period of Lost profit 5.1 months
Loss of gross profit ($56,871 x 5.1) = $290,042
Less 30% thereof payable to crew $87,013
“Sea Kay” loss of profit $203,029
Therefore, by assessing the loss to the “Sea Kay” as net fish sales which are after the food processors costs and then deducting the portion payable to the crew, he was effectively valuing gross profit.
Mr West also in his report put forward the plaintiff’s claim to have suffered further losses, namely $10,000 for an insurance claim excess and $7,560 for an increased insurance premium.
Mr West also deducted $9,260 from the plaintiff’s claim, being the sum received by the plaintiff from a claim upon its insurer regarding this loss.
Mr West calculated the loss to be $193,769.
When Mr West was cross-examined he was challenged upon his methodology. Although he agreed his exercise was simplistic, he said he would have got the same answer by looking at the bottom line profit and adding back the income foregone. The defendant submitted that the method of the calculation of the loss by Mr West is artificial and does not take into account the history of trading, nor the subsequent trading of the company of the plaintiff for the 2002 financial year.
The profit and loss statements and income tax returns for the plaintiff for the years ended 30 June 2000, 30 June 2001 and 30 June 2002 are Exhibits 7, 8 and 9. Following the repairs required as a result of the incident on 23 August 2000, the vessel started fishing again on approximately 27 January 2001. Therefore, there is available through the profit and loss statements for the plaintiff for the year ended 30 June 2002 a complete year except for 2 months which were “poor months” due to further problems resulting in 18 and 14 days lost fishing respectively upon which to consider the plaintiff’s trading after the vessel returned to the water. Mr West also had figures of trading from vessels having comparable fishing capacity to the “Sea Kay” to base his report. However, Mr West agreed that the historical information showed that the plaintiff made a loss of $12,220 in the 2000 financial year, a loss of $46,712 in the 2001 financial year, and only made a profit of $63,735 in the 2002 financial year. However, Mr West did not agree these figures showed the plaintiff incapable of generating an additional $203,000 of estimated net fish sales. Mr West said that although the profit and loss statement for the 2001 financial year, being the period during which the loss occurred, shows the plaintiff made a trading loss of $46,712, it was Mr West’s opinion that had the vessel been able to fish for that 5.1 months and fish in accordance with the tax figures that it produced after returning to the water and consistent with similar boats as he pointed out in his report operated by the same manager for the period while the boat was out of the water, that it would have generated an additional $203,000 of estimated fish sales.
I am satisfied that the approach taken by Mr West to average the net fish sales for the 11 month period from February 2001 to December 2001 is sound. In any event, I am satisfied the alternative would produce much the same result. However, there should be deducted from the loss calculated by Mr West a sum to represent expenses the vessel would have been likely to incur if the vessel had been engaged in fishing during the 5.1 month period. Further, the loss should be discounted for the chance that the plaintiff may not have earned income during that period.
Mr West agreed some expenses for the vessel would increase if the vessel was fishing during that 5.1 months. Although he described the increase as marginal he identified food, repairs and maintenance, replacement of equipment and the telephone on the boat as items of expenses that could increase. In my opinion the 2002 years’ expenses provide a proper basis to assess these increased expenses. If the items identified by Mr West are divided by twelve and multiplied by 5.1 the expenses I consider to be likely to have been incurred during that 5.1 months period amount to $51,513.80. In my opinion this sum of $51,513.80 should be deducted from Mr West’s calculated loss of $193,769 resulting in a loss of $142,255.20 before any further discount.
The evidence is that although the vessel commenced to commercially fish in about April to May 1999 it required repairs in September 1999 when it was out of the water for approximately 5 weeks. Further, repairs were required as a result of the incident on 27 May 2000 when the engine sheared its mounts and caused the shaft to the gear box to break. The vessel did not return to the water after that incident until about 21 July 2000. Then of course the incident the subject of these proceedings occurred on 23 August 2000 and as Mr West’s report shows, during November 2001 and December 2001 these were considered to be poor months due to further problems resulting in 18 and 14 days lost fishing respectively.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is appropriate to discount the loss in this case by one quarter for the chance the plaintiff may not have earned income during the 5.1 month period.
The plaintiff makes a deduction for the $9,260 received upon the claim made to its insurer for this loss. Therefore, $142,255.20 reduced by one quarter results in a figure of $106,691.40.
In my opinion, as the plaintiff has not made any other claims, it cannot claim the insurance claim excess of $10,000.
Regarding the claim for the increase in the insurance premium of $7,560, Mr Andrews, the managing director of the plaintiff, gave evidence that this increase came about after the flooding claim which occurred as a result of the incident on 23 August 2000. He agreed however there was an ongoing problem with the engine mounts, and that the insurer would not cover the vessel until the engine mount problem had been rectified. Although Mr Andrews said that he would not agree with the suggestion that this outstanding problem with the engine mounts was one of the reasons why the premium increased, and said that had the engine room not flooded that would not have happened, I do not accept that he was qualified to give that evidence. No other evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to satisfy me that this claim for the increase in insurance premium was caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Therefore, I give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $106,691.40.
I allow the plaintiff interest on the sum of $106,691.40 at the rate of 9% p a from 27 January 2001 to 13 February 2004 which is the sum of $29,190.76.
I will hear the parties on the question of costs.
0
0
1