In maritime trade, a vessel entering a shipyard for maintenance and repair does not mean that technical risks are completely eliminated. On the contrary, in the event of faulty or incomplete execution of works, serious malfunctions, loss of control, and accidents requiring salvage intervention may occur even immediately after the vessel departs the shipyard. The decision of the Istanbul Anatolian 1st Civil Court of Commerce dated 05.11.2025, numbered E.2023/569, K.2025/941, is a current and instructive ruling that clearly defines who will be responsible for salvage fees and how recourse relationships will be established in such cases.

Brief Summary of the Incident: How Did the Process Leading to Salvage Fees Arise?

In the concrete case, after undergoing maintenance and repair at the shipyard, the vessel was taken out for a sea trial; however, shortly after the trial began, the main engine overheated, and the vessel became completely out of control. This loss of control led to the vessel drifting, necessitating salvage services provided by the General Directorate of Coastal Safety. A salvage fee of 250,000 USD was paid for the vessel to be secured and released.

As a result of technical inspections and expert examinations, it was revealed that the main cause of the malfunction was the incorrect (reversed) connection of the 3-way thermostatic valve, which was dismantled and reinstalled by the shipyard. This error was deemed a latent defect that could not have been detected before the sea trial.

Who is Primarily Liable for Salvage Fees?

As explicitly acknowledged by the court, the person responsible to the Coast Guard during the salvage operation is the ship’s captain / owner, who was actually navigating and managing the vessel at that moment and representing the owner. Since the salvage fee is awarded by the competent authority using public power, it is primarily:

Paid by the owner of the salvaged vessel,

Or by the captain or operator acting on behalf of the vessel. In this respect, it is clear that the salvage fee is a debt that primarily arises on the owner, independent of fault.

If There is a Shipyard Fault, Who Bears the Burden of the Salvage Fee?

The most important point of the decision is its answer to the question of who ultimately bears the paid salvage fee. The court, based on expert reports, concluded:

That the main cause of the malfunction was the shipyard’s faulty installation,

That the shipyard was therefore found 80% at fault,

And that the owner was deemed 20% at fault for not adequately fulfilling their duty of control. In line with this finding, it was concluded that the salvage fee paid by the owner constituted a recoverable loss to the extent of the shipyard’s fault. The court held the shipyard liable for a salvage fee loss of 200,000 USD.

To Whom Can Insurance Recourse in This Situation?

In practice, such salvage fees are often:

P&I insurance,

Paid by the insurer under Hull & Machinery insurance.

P&I Insurance (Protection & Indemnity)

P&I is a liability insurance that covers liabilities towards third parties arising from ship operation. It is not a “damage insurance” in the classical sense, but rather a legal liability insurance, and is mostly administered through P&I clubs.

Main Coverages

Cargo damage and cargo loss (liability to cargo owner)

Environmental pollution (fuel spill, clean-up costs)

Loss of life and personal injury (crew, passengers, third parties)

Portion of collision liability attributable to the other party

Salvage, assistance, and wreck removal expenses (in terms of liability)

Port, dock, buoy, infrastructure damages

Fines and administrative sanctions (under certain conditions)

Relationship with Salvage Remuneration

The cargo share and the portion reflected to third parties of the salvage remuneration generally fall within the scope of P&I coverage.

P&I, after making payment, may seek recourse against responsible parties such as the faulty shipyard, maintenance-repair company, or charterer.

Hull & Machinery (Hull–Engine) Insurance

H&M is a classic property insurance that covers the physical integrity of the vessel itself. The vessel’s hull, machinery, and technical equipment are the subject of this policy.

Main Coverages

Collision, grounding, sinking

Fire, explosion

Machinery breakdowns (according to policy terms)

Storm, heavy weather conditions

Salvage expenses – for saving the vessel

General average contributions (vessel’s share)

Relationship with Salvage Fee

As a result of salvage operations, if the vessel is salvaged, the salvage remuneration corresponding to the vessel’s share is covered by H&M.

The insurer, to the extent of the amount paid, can seek recourse from negligent third parties (e.g., from the shipyard if there is a shipyard error).

Key Differences Between P&I and H&M

According to the legal framework established by the decision:

The insurer, up to the amount of the salvage remuneration or compensation paid to its insured (shipowner),

may have recourse against the shipyard that negligently caused the damage. As expressly adopted in the court’s decision, if the salvage remuneration constitutes damage directly resulting from the shipyard’s fault, the insurer’s right of recourse arises both from the contract and general provisions.

Latent Defect – Delivery – Sea Trial Relationship

Another point specifically emphasized in the decision is that the claims of “received, tested,” frequently put forward in shipyard defenses, will not eliminate liability in every case. The Court found that the faulty connection:

It was recognized as a latent defect that could not be detected before the trial voyage but emerged during actual use. This indicates that the shipyard, despite the work having been delivered, cannot escape liability arising from the defect.

Conclusion: Who Bears the Salvage Fee?

To summarize in light of this decision:

The salvage fee is initially paid by the shipowner. However, if the event leading to the need for salvage originated from the shipyard’s faulty maintenance or repair, the shipowner (or insurer) can seek recourse for this cost from the shipyard. Insurance companies have the right of recourse against culpable shipyards for the salvage costs they paid. The fact that the item was received or that preliminary tests were conducted does not eliminate shipyard liability in the event of a latent defect. In this respect, the decision clearly demonstrates that the ultimate burden of the salvage fee in the shipyard–shipowner–insurer triangle will be apportioned based on fault, establishing a strong precedent for practical application.

Frequently Asked Questions

Kurtarma ücreti neden önce donatan tarafından ödenir, kusur daha sonra mı değerlendirilir?

Kurtarma ücreti, kamu gücü kullanan yetkili bir idare (örneğin Kıyı Emniyeti Genel Müdürlüğü) tarafından verilen acil bir hizmetin karşılığıdır. Bu nedenle, hizmetin verildiği anda muhatap, gemiyi fiilen sevk ve idare eden ve donatanı temsil eden kişi olarak donatan veya kaptandır. Kurtarma ücretinin ödenmesi, geminin serbest bırakılması ve seyrine devam edebilmesi için zorunludur. Kusur değerlendirmesi ise sonradan, özel hukuk ilişkisi kapsamında yapılır ve bu aşamada rücu imkânı devreye girer.

Kurtarma ücretinin tamamı tersaneden talep edilebilir mi?

Hayır, her somut olayda bu mümkün değildir. İncelenen kararda olduğu gibi, mahkeme teknik bilirkişi raporlarına dayanarak kusur oranlaması yapar. Eğer kurtarma ihtiyacına yol açan olay tersanenin kusurlu bakım veya onarımından kaynaklanıyorsa, tersane yalnızca kendi kusuru oranında sorumlu tutulur. Donatanın kontrol ve gözetim yükümlülüğünü ihlal etmesi hâlinde, kurtarma ücretinin bir kısmı donatan üzerinde kalabilir.

Sigorta şirketi kurtarma ücretini ödedikten sonra hangi taraflara rücu edebilir?

Sigorta şirketi (P&I veya Hull & Machinery), sigortalısına ödediği kurtarma ücreti veya tazminat tutarı kadar, zararın doğmasına kusuruyla sebep olan üçüncü kişilere rücu edebilir. Bu kişiler; tersane, bakım-onarım firması, teknik servis veya sözleşmeye aykırı davranan başka bir ilgilidir. Kararda da açıkça kabul edildiği üzere, kurtarma ücretinin tersane kusurundan kaynaklanan bir zarar niteliği taşıması hâlinde sigortacının rücu hakkı hem sözleşmeye hem de genel hükümlere dayalı olarak doğmaktadır.

Why Is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

Defects arising from shipyard fault and salvage operations triggered by these defects constitute one of the most technical and highest-risk areas of maritime commercial law. In such disputes, the issue is not merely who paid the salvage fee; but rather who will be held responsible at which stage, in what legal capacity, and to what extent.

Firstly, issues such as the distinction between assistance and salvage, the concept of latent defect, and the legal relationship between delivery and sea trial are not matters that can be resolved with general knowledge of contract law. This area requires a combined assessment of the Turkish Commercial Code, maritime practices, and established precedents. Specifically, the correct interpretation of the technical content of expert reports, the lawful discussion of fault ratios, and the lodging of effective objections to reports directly determine the outcome of the case.

Furthermore, the fact that salvage fees are often high-value entails a multi-stage process including ship arrest, issuance of letters of guarantee, activation of insurance, and subsequent subrogation lawsuits. A procedural error made during this process can lead to irrecoverable financial losses for the shipowner or insurer.

On the other hand, in terms of insurance, the incorrect drawing of the boundary between P&I and Hull & Machinery policies; the misassessment of issues such as which payment falls under which insurance coverage, and to whom and on what grounds the insurer can seek recourse, leads to serious disputes for both the insured and the insurer.

Therefore, in disputes concerning salvage fees arising within the shipyard-owner-insurer triad, working with a lawyer who is an expert in maritime law and closely familiar with judicial practice and technical maritime reports is not merely a preference, but often a necessity. If the correct legal strategy is not established at the beginning of the process, irretrievable loss of rights may occur later.