Here at Gortyna, we take pride in all the claims that we settle. However, part of our job, or better said part of our claims services is to inspect and determine all the facts in connection to certain damage or claim, as in this case of force majeure and damages to the trailer and goods.
In this particular case, the goods were loaded onto the trailer and transported from Turkey to Serbia. During the transportation, a severe storm hit Turkey and it damaged the tarpaulin covering the trailer, as well as dozens of MDF panels that were transported.
After receiving the documentation related to the damage, we immediately checked the strength of the winds that were blowing at the accident site that day. As we suspected, the strength of the wind, as well as other circumstances related to the storm, indicated that it was a case of force majeure.
Nevertheless, the injured party demanded that he be compensated for the damage in accordance with the CMR policy. In addition to referring to the insurance conditions, the injured party also claimed that the driver who was transporting the goods did everything in his power to remove the damage on the trailer and to protect the rest of the goods that were not damaged.
Regardless of the fact that the claims related to the efforts of the driver’s efforts were true, compensation could not be paid as the gusts of wind accompanied by rain were a circumstance that could not have been foreseen and avoided in the given case.
Unsatisfied with this, the injured party requested compensation for damages in court proceedings, and we are conveying the official position of the court to you:
The court is of the opinion that in this case, the damage to the goods is the result of force majeure, which excludes the defendant’s obligation to compensate the plaintiff for the damage. Stormy gusts of wind followed by rain represent a circumstance that could not be foreseen and avoided in the given case. The damage to the goods transported by the plaintiff is a consequence of the above circumstances. Bearing in mind that the parties unanimously established force majeure as the basis for excluding the right to compensation for damages, and bearing in mind that the damage occurred as a result of force majeure, the court found that the plaintiff has no right to claim the amount of the damage suffered from the defendant.