## Facts

- Eagle Terminal Tankers, Inc. owned the S.S. *Eagle Courier*, carrying about 26,000 metric tons of grain from Port Arthur, Texas, to Leningrad under a voyage charter party.
- While maneuvering off the English coast to pick up a pilot, the first assistant engineer reported a “bump,” though conditions were good and nothing was seen in the water.
- The vessel proceeded toward Rotterdam; the next day metallic scraping noises were heard from the stern.
- After the vessel safely moored at Rotterdam, divers found extensive propeller damage, including bent blades and apparent propeller shift on the shaft.
- The vessel entered dry dock at Rotterdam for substantial repairs, which required partially discharging the cargo, replacing the propeller shaft, fitting a spare propeller, and reloading the discharged cargo.
- After repairs, the vessel completed the voyage to Leningrad.
- Eagle declared general average and sought contribution for, among other items, cargo discharge/reload expenses and crew maintenance during the repair period.
- The charter party provided that general average would be determined under the York–Antwerp Rules of 1950 and settled in New York.
- Ingosstrakh, the cargo underwriter, refused to contribute, asserting there was no general average because ship and cargo were not in peril when the expenditures were made.

## Issues

1. When the York–Antwerp Rules 1950 are incorporated by contract, must a claimant prove “peril” or a traditional general average act under Rule A as a prerequisite to general average contribution?
2. Can cargo discharge/reload and related expenses incurred at a safe port to enable necessary repairs be recoverable in general average under the York–Antwerp Rules (including Rules X(b) and XI(b)) even if the vessel was safely moored when the expenses were incurred?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for Ingosstrakh and remanded.
- The court held the district court construed general average law and the York–Antwerp Rules too narrowly by treating Rule A’s traditional peril concept as controlling.
- The court concluded the York–Antwerp “Rule of Interpretation” gives priority to the numbered rules; if expenses fall within those rules, general average may be allowed even without a separate showing of a traditional general average act under Rule A.
- Because the numbered rules (including Rules X(b) and XI(b)) could cover the claimed expenses, summary judgment was improper.

## Legal Principles

- When the York–Antwerp Rules are incorporated into a maritime contract, they govern general average as agreed by the parties.
- Under the York–Antwerp Rules 1950, the “Rule of Interpretation” gives precedence to the numbered rules over the general definition in Rule A.
- If an expense is allowed by an applicable numbered York–Antwerp rule, it may be treated as general average even if traditional “peril” or a classic sacrifice scenario is not shown.
- Determining general average eligibility for repair-related port expenses requires application of the specific conditions in the relevant numbered rules, not a categorical denial based solely on the vessel being safely moored.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that, under the contractually adopted York–Antwerp Rules 1950, specific numbered rules may permit general average recovery for repair-enabling port expenses without requiring proof of traditional peril under Rule A, and it remanded for application of those rules to the claimed expenditures.


Eagle Terminal Tankers, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the U.S.S.R. (Ingosstrakh) Ltd., 637 F.2d 890 (2d Cir. 1981)