In this case, AIG Europe SA (AIG) claimed DKK 534,949.98 with interest from Dampskibsselskabet af 1912 A / S and A / S Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg (Maersk Line) for damage to goods in three containers that overturned on 3 December 1999. In accordance with three consignment notes dated 26 November and 1 December 1999, Maersk Broker K/S undertook, among other things, to transport containers with pipes and fittings from Fredericia, Denmark, to Cyprus. The shipper was ABB Alstom Power Flowsystems A/S, and the consignee was Caramondani Engineers. The Maersk Line non-negotiable sea waybill dated 4 December 1999 stated that the transport concerned a total of four containers with a total weight of 30,473 kg, and that the goods were to be loaded in the Port of Aarhus and unloaded in Bremerhaven, with a view to further transport to Cyprus. The document was prepared by Thor Jørgensen A/S as agent for Maersk Line.

The containers were blown down and overturned at the Maersk Terminal at Aarhus on 3 December 1999 during extreme wind conditions. The terminal workers did their best to get the stacked containers down, but ran out of time, which is why some containers were left stacked four in height when the wind forces got extreme.

AIG argued that Maersk Line was liable for damages pursuant to the Merchant Shipping Act, s 275(1), which broadly corresponds to art 5.1 of the Hamburg Rules, as the goods have been damaged while in Maersk Line's custody, and since Maersk Line had not proved that the loss was not caused by its fault or negligence or that of anyone for whom it is liable. Maersk Line should have ensured that the containers were adequately protected at the terminal. The containers were located at a considerable distance from warehouse 85 and were not sheltered. The containers should have been in blocks and not as free-standing containers, and should not merely have been placed on top of each other. They should also have been locked together using twistlocks. When Maersk Line received an alarm from the gantry cranes, it decided that loading of the Maersk Arun should continue, instead of using all crew to secure the containers. It must therefore be responsible for deciding on this priority. Maersk Line cannot claim that there was a force majeure-like situation, as the weather development was not unpredictable. Regional weather forecasts had forecast a gale and winds of hurricane force. The necessary precautions should have been taken at an earlier stage. Pursuant to s 279 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which corresponds to art 4.5.b of the Hague-Visby Rules, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for loss of or damage to the goods calculated on the basis of the value of goods of the same kind. However, this is only a starting point, and does not preclude the claiming of expenses incurred in order to limit losses. Removing and letting Kommune Kemi A/S destroy the foam insulation from the pipes ensured that the pipes could be reused. The cost of transporting and destroying the insulation thus helped to limit the total losses.

Maersk Line argued that there was a force majeure-like situation and thus the cause of the damage could not be blamed on its fault or negligence. The damage was solely caused by the violent and extreme weather events of 3 December 1999, which were unpredictable. The weather evolved very rapidly, and became the worst storm of the last century, leading to the largest insurance payments ever made. Experience showed that the terminal's geographical location provided good protection against westerly winds, and out of a total of 2,500 containers, only seven were damaged in the storm. AIG could only claim compensation for normal loss under s 279 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and since the costs of disposal etc had the character of consequential damages, this loss was not covered by the provision.

Held: Judgment for AIG for DKK 495,422 plus interest.

Notwithstanding the fact that the weather development on 3 December 1999 was completely unusual and unpredictable for Maersk Line, the Court finds that it has not been established that the damage was not caused by errors or negligence on the part of Maersk Line or anyone for whom it is responsible. In this regard, the Court emphasises in particular that, in the face of strong winds, Maersk Line chose to continue loading the Maersk Arun instead of taking measures to protect the containers. At the same time, Maersk Line failed to place the last of the relevant containers on the ground, despite the fact that it knew, or at least should have known, that the containers had a significantly lower weight than originally assumed, and despite the fact that the Maersk truck driver, when placing the last container, could, or at least should have been able to, sense that this was not significantly heavier than the empty containers that were in use at the same time.

Pursuant to s 279 of the Merchant Shipping Act, AIG is entitled to be reimbursed for the normal loss, and since there is no basis for reimbursing other expenses, AIG's claim is upheld for DKK 495,422.