This was a claim of RUB 29,826,423 brought by Insurance Joint-Stock Company Energogarant PJSC, the cargo insurer (the claimant), against Insurance Company Investflot LLC (AMT Strakhovanie LLC), the liability insurer of the shipowner (the defendant), for damage to cargo caused by the wreck of the vessel Zorbey. This was the sum paid by the cargo insurer to the beneficiary under the insurance contract, Akari Free Port Ltd. The insured was Grain Export LLC.

Grain Export LLC and the shipowner entered into a contract of carriage of grain in bulk on 6 October 2011. The cargo was delivered to the shipowner and loaded onto the Zorbey. The bill of lading was issued. The port of loading was Eysk, Russia. The port of destination was Famagusta, Cyprus.

On 3 November 2011, the vessel's master decided to wait for better weather in the Gulf of Gokova. On the same day, while manoeuvring at the entrance to the Gulf, the vessel collided with the rocks and sank. The cargo was lost.

On 12 April 2013, the Commercial Court of Moscow found in favour of the claimant in full. This judgment was upheld by the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal on 1 July 2013. The judgments of the Courts of first and appellate instances were revised by the Commercial Court of the Moscow District on 12 September 2013. The case was sent for reconsideration to the Court of first instance.

One of the grounds for the revision of the judgments was that the wreckage was caused by a navigational mistake. Thus, the shipowner should have been exempted from liability under art 4.2.a of the Hague-Visby Rules.

On 24 September 2014, as a result of reconsideration of the case, the Commercial Court of Moscow found in favour of the claimant in full again. On 1 September 2015, the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal revised the judgment of the Court of first instance, but reached the same conclusion that the claim should be satisfied in full. These judgments were again revised by the Court of the Moscow District and sent to the Court of first instance for reconsideration.

On 2 November 2016, the Commercial Court of Moscow found in favour of the defendant in full. On 18 January 2017, the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Court of first instance. The claimant submitted a cassation appeal to the Commercial Court of the Moscow District. One of the grounds for the appeal was that the Courts of first and appellate instances failed to establish the actual sequences of events that resulted in the shipwreck. The shipowner should not be exempted from liability.

Held: The cassation appeal is dismissed.

The Court of cassation found that neither the carrier nor its insurer is liable for damage or loss caused by a mistake or neglect of the master in navigation. According to the expert opinion, which was arranged by the appellate Court, the only cause of the shipwreck was the master's actions (navigational error). If the shipowner is not liable for the claim, its insurer is not liable either. Moreover, the appellate Court took into account other evidence of navigational error and reached the conclusion that the error was proven.

On the basis of the above, the Court of cassation dismissed the appeal since the shipowner was exempted from liability. Another basis for dismissing the claim was that the claimant should have brought its claim against the shipowner and not directly against its liability insurer.