16
So there is a wide variation, much of it beyond the control of the
Commission, but tied into, for example, how much time it takes a
claimant to get his documentation together to support the claim.
Mr. HUBBARD. On page 8 of your remarks, you state there have
been 21 incidents in the Commission's estimates that its liability
may exceed $120,000, but no claim has yet been filed. How many of
these claims would now be barred if a 2-year statute of limitations
on the filing of claims had been in effect since 1979?
Mr. GIANELLI. Mr. Chairman, we will have to furnish you that
information. We don't have it now. We could get it rapidly.
[The information follows:]
Of the 21 marine accidents for which no claims have been received, 4 would have
been time-barred by Dec. 1, 1982, if a 2-year statute-of-limitations on the filing of
claims had been in effect since Oct. 1, 1979.
[The following was received for the record:]
Mr. HUBBARD. What is your opinion about the possible imposi-
tion of such a statute of limitations?
Mr. GIANELLI. Speaking from my standpoint, it seems it would be
extremely helpful to have such a statute apply. How reasonable it
will be viewed in terms of the shipping people who have, for exam-
ple, certain time constraints on them by virtue of when they may
tie up a ship for various purposes, they may have a different view-
point. Certainly, from the standpoint of administering the claims
program, I think such a statute would be helpful.
Mr. HUBBARD. Last, what would you recommend as the time
limit?
Mr. GIANELLI. We might want to take a look at that and see if
we have specific recommendations for you, Mr. Chairman. I don't
think we have fully addressed that question.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HUBBARD AND ANSWERED BY PANAMA CANAL
COMMISSION
Question 1. Have you experienced any problems with the shippers not submitting
claims to you within a reasonable time frame? (and) What do you feel is a reason-
able time frame?
Answer. In admiralty law, a shipowner whose vessel is involved in a marine acci-
dent is under a duty to mitigate his damages. Accordingly, unless the vessel is so
badly damaged as to render it unseaworthy, the owner will ordinarily defer repairs
until her next regularly-scheduled drydocking, when she will be out of commission
anyway. On the average, regular drydockings are now being scheduled about once
every two years, and that fact works to cause delays in the submission to the Com-
mission of most vessel accident claims. Such delays cannot, however, be character-
ized as "unreasonable". Indeed, the courts have long held that a shipowner who
elects to drydock and repair his damaged, but still seaworthy, vessel immediately
after an accident, instead of waiting its next regularly-scheduled drydocking, is the
only one who has acted unreasonably, and he will not be allowed to recover from
the tort feasor either his drydocking costs or any amount for loss of use during the
repair period.
Another problem confronting shipowners is the requirement, contained in section
1413 of the 1979 Panama Canal Act, to fully document vessel-accident claims
against the Commission. That requirement ordinarily delays the submission of such
claims further. The need for full documentation is, however, a real one, and protects
the Commission against spurious or inflated claims. The requirement for full docu-
mentation has existed pursuant to law or Executive Order since 1918 and, while it
may delay somewhat the submission of these claims to the agency, it does not do so
unreasonably.
In addition to the foregoing delays (which, as noted, are inherent in the system)
the Canal has, at times, received claims for vessel damage four or five years after
an accident has occurred and, in some instances, even later. Before the treaty en-