Independent technical scrutiny as the foundation of fair and defensible adjustments
In the marine insurance market, the core duties of surveyors appointed by Hull and Machinery underwriters are broadly consistent internationally. Surveyors are expected to assess, with objectivity, the circumstances of a casualty, ascertain the nature and extent of damage, evaluate the appropriateness of repairs undertaken or proposed and investigate the root cause of the incident. They also assist underwriters in the technical evaluation of claims submitted by shipowners.
Within this shared framework, the Italian market displays structural characteristics that differ from those commonly observed elsewhere. In Italy, underwriters generally require a broader and more integrated technical contribution from appointed surveyors, extending beyond damage assessment to encompass a comprehensive review of the claim as a whole.
Surveyors are commonly asked to provide reasoned technical opinions on most elements of a claim, including cost items that elsewhere might not ordinarily fall within their traditional scope of responsibility. This may involve assessing the necessity, proportionality and economic justification of individual expenses, thereby supplying underwriters and average adjusters with a technically substantiated basis for adjustment. The distinction between surveyor and adjuster remains clear: the former provides independent technical analysis, while the latter performs the financial and contractual adjustment.
This approach is particularly evident in recurring areas of claims handling. By way of example, in cases involving deviation to a repair port, surveyors are typically requested to analyse the fuel consumption claimed, taking into account the vessel’s characteristics, speed and efficiency, distance sailed and prevailing conditions, as well as the technical and economic suitability of the selected port. They may also evaluate the necessity and duration of superintendent attendance during repairs and the technical justification of crew bonuses associated with repair activities.
In many other markets, such matters are often addressed directly by the average adjuster, sometimes without prior technical scrutiny or only following the appointment of an additional consulting expert. The Italian system should not, however, be regarded as inherently more complex. Rather, it reflects a different allocation of technical responsibilities within the claims process. In some markets, additional clarification may be sought from a Consultant Surveyor at a later stage of the adjustment. In Italy, the appointed surveyor generally provides comprehensive technical comments from the outset, reducing the need for subsequent technical reinterpretation.
The Italian model reflects a broader legal and professional culture that attributes significant weight to independent technical assessment. This principle is also evident in maritime disputes through the Accertamento Tecnico Preventivo (ATP), which, under Article 696 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, provides for the urgent preservation of technical evidence where there is a risk of alteration or loss, while Article 696-bis provides for a non-urgent, expert-led technical appraisal aimed at facilitating an early, out-of-court settlement.
Both approaches ultimately pursue the same objective across markets: fairness, transparency and technical accuracy in the resolution of maritime claims. The difference lies not in the result, but in the procedural path through which technically substantiated conclusions are reached.
