The Marine Running-Down Clause

A marine running-down clause is a collision-liability provision commonly attached to hull insurance. It may cover the insured shipowner’s legal liability for physical damage caused by collision with another vessel, subject to the clause’s stated share, limits, exclusions, and conditions. It does not automatically cover every collision consequence; P&I and other policies may address separate liabilities.

What “running down” means

In traditional marine language, one vessel “runs down” or collides with another. A running-down clause (RDC), sometimes called a collision liability clause, extends a hull policy beyond damage to the insured vessel itself. It can insure a defined portion of the insured’s legal responsibility for damage to another vessel and, depending on the wording, property aboard that other vessel. The clause is therefore a third-party liability feature embedded in or attached to a first-party hull contract. Its label does not tell you every covered party, loss, defense expense, or limit. Read the operative text and endorsements.

The two sides of a collision claim

A collision often creates at least two separate loss streams. The insured ship may be physically damaged, which is a hull claim. The other vessel may be damaged, which is a liability claim. Crew or passengers may also be injured; cargo may be damaged; a dock, buoy, bridge, or other fixed object may be struck; and a spill may trigger cleanup costs. These are not automatically one insured loss under the RDC. Start by identifying who suffered each loss, who is legally responsible, what property or person was harmed, and which insurance agreement addresses that type of exposure.

How the clause commonly works

A common traditional form insures a stated proportion of liability for damage caused by collision with another vessel. Historical educational materials often describe a three-fourths share, leaving a residual portion to be addressed elsewhere, frequently through P&I. That example is not a universal current rule. Hull wordings can provide a different percentage, a different limit basis, or broader or narrower protection. The clause may also impose a cap based on the insured vessel’s value or the amount insured. Never apply a familiar percentage unless the policy actually states it.

Worked example: another vessel is damaged

Assume Vessel A collides with Vessel B. After investigation, the insured owner of A is legally responsible for $800,000 of covered physical damage to B. Suppose, only for illustration, A’s hull form covers 75% of qualifying collision liability and the applicable cap does not reduce payment. The starting RDC share would be $600,000 before applying deductibles, sublimits, exclusions, or other contract terms. The remaining $200,000 is not automatically insured by any particular policy; P&I might respond if its contract covers the residual liability. If the hull clause instead states a different share or limit, that wording changes the result.

The RDC and P&I are related but different

P&I is marine liability protection arranged under its own policy or club rules. It may cover liabilities that a hull collision clause leaves outside its scope, such as specified injury claims or liabilities to third parties other than the owner of another vessel. The two contracts may coordinate, but they do not form one automatic package. Check whether P&I is excess, complementary, or subject to another allocation; how deductibles apply; and whether the insured gave notice under both contracts. A federal appellate opinion describing marine P&I provides a useful conceptual distinction, but each insurance contract controls its own coverage.

Collision with a dock or other fixed object

A vessel striking a pier, bridge, buoy, or seawall presents an important exam and claims distinction. Traditional running-down wording is often framed around collision with another vessel, so contact with a fixed object may not qualify under that clause. Separate hull or P&I language may address damage to fixed and floating objects, but the insured cannot infer that from the term “collision.” Identify the object and apply the actual definition. A question that says “collision” in ordinary English may still fail to satisfy a policy’s narrower collision-liability grant.

Cargo damage and personal injury

Damage to cargo aboard the other vessel may be included in some collision clause formulations, but cargo aboard the insured vessel is a different property interest. Cargo insurance generally protects the cargo owner’s insured interest; carrier liability for cargo damage is analyzed separately and may fall under P&I terms. Personal injury, death, illness, or crew claims are also not safely assumed to be RDC losses. Some common forms specifically exclude them. P&I may address certain covered liabilities, subject to its rules. For a mixed casualty, separate the claim types instead of treating the word “collision” as a single coverage answer.

Legal liability still matters

The RDC usually responds to legal liability, not simply because two ships touched. The parties may dispute fault, causation, navigation rules, seaworthiness, contract allocation, or the value of the damaged property. A collision can also involve divided fault, where responsibility is allocated among vessels. The insured should preserve bridge logs, electronic navigation data, crew statements, photographs, survey reports, and communications. The insurer may have investigation and settlement rights. The policy may require prompt notice and cooperation even before fault is established. Coverage analysis and liability investigation are related but separate tasks.

Limits, deductibles, and valuation

A percentage share does not necessarily equal the final amount payable. A clause can limit the insurer’s payment by the sum insured, the insured vessel’s agreed value, a collision sublimit, or another stated amount. A deductible may apply, possibly separately to hull damage and liability. If two vessels insured under one arrangement collide, special clauses may affect how limits are applied. The contract may also allocate defense and survey costs in a particular way. Do not calculate the claim from a percentage alone; identify the covered liability base and then apply every applicable cap and retention.

Claims handling steps

1. Protect life and follow safety and environmental response requirements first.
2. Give prompt notice to hull and P&I insurers or clubs as their contracts require.
3. Record the vessels, owners, operators, locations, damage, witnesses, and chronology.
4. Preserve voyage data, logs, charts, maintenance records, photographs, and survey evidence.
5. Avoid admitting liability or agreeing to a settlement without checking consent requirements.
6. Separate physical damage to the insured vessel from third-party claims and injury, cargo, pollution, or fixed-object losses.
7. Compare the hull clause and P&I wording, including limits, deductibles, exclusions, and other-insurance provisions.

Common limitations and exclusions

RDC protection can be limited by navigation warranties, trading limits, vessel schedules, crew or management conditions, deductibles, and exclusions. The contract may not cover contractual liability assumed beyond ordinary legal responsibility. It may exclude injury, pollution, damage to property other than the other vessel and its cargo, or liabilities arising from a particular activity. A breach of a warranty or a failure to notify can raise separate legal questions under the governing law. These are issues to check, not universal exclusions. Avoid importing exclusions from one market form into another policy without reviewing its actual wording.

Exam distinctions to remember

• Hull coverage addresses physical damage to the insured vessel; RDC wording may extend hull insurance to a stated share of specified collision liabilities.
• P&I is a separate marine liability arrangement and may address certain liabilities outside the hull clause.
• A collision with another vessel is not automatically the same as striking a pier or bridge.
• Cargo damage, injury, pollution, and wreck removal each need their own coverage analysis.
• A three-fourths share is a common teaching example, not a universal coverage rule.
• Liability, insured status, policy limits, deductibles, exclusions, and notice duties all matter.

Frequently asked questions

The running-down clause is a hull-policy collision-liability feature for specified damage the insured legally owes after a collision with another vessel. Some traditional forms cover a stated fraction, often discussed as three-fourths, but the actual policy may use another share and limit. It is distinct from P&I and does not necessarily cover injury, cargo aboard the insured ship, pollution, or damage to fixed objects. The wording and maritime law govern.

How a collision file is commonly allocated

The adjuster may need to build a coverage map before calculating anything. Put insured-vessel damage in one column, legal liability to the other vessel in another, and separate columns for cargo, injury, fixed objects, pollution, and response expenses. For each row, identify the potentially applicable hull, RDC, P&I, cargo, or other contract. This does not mean every row has a different insurer; it is a way to avoid counting one payment twice or overlooking a gap. If both vessels are owned by the same insured or both are insured under related contracts, check for special collision, sistership, or other-insurance language. The claim can also involve salvage, limitation of liability, or a contractual allocation between owners.

Consider a second example: Vessel A strikes Vessel B and also damages a pier while a crew member is injured. A hull policy may pay covered damage to A. The RDC might apply to a qualifying share of liability for B, if the text includes that collision and no exclusion applies. Pier damage could be outside a traditional other-vessel clause and require separate liability wording. The crew injury likely calls for P&I or another coverage analysis. The fact that the operator made one navigational mistake does not merge the resulting property and bodily-injury claims. For an exam, use the facts to match the damaged interest and liability type to the correct policy feature.

Questions about the “other vessel” requirement

Some forms define collision broadly; others use narrower language. A vessel may contact a floating crane, barge, offshore platform, or object attached to a dock. Whether that is collision with another vessel, damage to other property, or a different exposure depends on the definitions and legal status of the object. Do not resolve the issue based solely on how a witness describes the accident. The policy may separately address fixed and floating objects, and maritime law may classify the structure for other purposes. Record the object’s function, ownership, movement, and relationship to the waterway, then apply the exact clause.

Why the insured vessel’s own damage is separate

The vessel that caused the collision can have a covered first-party hull loss even if its owner has no legal liability to the other vessel. Conversely, the insured may owe collision damages to another vessel while the insured ship itself suffers little or no damage. Those outcomes show why collision liability is an extension or companion to hull insurance rather than a substitute for the hull grant. The insured’s deductible and valuation provisions for its own ship may differ from the RDC share and cap for third-party property damage. An exam may describe both vessels as damaged to test whether you identify the insured property first and then assess liability separately.

The parties may also agree to waive or allocate collision claims in a charter or other maritime contract. Such an agreement can affect who asserts a claim and which insurer is involved, but it does not automatically amend the insurance contract. A policy may restrict coverage for liability assumed by contract beyond what would otherwise exist. Preserve the charter, towage agreement, pilotage terms, and any waiver of subrogation or collision allocation. The insurers may need to determine how those agreements interact with the policy and governing maritime law. Do not assume that a contractual promise to pay another party is covered merely because an RDC appears in the hull policy.

Prepare for the Texas P&C exam

Review marine liability and policy distinctions with the Texas Property and Casualty exam prep course.