Unimasters | 28/08/2026
Two people stand on the quay at Burgas, photographing the same BESS container. One is an independent marine surveyor with a clipboard, a calibrated camera and a mandate from the cargo insurer. The other is a site engineer with a smartphone. Six months later, when the claim file reaches the adjuster's desk, only one of those documentation efforts will carry weight. The survey report becomes evidence; the phone snapshots become context at best, noise at worst.
The survey clock starts the moment damage is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. For BESS containers arriving at Burgas or Constanța, that moment is typically discharge from the vessel or, for road-delivered units, the instant the container shows up at the construction site.
The person holding the pen is whoever signs the delivery document: the consignee's representative at the port, or the site manager accepting the container from the appointed trucker. A clean signature without reservation is the first procedural death of a claim.
The survey itself is not mandated by a single convention; it is the evidentiary mechanism that makes the conventions' notice requirements meaningful. The procedural sequence runs as follows:
Written notice of loss or damage must be given to the carrier at the port of discharge before or at the time of removal of the goods into the custody of the consignee. If the damage is not apparent, notice must be given within three days of delivery. Failure to give notice creates a presumption that the goods were delivered as described in the Bill of Lading. The one-year limitation period for suit runs from the date of delivery or the date when the goods should have been delivered.
Apparent damage must be reserved at delivery. Non-apparent damage must be notified in writing within seven days of delivery, Sundays and public holidays excepted. Delay claims require written reservation within 21 days of the goods being placed at the consignee's disposal (Article 30(3)). The limitation period is one year from delivery, or three years in cases of wilful misconduct (Article 32).
The policy requires prompt notice to the insurer and reasonable steps to preserve evidence. Most policies name a survey agent or require the insured to appoint one from an approved panel. The survey appointment should happen within 24 to 48 hours of damage discovery; delay weakens the evidentiary chain.
The survey report itself is not a legal document in the sense that a Bill of Lading or CMR consignment note is. It is expert evidence: a professional opinion on the nature, extent and probable cause of damage, supported by photographs, measurements and contemporaneous observations. Its weight depends entirely on the independence and competence of the surveyor, the timeliness of the inspection and the completeness of the evidence preserved.
Claims die in the gap between what the site team sees and what the claim file proves. For BESS containers, the failure modes are specific and predictable.
A BESS container arrives at the construction site after road transport from Burgas. The site manager signs the land transport document without reservation because the container exterior looks intact. Three days later, when the container is set for commissioning, the team discovers malfunctioning due to initially unseen container bottom damage impacting some inside battery modules.
The CMR seven-day window for non-apparent damage has not yet closed, but the clean signature on the delivery document creates an immediate presumption problem: the carrier will argue the damage occurred after delivery, not during transit.
The fix is procedural, not technical. The site team must be briefed before the first container arrives: never sign a delivery document without inspecting the container from all sides, or at minimum, annotate the document with "contents not inspected" or "accepted subject to inspection." This reservation preserves the right to notify damage within the seven-day window.
BESS containers are produced and sealed at the factory with battery modules installed during the production process. The container is the battery system. But internal securing materials, dunnage, shock indicators and humidity recorders travel inside. When damage is discovered, the instinct is to clear the debris and assess the modules. That instinct destroys evidence.
A survey report that cannot describe the condition of internal securing materials, the state of shock indicators or the readings on humidity recorders is a survey report that cannot establish causation. The insurer's adjuster will ask: was the damage caused by inadequate securing at origin, or by an event during transit? Without the packaging evidence, the answer is speculation.
The fix: nothing leaves the container until the surveyor has documented it. Photographs of securing materials in situ, close-ups of shock indicators, readings from data loggers. If the insurer's nominated surveyor cannot attend within 24 hours, the site team must preserve the evidence themselves, with timestamped photographs and a written description of what was found where.
The cargo owner appoints a surveyor. The surveyor inspects the container, photographs the damage, writes a report. Six months later, the carrier's P&I club disputes the findings: the surveyor was not independent, the carrier was not invited to attend, the evidence was not jointly verified.
A joint survey, where both the cargo interest and the carrier (or their respective insurers) attend the same inspection, is not legally required under the Hague-Visby Rules or CMR. But it is the gold standard for evidentiary weight. When both parties observe the same damage, photograph the same evidence and sign the same survey report, the scope for later dispute narrows dramatically.
For BESS projects in CEE, the practical challenge is timing. The carrier's P&I correspondent may be in Piraeus or Istanbul; the cargo insurer's surveyor may be in Sofia or Bucharest. Coordinating attendance within 24 to 48 hours of damage discovery requires advance preparation: the project team should have contact details for both the cargo insurer's survey agent and the carrier's P&I correspondent before the first container ships.
Three different claims, three different regimes, three different limitation periods. Conflating them is a common procedural error.
Damage is physical harm to the cargo: impact marks, water ingress, thermal event residue. The claim is against the carrier under the contract of carriage (Hague-Visby or CMR) and against the cargo insurer under the policy.
Shortage is missing cargo: fewer containers delivered than the Bill of Lading describes, or fewer modules inside a container than the Packing List specifies. The claim is against the carrier, but the evidentiary burden is different: the survey must establish what was shipped versus what was received, typically by comparing the Bill of Lading, Packing List and tally at discharge.
Delay is late delivery. Under the Hague-Visby Rules, delay claims are not explicitly covered; recovery depends on the contract terms and applicable national law. Under CMR Article 30(3), delay claims require written reservation within 21 days. Under cargo insurance, the "delay" exclusion in Institute Cargo Clauses refers to physical damage caused by delay (such as battery degradation from extended storage), not financial losses from late project completion. Financial project delays require a separate policy: Delay in Start-Up (DSU) or Marine Delay in Start-Up (MDSU).
A survey report that conflates damage with shortage, or that attempts to quantify delay losses, is a survey report that will be challenged. The surveyor's mandate is to document physical condition and probable cause, not to calculate consequential losses.
The Hague-Visby one-year limitation and the CMR one-year limitation are hard deadlines. They run from delivery, not from damage discovery, not from survey completion, not from claim submission. A claim file that is complete in every other respect but filed one day after the limitation period expires is a claim file that recovers nothing.
For BESS projects with long commissioning timelines, this is a real risk. A container delivered in August 2026 may not be commissioned until October 2026. Damage discovered in October must still be claimed within one year of the August delivery date. The survey report, the notice to the carrier, the formal claim submission: all must be completed within that window.
The difference between documentation and evidence begins at the moment of capture.
A BESS container arrives at a Bulgarian construction site after road transport from Burgas. The site team signs the land transport document without reservation. Four days later, during pre-commissioning checks, the team discovers that one battery module shows deformation consistent with impact during transit. The site engineer photographs the damage with a smartphone and emails the images to the project office.
The project office notifies the freight forwarder, who notifies the road carrier. The road carrier's insurer requests a survey.
The surveyor's report notes the damage but cannot establish causation: "Impact damage observed. Cause undetermined".
The cargo insurer pays the claim under the all-risks policy, but the subrogation recovery against the road carrier fails. The carrier's defence: the damage could have occurred after delivery, during site handling. The clean signature on the delivery document supports this defence. The absence of the shock indicator means there is no contemporaneous evidence of when the impact occurred.
The CMR liability limit is 8.33 SDR per kilogram of gross weight (Article 23). For a 43-ton BESS container, the maximum recovery would be approximately 358,000 SDR. But that recovery requires proof that the damage occurred during the carrier's period of responsibility. Without the evidence chain, the proof fails.
The cost is not the claim value. The cost is the unrecoverable portion of the claim value, plus the project delay while replacement modules are sourced, plus the possible storage fees at Burgas while the damaged container awaits disposition. The procedural miss at delivery cascades through the entire claim timeline.
Project office:
Freight forwarder:
Site team:
Q: Who appoints the independent surveyor for a BESS cargo damage claim?
A: The cargo insurer typically appoints the surveyor, either from a named agent in the policy or from an approved panel. The insured should notify the insurer immediately upon damage discovery and request surveyor appointment within 24 to 48 hours.
Q: What is the difference between a joint survey and a unilateral survey?
A: A joint survey is attended by representatives of both the cargo interest and the carrier (or their insurers). A unilateral survey is conducted by only one party's surveyor. Joint surveys carry greater evidentiary weight because both parties observe and verify the same findings.
Q: What is the CMR notice deadline for non-apparent damage?
A: Under CMR Article 30(1), written notice of non-apparent damage must be given within seven days of delivery, Sundays and public holidays excepted. This is not "seven working days"; Saturdays count.
Q: What is the Hague-Visby notice deadline for non-apparent damage?
A: Under Hague-Visby Rules Article III rule 6, written notice of non-apparent damage must be given within three days of delivery. Failure to give notice creates a presumption that the goods were delivered as described in the Bill of Lading.
Q: Why must packaging and securing materials be preserved after damage discovery?
A: The condition of internal securing materials, shock indicators and humidity recorders provides evidence of when and how damage occurred. Without this evidence, the survey report cannot establish causation, and subrogation recovery against the carrier may fail.
Q: What is the limitation period for cargo claims under CMR and Hague-Visby?
A: Both CMR Article 32 and Hague-Visby Rules Article III rule 6 impose a one-year limitation period from the date of delivery (or the date when goods should have been delivered). Claims filed after this deadline are time-barred.
Q: Does a cargo survey report quantify financial losses from project delay?
A: No. A cargo survey report documents physical condition, damage extent and probable cause. Financial losses from project delay require a separate Delay in Start-Up (DSU) or Marine Delay in Start-Up (MDSU) policy. The "delay" exclusion in Institute Cargo Clauses refers to physical damage caused by delay, not consequential financial losses.
