The plaintiff, an owner of a pleasure craft, sued the defendant insurer for EUR 3,870.44 for damage caused to the plaintiff's vessel by the vessel insured by the defendant in two incidents while both vessels were moored at the Club Nautic de Salou (Tarragona).

The defendant insurer alleged that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred, that the collision occurred due to force majeure, and that the cause of the claim was exclusively due to the insufficiency of protection mechanisms on the plaintiff's boat.

Held: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Article 339 of the Law on Maritime Navigation (LNM) 14/2014, of 24 July, states:

1. Collision shall be regulated by the term set forth in the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Maritime Navigation Vessels, done at Brussels, on 23rd September 1910, the other Conventions on such matters to which Spain is a party, and by the provisions of this Chapter.

2. Collision shall be construed as when ships, vessels or naval artefacts run into each other, causing damage to any of the parties, or to persons or property.

3. The damage that a ship, vessel or naval artefact causes another without contact due to an incorrect manoeuvre in navigation shall also be regulated by the rules set forth in this Chapter.

4. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to collisions involving State ships.

According to art 340 of the LNM:

1. The operator in charge of the ship, vessel or naval artefact to blame for the collision shall compensate the damages and losses suffered by the other and by the individuals and things on board thereof, always caused by those outside these. In the case of sports or recreational vessels, this obligation shall fall upon their holder or owner.

2. The causal relation and the blame for the collision shall be proven by the party claiming compensation.

Therefore, there are two issues that must be assessed in this judgment: 1) the causal relationship; and 2) comparative fault.

The defendant insurer alleges that the action to file a claim for the damages of the incident that occurred on 11 December 2017 is time-barred, since more than two years have elapsed since the last claim made against them.

Article 7 of the Collision Convention 1910 provides: 'Actions for the recovery of damages are barred after an interval of two years from the date of the casualty.' In this case, however, the prescription argument must be dismissed, given that the prescription was interrupted with an out-of-court claim dated 27 March 2018. For this reason, a two-year limitation period has not elapsed since the date of the incident.

The expert evidence indicates that the first incident was caused by adverse weather conditions. On 11 December 2017 there was a storm of some magnitude that affected the boats which were moored on the premises. Based on the foregoing, it turns out that the cause of the damage lay in the action of the wind that caused excessive agitation of the internal waters, with corresponding waves and the simultaneous collision of the vessels with each other. This is a case of force majeure for which, of course, the owner of the vessel insured by the defendant cannot be held responsible. Its moorings were well secured and the boat was sufficiently protected with fenders.

In relation to the second incident, the snarling of the moorings was not due to the fault of either of the two owners of the boats.