SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.Cargo Claims Second Opinion
Before you accept a rejection — or spend money pursuing a claim — find out whether the conclusion actually stands up to technical scrutiny.
Request a Preliminary Reviewclaims.secomar.net — Marine & Cargo Surveyors since 1998
SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.A cargo claim has already been assessed, rejected, surveyed or disputed. Someone has reached a conclusion — and that conclusion is about to cost money, either by being accepted or by being fought. We review the file independently and tell you whether it holds.
We do not promise to recover your money.
We tell you whether you actually have a claim — and whether it is worth pursuing.
When a second opinion pays for itself
The conclusion looks thin. A claim has been advanced, or declined, on technical grounds that may not survive independent examination.
The survey report is contested. Two experts disagree, or a single report is carrying more weight than its evidence supports.
The quantum feels wrong. The claimed loss is unsupported, over-stated, or ignores salvage and mitigation.
The loss may have begun elsewhere. Supplier, packer, inland haulier, terminal, storage or carriage — the file has settled on one of them without testing the others.
Litigation is on the table. Before instructing lawyers abroad, you want to know what the technical evidence will actually prove.
The file is old or cold. The cargo is gone, the vessel has sailed, and all that remains is documents — which is exactly what we work from.
Most second opinions are produced from the claim file itself: survey reports, B/Ls and transport documents, temperature and data-logger records, packing and stowage evidence, correspondence, photographs and invoices. A physical attendance is arranged only when it will genuinely change the answer.
We act for cargo interests, insurers and brokers, and equally for shipowners, carriers and their P&I Clubs. We are not structurally aligned against any of them, and we screen every instruction for conflict against our existing survey work. The finding follows the evidence — including when the evidence says the claim does not stand.
Built on the survey work
Reefer and temperature-controlled cargo · perishables · bulk and liquid cargo · project and breakbulk · container stowage and lashing · stock and inventory losses. Since 1998, from the quayside — not from the file alone.
SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.What actually caused the loss?
Where and when the damage most probably began — pre-loading, product, packaging, stowage, carriage or handling.
Does the evidence support the alleged liability?
Whether the technical record sustains the case that has been built on it.
Is the claimed loss properly supported?
Valuation basis, depreciation, salvage value, mitigation and consequential heads of loss.
What is missing, inconsistent or overlooked?
Gaps and contradictions in the file — and what can still be obtained before it is too late.
Is the claim worth pursuing, and against whom?
The realistic technical position, the strongest line of argument, and the weakest.
The deliverable — Independent Second Opinion Report
A written technical review of the claim file: analysis of the evidence, an independent assessment of causation, liability and quantum, identification of what is missing, and a recommended course of action. Every report closes with an unambiguous conclusion:
Supported
The technical evidence sustains the claim as presented. The position is defensible.
Partially supported
Part of the claim stands; specified heads, quantum elements or liability arguments do not.
Not supported
The evidence does not sustain the claim. Pursuing it is unlikely to recover its own cost.
Cargo arrives deteriorated and the temperature record for the voyage is compliant throughout. The useful question is not who to blame, but where and when did the loss most probably begin? A reefer maintains a temperature; it does not create one. Read against the pre-cooling records, the stowage, the inland leg and the product's condition on loading, the traces often place the origin of the loss with the supplier, packer, haulier or terminal — or confirm the carriage was faultless.
SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.A second opinion is worth having only if it is capable of going against the party who commissioned it. We are instructed from both directions, and the analysis does not change according to who pays for it.
Before you accept, or before you pursue
Before you pay, and before you reserve
A finding that could never have gone the other way
is not an opinion. It is an endorsement.
Every instruction is screened for conflict against our existing survey work before acceptance. Where a conflict exists we say so and decline — the only basis on which an independent opinion has value to either side.
SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.No cost · no obligation
You send the claim file. We confirm within a short turnaround whether a second opinion can add anything useful, what documents are still needed, and what the review will cost. If there is nothing to add, we say so before you spend anything.
Fixed fee, agreed in advance
Full examination of the evidence: survey reports, transport and temperature records, photographs, packing and stowage data, correspondence and valuation documents. Physical attendance or sampling arranged only where it will change the answer.
The deliverable
Written findings on causation, liability, quantum and evidence, with a clear SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / NOT SUPPORTED conclusion and a recommended course of action. Written to stand up in negotiation, arbitration or court.
Optional — only if the claim stands
Where the review identifies a credible basis for recovery, we can support the claim technically and coordinate local lawyers and correspondents in the relevant jurisdiction. This is a consequence of the second opinion, never a precondition of it.
You pay for the analysis, not for a promised outcome — which is precisely why the answer is worth having.
Thanks to our network of marine surveyors and legal correspondents, we can evaluate cases wherever they arise and intervene in the competent forums.