SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.Independent eyes on complex cargo claims.
Before you accept it, pay it or pursue it — find out whether the conclusion is technically sound.
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, whether you accept it or fight it. We review the file independently and tell you whether it holds up.
We do not promise to recover your money.
We tell you whether the conclusion holds — and whether the claim is worth pursuing.
When a second opinion pays for itself
The conclusion looks weak. A claim has been made — or rejected — on technical grounds that may not survive an independent check.
The survey report is disputed. Two experts disagree, or one report is being given more weight than its evidence justifies.
The amount claimed looks wrong. The loss is not properly documented, is overstated, or ignores salvage and mitigation.
The loss may have started elsewhere. Supplier, packer, inland haulier, terminal, storage or carrier — the file blames one of them without checking the others.
Litigation is being considered. Before hiring lawyers abroad, you want to know what the technical evidence can actually prove.
The file is old or cold. The cargo is gone and the vessel has sailed. Only documents remain — and documents are exactly what we work from.
Most second opinions are based on the claim file itself: survey reports, bills of lading and transport documents, temperature and data-logger records, packing and stowage evidence, correspondence, photographs and invoices. We attend in person only when it will genuinely change the answer.
We work for cargo interests, insurers and brokers — and equally for shipowners, carriers and their P&I Clubs. We are not structurally aligned with any of them, and we check every instruction for conflicts against our existing survey and P&I correspondent work. Our findings follow the evidence — including when the evidence shows 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 just from the file.
SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.What actually caused the loss?
Where and when the damage most likely began — before loading, in the product, in the packing, during stowage, carriage or handling.
Does the evidence support the alleged liability?
Whether the technical record actually proves the case built on it.
Is the claimed amount properly documented?
Valuation basis, depreciation, salvage value, mitigation and consequential losses.
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 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, a list of what is missing, and a recommended course of action. Every report ends with a clear conclusion:
Supported
The technical evidence supports the claim as presented. The position is defensible.
Partially supported
Part of the claim stands; specific items, amounts or liability arguments do not.
Not supported
The evidence does not support the claim. Pursuing it is unlikely to recover its own cost.
A cargo arrives deteriorated, but the temperature record for the voyage is compliant from start to finish. The useful question is not who to blame, but where and when did the loss most likely begin? A reefer container maintains a temperature; it does not create one. Read together with the pre-cooling records, the stowage, the inland leg and the product's condition at loading, the evidence often shows the loss started with the supplier, packer, haulier or terminal — or confirms that the sea carriage was faultless.
SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.A second opinion is only worth having if it can go against the party who commissioned it. We are instructed by both sides, and our 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.
Before accepting any instruction, we check it for conflicts against our existing survey and P&I correspondent work. If a conflict exists, we say so and decline — that is 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 us the claim file. Within a short time we confirm whether a second opinion can add anything useful, which documents are still needed, and what the review will cost. If there is nothing to add, we tell you before you spend anything.
Fixed fee, agreed in advance
A full examination of the evidence: survey reports, transport and temperature records, photographs, packing and stowage data, correspondence and valuation documents. We attend in person or take samples 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
If the review identifies a solid basis for recovery, we can support the claim on the technical side and coordinate local lawyers and correspondents in the relevant jurisdiction. This follows from the second opinion — it is never a condition for it.
You pay for the analysis, not for a promised result — which is exactly why the answer is worth having.
SE.CO.MAR.Marine Claim Advisors S.r.l.Cargo liability regimes reward the party that can evidence its position. They allocate the burden of proof, cap what is recoverable by weight or by package, and close the file with short notice periods and a one-year time bar. Whichever way the report goes, the same three questions follow: what can actually be proved, what can actually be recovered, and how long is left to act.
We work with maritime counsel to answer them on the same neutral terms as the report itself. The analysis does not change according to who instructs it.
A rejection is a position, not a ruling. A claim is a demand, not an entitlement.
Both are worth testing before they cost you money.
What legal follow-through answers
What the position is worth. Once package and weight limitation, salvage and mitigation are applied — recoverable is not the same as claimed.
How long is left. Whether the claim is still alive, whether an extension should be sought or granted, and what must be preserved before disposal and time bars close the file.
Where it would be decided. Bill of lading jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, applicable convention, competent forum.
Whether security is worth seeking — or worth resisting. Arrest, letters of undertaking, and what they are realistically worth on these facts.
Who the right defendant is. Carrier, freight forwarder, terminal, inland haulier, packer or supplier.
Legal support follows the finding. Where the report says the claim does not stand, that is the advice.
Legal coordination in Italy through independent maritime counsel
Cargo cases are rarely won at trial. They are settled — at a figure set by whoever's technical file is the more credible.
The law does not ask who is right. It asks who can prove it, within the time allowed.
Most cargo files are decided on the documents long before they are argued on the law.
Recoverable is not the same as claimed.
Through our network of marine surveyors and legal correspondents, we can assess cases wherever they arise and act in the relevant courts and jurisdictions.