Casualty & Incident Investigation: Conflicting Interests, Shared Objectives — Finding the Balanced Way Forward

Investigators know all too well that a single maritime casualty can trigger multiple parallel investigations — each with its own purpose, pressures, and expectations. While the IMO Safety Investigation framework promotes a no-blame, learning-focused approach, real-world practice must reconcile this philosophy with legal, commercial, and regulatory demands.

1. The Many Types of Investigations in a Marine Casualty

Maritime incidents rarely attract just one investigation. Typically, several run concurrently, each driven by different mandates:

1.1 Marine Safety Investigations (IMO Code)

These are strictly no-blame, focusing on causal factors, human elements, and systemic safety issues. Their sole purpose: prevent recurrence.

1.2 Statutory or Disciplinary Inquiries

These determine whether individuals or companies breached national or international maritime regulations.

1.3 Criminal Investigations

Coastal or port states may pursue criminal proceedings, especially in cases of death, pollution, or suspected gross negligence.

1.4 Insurance & Commercial Investigations

P&I Clubs, hull underwriters, and cargo interests investigate primarily to allocate liability and protect financial exposure.

1.5 Company Internal Investigations

These assess ISM Code compliance, management oversight, and organizational risks, including reputational damage.

2. Confidentiality vs. Information Sharing

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of IMO-style safety investigations — but maintaining it is increasingly complex.

2.1 Confidentiality Under the IMO Code

Witness statements and evidence are protected to encourage open, honest participation.

2.2 Why Confidentiality Matters

It enables crew members and officers to speak freely without fear of personal or legal repercussions.

2.3 The Practical Reality

Absolute confidentiality is difficult to guarantee when courts or prosecutors demand access to investigative material.

2.4 Varying Legal Protections

Some countries shield safety investigation evidence from criminal use. Others do not, leading to uncertainty for seafarers and companies.

2.5 Striking the Balance

Administrations must protect sensitive information while maintaining reasonable transparency for public trust.

3. Balancing “No-Blame” Learning with Accountability

Perhaps the greatest challenge is separating safety learning from disciplinary responsibility.

3.1 The Core Tension

A no-blame environment is essential for systemic learning — yet misconduct cannot be ignored.

3.2 The Role of Safety Investigators

Their mandate is to identify causal factors, not assess guilt or fault.

3.3 The Role of Enforcement Authorities

They must act when negligence or breaches are evident.

3.4 The Need for Institutional Firewalls

Maritime Administrations must keep safety investigators separate from enforcement arms to maintain credibility.

3.5 Best Practices

Bodies like MAIB and NTSB publish factual findings while safeguarding underlying testimony from being misused.

4. Commercial & Insurance Dimensions

Behind every casualty lies substantial financial exposure — often driving a separate track of investigation.

4.1 Multiple Stakeholders, Multiple Angles

Owners, charterers, cargo interests, and others conduct their own reviews to protect contractual and liability positions.

4.2 Role of Insurers

P&I Clubs, H&M underwriters, and even the IOPC Fund deploy investigators to confirm causes, identify breaches, and assess compensation.

4.3 Confidential Commercial Findings

These are typically not shared with authorities and are used internally for claims strategy.

4.4 Reliance on Flag State Reports

Insurers often use the technical accuracy of flag-state factual reports when settling claims.

4.5 Financial Accountability

Ultimately, these investigations aim to ensure losses are correctly allocated.

5. The Real-World Balance

In practice, the ecosystem is complex — but functional when boundaries are respected.

5.1 Parallel Investigations Are the Norm

Multiple entities operate simultaneously with overlapping interests.

5.2 Safety Reports Are Public — Evidence Is Not

IMO-conformant investigations publish conclusions while keeping raw data confidential.

5.3 Courts Must Use Independent Evidence

They can rely on facts but must independently collect admissible evidence.

5.4 Commercial Pressures Can Create Friction

Competing priorities may complicate evidence collection or witness cooperation.

5.5 The Ideal Balance

Safety investigations guide learning, courts manage accountability, and insurers handle financial risk — and when these boundaries are respected, the system works.

Authored By:
Capt. Gajanan Kiranjikar, Maritime expert,
U.S. based accident investigator