NINOVA Owner Challenges Investigation and Insurance Decisions

The statement said that no rope was visible on the vessel’s starboard aft section in images dated 1-4 May, while a rope could be seen above the blue freshwater line in images dated 6 May. The company argued that the rope did not appear to be attached or secured to anything and called for clarification as to how it could have remained in the same position despite severe weather and sea conditions.

Western Hemisphere Marine Limited stated that the original image files and their timestamps, as well as underwater findings around the propeller and shaft, should also be examined. The company further requested an investigation into whether there was any connection between the rope visible in the images and the rope reportedly identified underwater.

Independent Investigation Requested into Timing of Damage

The company said that adverse weather conditions affecting Karasu between 1 and 4 May should also be taken into consideration. The statement noted that images from this period showed fallen trees and damaged coastal structures.

Regarding the damage assessments, the company pointed out that the images of the vessel’s starboard side dated 6 May and those of its port side taken on 8 June, approximately 39 days after the incident, related to different dates and different sides of the vessel. The company argued that the appearance of the damage may have been associated with high waves, strong winds and sea conditions. It called for an independent investigation to establish when and how the damage occurred, when it was first documented, and at which stage of the inspection, salvage or intervention operations it was identified.

Criminal Complaint Filed Over KOZEN Reports

Western Hemisphere Marine Limited argued that there were serious deficiencies and inconsistencies in the “Final Report” dated 24 May 2026 and the document titled “Addendum I” dated 10 June 2026, prepared by Netherlands-based KOZEN MARINE SURVEY B.V. and its Turkish affiliate, KOZEN DENİZCİLİK GÖZETİM VE DANIŞMANLIK SANAYİ VE TİCARET LİMİTED ŞİRKETİ.

The company objected to the assessments in the reports concerning the chronology of events, the position of the rope, the timing of the damage and the interpretation of technical evidence. In this context, it filed a criminal complaint with the Istanbul Anatolian Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on 9 November 2026. The complaint requested an investigation into the KOZEN companies, as well as certain individuals and organisations.

The statement said that the investigation should establish how the report authors were appointed and what authority they held, whether they had boarded the vessel, and on which dates and in which areas the inspections had been conducted. It also stated that the analyses, tests, measurements and verification procedures carried out, together with the methods used and technical standards applied, should be clarified.

The company requested that the original photographs, videos and other technical records used in the reports be examined, and that the source, authenticity and integrity of these materials, as well as the channels through which they were shared with the relevant parties, be established.

Western Hemisphere Marine Limited said it was also considering submitting applications to the relevant ministries, CİMER and international maritime and professional organisations. While requesting an examination of the source, authenticity, integrity and chain of custody of digital records, the company also raised the possibility of applying through the competent judicial authorities to INTERPOL channels if concrete suspicions and a need for cross-border cooperation emerged.

Insurance Compensation Rejection Challenged in London

The owner of the M/V NINOVA stated that its claim for Constructive Total Loss (CTL) compensation under the hull and machinery insurance policy had been rejected by HDI Global Specialty SE / CEE. According to the company, the rejection decision was based primarily on the KOZEN reports.

Western Hemisphere Marine Limited said it had submitted a technical objection report comprising more than 550 pages, addressing the findings in the reports and presenting assessments of the chronology of events, photographic and video records, damage and the methods used. The company argued that its counter-evidence had not been assessed fairly and independently, and that the disputed KOZEN findings had not been adequately tested.

Taking the insurance dispute to London in accordance with the arbitration clause in the policy, the company submitted a comprehensive claim and evidence file exceeding 850 pages on 18 August 2026. A sole arbitrator was appointed on 3 September 2026, and the arbitration proceedings were initiated. Following the appointment of the sole arbitrator on 3 September 2026, the dispute is expected to be decided by an independent arbitrator under English law.

Dispute with Türk P&I

The statement claimed that there had initially been no dispute over salvage, wreck removal and related expenses, but that Türk P&I’s approach had become more contentious, accusatory and pressuring after the dismantling operations were completed.

The company stated that an application for an interim attachment had been filed against the M/V RAVEN, a vessel owned by a different company from the owner of the M/V NINOVA. The application was rejected by the 3rd Civil Court of First Instance in Kdz. Ereğli on 26 October 2026. Western Hemisphere Marine Limited expressed the view that the application had no legal basis.

Stating that it respected Türk P&I’s institutional standing and reputation, the company recalled that the organisation had been established with the support of the Republic of Türkiye and that the word “Türk” in its name symbolised responsibility, trust and reputation. The company said it expected Türk P&I to refrain from practices that could further disadvantage Turkish shipowners and to contribute to the process through a fair, constructive and responsible approach.

The statement also noted that no lawsuit or arbitration proceedings had yet been initiated against Türk P&I and that the company reserved all its legal rights.

“The Process Is Not Limited to the NINOVA Dispute”

Western Hemisphere Marine Limited argued that technical reports and insurance decisions had an impact on confidence in marine insurance. Stating that insurance obligations should be fulfilled in accordance with the principles of honesty, good faith, transparency and contractual commitment, the company argued that disputed or insufficiently examined assessments could not be used as grounds for avoiding obligations.

The company said that the judicial proceedings in Türkiye and the arbitration in London could be significant not only for the current dispute but also for other shipowners who had reported experiencing similar problems. The statement added that evidence was also being collected concerning possible negligence, fault and legal liability on the part of other individuals and organisations, as well as the relevant port authorities, in connection with the accident, response, salvage and wreck removal processes.

Western Hemisphere Marine Limited said it could take further legal action in Türkiye and foreign courts depending on the findings obtained. The company stated that it would continue its legal efforts to establish the facts of the incident and protect its legitimate rights.