Why claim management is strategically relevant
In practice, many primary freight forwarders award transport orders to secondary freight forwarders or subcontractors without checking the details of their liability classification. However, the following is crucial:
- Does the contractual partner act purely as a freight forwarder (Section 453 of the German Commercial Code (HGB))?
- Or is it acting as a fixed-cost freight forwarder (Section 459 HGB) with carrier-like liability?
- Is there strict liability?
If the secondary freight forwarder is merely acting as a ‘sofa freight forwarder’, they may only be liable for their own negligence – not for errors made by the carrier they have engaged. In the event of damage, this can lead to considerable recourse problems.
Added to this is the international context. Even if the CMR applies to cross-border transport, this does not mean that the law is completely harmonised.
- National courts interpret key terms such as ‘qualified fault’ differently.
- The requirements for evidence and liability exemption vary.
- The practical duration of proceedings and enforcement practices also differ considerably in some cases.
At the same time, insurance law provisions are not harmonised. Coverage amounts, deductibles, exclusions and recourse behaviour of insurers can vary greatly, particularly in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe.
The result: even with a formally uniform liability regime, the economic enforceability of recourse can depend significantly on the place of jurisdiction and the actual insurance situation.
Professional claims management therefore means checking the liability structure before placing an order – taking into account international enforcement and insurance risks – and securing it contractually.
The typical risk chain in cross-border claims
If goods are damaged while in the custody of a subcontractor, the following situation regularly arises:
- The client makes a claim against the first carrier.
- The first carrier attempts to seek recourse from the second carrier.
- The attribution of liability is unclear or limited.
- Recourse against the actual carrier proves difficult.
- Insurance cover is insufficient or economically unfeasible.
In addition, different national jurisdictions lead to different litigation realities. The question is therefore not only who is liable, but also where and how effectively claims can be enforced.
Jurisdiction, forum shopping and arbitration
In international transport law, it is not only the substantive liability standard that determines the economic outcome. The place of jurisdiction is at least as relevant from a strategic point of view.
The CMR opens up options. These can be used deliberately – for example, through:
- Careful drafting of jurisdiction agreements,
- Strategic structuring of the contract chain,
- Or the agreement of arbitration proceedings.
Different forums lead to:
- diverging standards for qualified fault,
- different practices regarding maximum liability amounts,
- varying duration of proceedings and enforcement efficiency.
Agreeing to arbitration can offer additional advantages: a neutral decision-making body, specialisation in logistics and transport law, and international enforceability under the New York Convention.
The choice of forum is therefore not a secondary aspect, but an integral part of international claim management.
Contract and insurance review as a core function
Effective claims management integrates:
- Review of terms and conditions and liability clauses
- Express obligation to assume liability for vicarious agents
- Obtaining reliable proof of insurance
- Deadline and limitation period management
Coordinated communication with the transport liability insurer Short limitation periods under transport law in particular require structured monitoring. Uncoordinated claims settlements can lead to coverage disadvantages.
Claim management is therefore not purely a matter of processing claims, but rather an integral part of company-wide risk management.
Claim management in international transport law begins with the drafting of contracts – not when damage occurs.
Those who analyse liability, jurisdiction, insurance coverage and enforcement reality at an early stage significantly reduce economic risks and strengthen their position in the event of a dispute.
International supply chains require international risk management.
Summary of the key facts
- Even when applying the CMR, national differences can have a significant impact on recourse enforcement.
- Jurisdiction and arbitration agreements are strategic instruments of claim management.
- Early contract and insurance review prevents costly liability gaps.
