70 Bunker Claims in Five Months — and Almost All of Them Fuel Quality

A 50% Jump, and a Clear Trigger

Between January and May 2026, Gard handled over 70 bunker-related claims — a 50% increase on the same period the previous year. Almost all involved fuel quality, and the pattern has sharpened noticeably since the Middle East conflict escalated in late February. The incidents aren't concentrated in one region; Gard recorded bunker quality problems worldwide, pointing to a broadly dispersed risk rather than a single trade route or supplier issue.

Why These Disputes Are So Hard to Resolve

Bunker claims are rarely simple, because the contractual relationships involved — owner, charterer, supplier — are often misaligned from the start. Which sample is binding, which parameters get tested, time bar deadlines, and what counts as sufficient evidence all complicate resolution before the technical fuel-quality question is even reached. While Gard's dataset shows no major casualties directly linked to poor fuel, several vessels were disabled or required towage — exposure that becomes serious fast in congested or coastal waters.

What This Means for Chief Engineers and Masters

• Insist on proper, witnessed bunker sampling at every delivery — the binding sample is often the single most contested element of a later dispute
• Record fuel quality concerns and any operational anomalies immediately, with timestamps — these become critical evidence if a claim develops
• Know your charter party's time bar provisions for bunker quality claims before you need them, not after
• Treat any unusual engine performance shortly after a bunker delivery as a potential fuel quality flag, worth investigating before it becomes a disabling failure

Related Reading

• The UK ETS Is Live — how fuel decisions are increasingly shaped by more than just quality and cost