{"id":10083,"date":"2026-09-08T10:17:43","date_gmt":"2026-09-08T08:17:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tigges.legal\/transportrends-september-2026-distinguishing-between-a-storage-contract-and-a-lease-agreement-or-when-is-the-lessor-liable\/"},"modified":"2026-09-08T10:20:42","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T08:20:42","slug":"transportrends-september-2026-distinguishing-between-a-storage-contract-and-a-lease-agreement-or-when-is-the-lessor-liable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tigges.legal\/en\/transportrends-september-2026-distinguishing-between-a-storage-contract-and-a-lease-agreement-or-when-is-the-lessor-liable\/","title":{"rendered":"TransporTrends September 2026: Distinguishing Between a Storage Contract and a Lease Agreement, or When Is the \u201cLessor\u201d Liable?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Two rulings by the Hamburg Regional Court regarding the winter storage of sailing yachts help clarify the distinction between storage and lease agreements and address the validity of broad liability exclusions in storage agreements. The decisions concern operators of boat storage facilities, insurers, and storage clients; however, their underlying principles are relevant to all storage providers and shippers who make space or warehouses available for the storage of goods. <\/p>\n\n

In the decisions dated September 19, 2024 (332 O 62\/23) and August 8, 2025 (417 HKO 47\/2), the cases each involved yachts that were stored in an open-air storage area on the winter storage facility\u2019s own storage blocks when a storm (\u201cZeynep\u201d) caused several vessels to capsize and resulted in significant damage. The yachts had been stored pursuant to a standard-form contract titled \u201cRental Agreement for a Winter Storage Space\u201d and the winter storage regulations; the respective hull insurers sought recourse against the storage operator based on subrogated rights. <\/p>\n\n

Facts of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

In both cases, the defendant independently craned the yachts onto its own storage blocks and assigned the storage spaces on its outdoor grounds itself; the depositor had no right to a specific area. The contract documents contained provisions stating that the rental took place \u201cwithout any obligation on the part of the lessor to care for the storage of the vessel,\u201d that the \u201cstorage risk\u201d was borne by the lessee, and that \u201cno duty of care\u201d existed; at the same time, the terms \u201cwinter storage,\u201d \u201cboat storage site,\u201d and \u201cstorers\u201d were used. In both decisions, the Hamburg Regional Court classified the contracts as storage contracts within the meaning of \u00a7\u00a7 467 et seq. HGB and affirmed the operators\u2019 liability as storage keepers under \u00a7 475 HGB. <\/p>\n\n

Legal classification<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

For the Regional Court, what matters is not the label \u201clease agreement\u201d but the actual division of roles: Under a storage agreement, the storage provider is obligated not only to provide space but also to ensure proper storage and to assume a duty of care for the goods. In contrast, a typical lease agreement involves a specifically designated storage area where the tenant stores the goods on his own responsibility; here, however, the storage operator selected the location, the racks, and the security measures, conducted inspection rounds, and reserved the right to issue instructions and exercise control over the premises. <\/p>\n\n

Section 475 of the German Commercial Code (HGB) is applied as liability for presumed fault: The depositor (or insurer) need only prove that the goods were delivered in undamaged condition and returned in damaged condition; the warehouse operator must demonstrate and prove that the damage was unavoidable even with the care expected of a prudent businessman. The broad liability exemptions contained in the contracts (\u201cno storage risk,\u201d liability only in cases of gross negligence, force majeure, exclusion of duties of care) are deemed invalid by the Regional Court due to lack of transparency and unreasonable disadvantage under Sections 305c, 307, and 309(7) of the German Civil Code (BGB). <\/p>\n\n

The court specifically emphasizes that the warehouse operator cannot invoke a \u201cstorm\u201d as a force majeure event if the warehouse clearly does not provide adequate wind protection and the operator fails to take additional safety measures (relocating, securing, or erecting windbreaks).<\/p>\n\n

Practical Note \/ Recommended Action<\/strong><\/p>\n\n