On February 10, 2022, the car carrier Felicity Ace departed from the port of Emden, Germany, on a voyage to the United States. In its holds were nearly 4,000 Volkswagen Group vehicles: Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini, Seat, and Porsche. Among them were over a hundred electric Porsche Taycans — cars worth, depending on the version, between 80,000 and 180,000 USD each.
On February 16, about 200 nautical miles from the Azores, a fire broke out on one of the vehicle decks. The crew was unable to contain it. All 22 sailors were evacuated by the Portuguese Navy — no one was killed or injured.
The ship burned for nearly two weeks. When the fire finally died out, a salvage team boarded the vessel and attached a tow line. On March 1, while en route to a port of refuge, the Felicity Ace suddenly listed and sank. The wreck now rests at a depth of approximately 3,000 meters, along with nearly four thousand burnt-out cars.
And along with everything that could have proven how the fire started.
Four years and two lawsuits
In the spring of 2023, the shipowner, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, and its insurers filed two lawsuits in German regional courts: one in Stuttgart, where Porsche is headquartered, and another in Braunschweig, also targeting the logistics operations of the Volkswagen Group.
The plaintiffs' thesis: the fire was ignited by the spontaneous combustion of a lithium-ion battery in a new Porsche Taycan. A supplementary argument: the risks associated with this technology were new and poorly understood at the time, so the manufacturer should have warned the carrier about the danger and the precautions necessary when transporting such vehicles.
The manufacturer's defense took two directions. First: the fire could have started in an entirely different way. Second — and this is a point that should interest anyone who commissions maritime transport — it was the ship's own fire-fighting procedures and systems that were responsible for the fire spreading the way it did.
In Stuttgart, about 30 million EUR was at stake. The plaintiffs were MOL and five hull insurers. In Braunschweig, the claims reach hundreds of millions of EUR.
The burden of proof
On May 27, 2026, the Landgericht Stuttgart dismissed the claim.
The reason for the dismissal was not "Porsche is innocent." It was: the plaintiffs failed to prove that a vehicle of this brand was the source of the fire. The burden of proof rested on the plaintiffs — and the court was not convinced that a Taycan battery was the cause of the fire.
This distinction is the heart of the entire story. The court did not determine that the battery was not at fault. The court determined that it could not be proven that it was at fault. The difference between those two sentences is worth 30 million EUR.
The Stuttgart judgment is not final and is subject to appeal. The proceedings in Braunschweig, involving claims in the hundreds of millions of EUR, are still ongoing at the time of writing — a court spokesperson could not indicate when a decision would be reached.
Why this is a mirror image of the MSC Flaminia case
Readers of Dark Histories #4 will remember the MSC Flaminia disaster. That case ended with a clear assignment of blame: 55 percent to the chemical manufacturer, 45 percent to the freight forwarder. Courts in the USA and the UK spent thirteen years breaking down the liability into its component parts.
Why was it possible there, but not here?
Because in the Flaminia case, there was a paper trail. There were safety data sheets. There were dangerous goods declarations that were missing information. There were Deltech procedures that weren't followed, a date for when the tanks were filled, and ten days of sitting in the sun. The court could trace exactly where the chain of information broke — because that chain was documented.
In the case of the Felicity Ace, the key physical evidence — the specific car, the specific battery, the specific point of ignition on board — lies three kilometers below the surface of the Atlantic. There is nothing to examine. All that remains are circumstantial evidence, expert opinions, and a dispute over whose version is more plausible. And plausibility is not enough when the burden of proof lies with you.
What does this mean for Polish exporters and importers?
The case is being heard in German courts and concerns cars, but the mechanism affects anyone who ships or receives cargo containing lithium-ion batteries — which today includes consumer electronics, power tools, electric scooters and bikes, medical equipment, and energy storage systems.
First: the burden of proof determines the outcome of a dispute more often than the actual sequence of events. If you are the one who has to prove what happened after a loss occurs — and the evidence has burned, sunk, or been reloaded three times along the way — your claim is only worth what you can prove. Not what you actually lost.
Second: documentation before a loss is cheaper than experts after a loss. Photos of the loading process, condition reports, safety data sheets, classification confirmations, and declarations provided to the carrier — this isn't just bureaucracy. This is evidence created while there is still something to document.
Third: the defendant's defense will almost always point to the other end of the chain. In this case, the manufacturer argued that the ship's fire safety procedures were to blame. In a dispute over your cargo, the seller will blame the carrier, the carrier will blame the packaging, and the insurer will claim it falls outside the scope of coverage. Every link defends its own narrow definition of liability.
Fourth: an all-risks cargo policy works regardless of who is ultimately at fault. This is the key difference between seeking compensation from an insurer and pursuing a claim against the party responsible for the damage. In the first case, you only need to prove that the damage occurred. In the second, you must prove who caused it. The Felicity Ace shows just how costly that second path can be.
The moral
A 30 million EUR claim in Stuttgart. Hundreds of millions in Braunschweig. Nearly four thousand cars at the bottom of the Atlantic. And one sentence in the justification that dismissed the first of these cases: it was not proven.
In logistics, the winner isn't the one who is right. The winner is the one who can prove it — with a document, a report, a photo, or a declaration delivered to the right party at the right time. The rest is just the belief that you were right.
This text does not pass judgment on anyone — we are basing our analysis on reports of court rulings. The judgment of the Landgericht Stuttgart is not final, and the proceedings before the Landgericht Braunschweig are still ongoing.
Our previous publications in the "Dark Stories" series
- Why do we need FOB? - Dark Stories #1
- Really CIF? - Dark Stories #2
- EXW as my shield? - Dark Stories #3
- A ticking time bomb in hold number 4 - Dark Stories #4
- To copper or not to copper? - Dark Stories #5
- Your container is intact. You're still paying - Dark Stories #6
- Really DDP? — Dark Stories #7
- "Fake carrier fraud" - Dark Stories #8
- Not my railcar, not my fault? — Dark Stories #9
- How a loose cable sank a bridge and cost the shipowner $2.25 billion - Dark Stories #10
- Your cargo. Not your carrier - Dark Stories #11
Sources
- Legal Tribune Online — "Porsche does not have to pay after ship sinking", LG Stuttgart, case ref. 26 O 30/23 (May 27, 2026)
- gCaptain — "Porsche Wins Felicity Ace Lawsuit as Cause of Fire Remains Unproven" (May 2026)
- The Maritime Executive — "Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Porsche Over Felicity Ace Fire" (May 28, 2026)
- HANSA — "Porsche wins legal dispute with MOL over Felicity Ace fire" (June 2026)
- VISION mobility — report on the dismissal of the lawsuit and ongoing proceedings in Braunschweig (June 2026)
- The Maritime Executive — "Report: Volkswagen Sued by MOL for the Loss of Felicity Ace Car Carrier" (March 2024)
Factual and legal status as of July 2026. The judgment of the Landgericht Stuttgart of May 27, 2026, is not final; it is subject to appeal. Proceedings before the Landgericht Braunschweig against Porsche and Volkswagen Group logistics remain ongoing, and the amount claimed is in dispute.