Ship Universe is designed for maritime stakeholders: lower costs with data-backed decisions.
Mobile-friendly but designed for desktop research. Data is fluid, verify critical details before acting.
HomeHot Cargo, Hard Fires in 2025: What kept Ship Fire risk in the Spotlight?
Hot Cargo, Hard Fires in 2025: What kept Ship Fire risk in the Spotlight?
December 19, 2025
Ship fires in 2025 were not one single story, they showed up across multiple vessel types. Container operators dealt with cargo related ignition risk and misdeclared goods, while vehicle carriers faced the reality that battery involved fires can be difficult to stop once they gain heat and momentum. A late year NTSB report also put a bright light on a simple trigger that can turn serious in heavy weather: cargo that is not secured exactly as planned.
Click here for 30 second summary
Ship fires in 2025: the incidents were different, the trigger kept repeating
Shipboard fire risk stayed prominent in 2025 across multiple vessel types, with lithium-ion battery involvement repeatedly appearing in major incidents and in claims analysis.
Gard’s 2025 review references nearly twenty container fire incidents in its claim records for the year and notes lithium-ion batteries as a leading driver in its cases.
Container and port-side exposure
The One Henry Hudson fire at the Port of Los Angeles involved about 100 containers and drew attention to hazmat uncertainty, including reports of lithium batteries among the cargo mix.
Vehicle carrier severity
The Morning Midas casualty involved roughly 3,000 vehicles, including about 800 EVs, with the crew evacuating after onboard measures could not contain the fire.
NTSB investigation tie-in
The NTSB found improperly secured lithium-ion BESS cargo on Genius Star XI broke free in heavy weather, deforming units and leading to thermal runaway in three units and two hold fires.
Bottom line
2025 reinforced a simple pattern: once battery-related heat builds, incidents can become longer and more expensive, and even basic gaps such as cargo securing can be enough to start that chain in the wrong conditions.
Fires on ships in 2025: Industry Developments
Item
Summary
Business mechanics
Bottom-line effect
2025 pattern
Insurers and operators spent 2025 tracking cargo driven fire risk closely, especially where lithium-ion batteries were involved or suspected.
Gard’s 2025 review of container fire claims described nearly twenty incidents in its records for the year, with fatalities and serious injuries reaching double figures and lithium-ion batteries appearing as a leading driver in their cases.
📉 Higher perceived risk pushes scrutiny, compliance workload, and claims intensity.
📈 Better cargo screening and documentation can protect service reliability and reduce extreme-loss events over time.
Vehicle carrier flashpoint
In June 2025, the car carrier Morning Midas suffered a major fire in the North Pacific while carrying about 3,000 vehicles including about 800 EVs. The crew evacuated safely after onboard systems could not bring it under control.
Reports indicated smoke was first seen from a deck carrying electric vehicles. Once a battery pack enters thermal runaway, heat, re-ignition risk, and access constraints can overwhelm shipboard firefighting and force a shift to salvage response.
📉 Potential for long-duration casualty, voyage interruption, and high salvage cost exposure.
📈 Accelerates demand for clearer vehicle battery carriage protocols and better loss prevention terms in contracts and insurance.
Container ship in-port fire
In November 2025, a fire on the container ship One Henry Hudson at the Port of Los Angeles burned roughly 100 containers and triggered an explosion mid-deck, with hazmat concerns and a temporary shelter-in-place order.
Officials said many burned containers carried dangerous materials and some included lithium-ion batteries and hazardous waste, though authorities noted uncertainty over which specific boxes burned. The ship was moved offshore while firefighting continued.
📉 Terminal disruption risk, emergency response cost, and investigation driven delays.
📈 Reinforces the commercial value of accurate declarations and stowage planning for high-risk cargo streams.
Investigation spotlight
The NTSB found that heavy weather plus improperly secured lithium-ion battery energy storage system cargo contributed to two fires aboard the cargo vessel Genius Star XI in late December 2023, causing an estimated $3.8 million in damage.
NTSB determined 41 BESS units broke free due to lashing belt issues, deforming units and leading to thermal runaway in three units. The crew used the vessel’s CO2 fixed gas system for the first hold fire and external cooling for the second.
📉 Shows how a securement gap can turn routine carriage into a high-loss fire event in heavy seas.
📈 Drives tighter verification culture around lashing plans, surveys, and acceptance criteria for battery cargo.
Misdeclaration pressure
A recurring theme in 2025 container fire discussions was cargo that appears to include lithium batteries but is booked under low-risk descriptions.
Gard described multiple examples of lithium battery related cargoes declared as ordinary consumer items (chargers, accessories, emergency bulbs, fans, and similar), alongside the reality that some IMDG special provisions can exempt certain batteries from full DG processes if criteria are met.
📉 Misdeclaration can shift risk onto carriers, crews, ports, and insurers without pricing signals.
📈 Screening programs and shared shipper intelligence can reduce repeat exposures across operators.
Why severity escalates
When fires persist, the largest costs often stack up after the initial ignition: salvage, port-of-refuge support, debris handling, repairs, and cargo delay.
Gard notes that container fires can run for weeks and generate complex waste and contaminated firefighting water issues, and that salvage and port-of-refuge services can run into very large sums depending on the case.
📉 Losses are not just hull and cargo, they can include long off-hire and network knock-on costs.
📈 Stronger early detection and containment can be the difference between a managed incident and a casualty.
Notes: Examples and figures are based on public reporting and official releases in 2025, including the Morning Midas car-carrier fire (June 2025), the One Henry Hudson container ship fire at the Port of Los Angeles (Nov 2025), Gard’s 2025 container fire claims discussion, and the NTSB findings on Genius Star XI (released Dec 2025). Commercial outcomes vary by cargo mix, detection speed, firefighting effectiveness, weather, access to a port of refuge, and salvage conditions.
🔥
2025 ship fires, in plain terms
The year’s most-watched incidents kept circling back to one theme: when lithium-ion batteries are present, small initiating events can turn into longer, harder-to-control casualties.
🧾
The 2025 fire storyline (three anchor reference points)
Gard 2025
Container fires stayed frequent and severe
Gard’s 2025 review references nearly twenty container fire incidents in its claim records so far in 2025 and says fatalities and serious injuries reached double figures.
June 2025
Vehicle carrier casualty risk stayed in focus
The Morning Midas fire involved a cargo of roughly 3,000 vehicles, including about 800 EVs, with the crew evacuating after onboard suppression could not keep the fire contained.
Late 2025
NTSB: a simple trigger can become a major fire in heavy weather
The NTSB said improperly secured lashing belts failed on the Genius Star XI, allowing 41 lithium-ion BESS units to shift and deform, with batteries in three units entering thermal runaway and leading to two hold fires.
Gard 2025: nearly 20 incidents in claim records
Gard 2025: lithium-ion appears main cause
NTSB: 41 BESS units shifted on Genius Star XI
NTSB: 3 units entered thermal runaway
Vehicle carrier: about 3,000 vehicles on Morning Midas
EV count: about 800 EVs reported onboard
🧠
Why these events can escalate so fast
1
Energy plus damage
In the NTSB case, cargo movement and deformation preceded thermal runaway. In other cases, ignition sources can vary, but once cells are compromised, heat can intensify quickly.
2
Hard access, hard cooling
Fires deep in holds or on vehicle decks can be difficult to reach directly, and heat removal becomes the limiting factor when batteries are involved.
3
Duration becomes the cost driver
As incidents run longer, the commercial impact spreads beyond the initial damage into voyage interruption, port disruption, and salvage complexity.
🧭
Where the business impact lands first
Carriers
Positive: fewer repeated small incidents supports schedule integrity over time.
Negative: high-severity outliers can dominate annual loss experience and disrupt networks.
Ports and terminals
Positive: strong response coordination can limit wider shutdowns.
Negative: hazmat uncertainty increases operational disruption and investigation time.
Cargo interests
Positive: clearer risk visibility can improve cargo routing and contract clarity.
Negative: a single casualty can cascade into delays, loss of market windows, and claims disputes.
Insurers
Positive: investigations like the NTSB report sharpen causation and loss modeling.
Negative: severity concentration raises pricing pressure and terms scrutiny for battery-linked cargoes.
Recent investigation spotlight (NTSB): The Genius Star XI case tied two cargo-hold fires to cargo movement after lashing belt failure, with thermal runaway occurring in three battery units after deformation.
Shipboard fire risk stayed a front-page issue through 2025 because the incidents drawing the most attention shared a similar outcome: once heat builds in battery-involved scenarios, controlling the event can take longer and cost more than traditional cargo fires. Late-year official findings from the NTSB reinforced that even a basic breakdown in cargo securing can be enough to trigger that chain under heavy-weather conditions, keeping the broader conversation focused on lithium-related carriage risk and fire severity rather than just incident counts.
