Surveyor negligence

[Andreas T]

I request advice how to deal with an annoying and expensive experience. I bought my 1995 Hunter 336 early this year after a thorough (that's what I thought !) survey by a certified surveyor. The survey was done out of the water, the boat hanging in the slings. When I took her out again 3 months later for the bottom paint, it turns out that there is a crack in the hull in front of the keel. The crack is due to a manufacturing defect and not due to external damage. This is confirmed by the same surveyor. Repair is app. $ 2500. The reason why the surveyor didn't detect the crack at the survey: the strap was sitting right there, in front of the keel covering the crack. If I would have known about the damage before, I certainly would have reduced the price.
Question: Was it negligence by the surveyor to not have moved the strap so that he could inspect the critical area in front of the keel ? Shouldn't he therefore take responsibility and (at least) share the cost for the repair ?

Any thoughts ?
Andreas

 

[Bob V]

Read your contract

It probably limits his liability to the cost of the survey.

 

[Charlie13958]

FYI

The 336 hull was built in two halves, in effect there is a crack from stem to stern. The hull is very strong, but any grounding or mishandling in a lift could initiate a small shallow crack along the keel/hull joint. A repair should be inexpensive to repair, and consist of filling in of the crack. If there was a hard grounding, damage would be more severe and probably show up at the rear of the keel also.

 

[Ross]

The 336 hull was built in two halves, in effect there is a crack from stem to stern. The hull is very strong, but any grounding or mishandling in a lift could initiate a small shallow crack along the keel/hull joint. A repair should be inexpensive to repair, and consist of filling in of the crack. If there was a hard grounding, damage would be more severe and probably show up at the rear of the keel also.

Mant boats were/are built in this manner and structurally joined on the inside with several plies of glass and resin. The external joint was then filled and faired.
my boat was showing the crack aft of the rudder and I opted to reinforce it with glass cloth and resin and then fair the patch. The bottom was sealed with epoxy barrier paint and then painted with antifouling paint. I inspected the entire length of the joint from the inside and there were no faults.

I wouldn't be concerned about this. Wait until it is on the hard and grind it clean and repair it yourself. If you are neat no one will ever notice it.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

It probably limits his liability to the cost of the survey.

That is not quite correct in all circumstances. I'm not sure how this particular problem fits into the surveyor's liability as ultimately the buyer has to accept untilate responsibility for his choice relying on the recommendations of a surveyor and every survey is inherently limited to only apparent problems.

Having said that, a surveyor can under some circumstances be liable for far more than the cost of the survey, regardless of what the contract states. No contract excluded negligence which is why surveyors all have Errors and Omissions (E&O) liability insurance.

As one example, my son once bought a boat after a successful survey only to find the deck was delaminating (an infamous Carrol Marine epoxy job) requiring a repair costing over $20,000 - ALL of it was recovered from the surveyor's E&O underwriter despite the survey cost being around $2000.

So, although this sounds to me to be a minor issue as others have said, surveyors can be liable for significant standard practice errors up to the cost of repair.

 

[BobM]

Surveyors are typically very careful to state that the survey is limited to what they can observe. In this case, the strap was over the crack, so he could not observe it. In my opinion, the best one can do is to try to get a surveyor who is a sailor with extensive experience working on and / or surveying sailboats. Most people end up shopping price and price tends to vary pretty widely. I was lucky and found a surveyor who is a sailor, had a reasonable price and used to work for Cape Dory. I spoke to him at length before hiring him. Even with that experience, he didn't seem to do much preparative research. He also had never surveyed the boat in question before, which is something that is definitely worth inquiring about.

The burden of researching problems common to the boat is pretty much on the prospective purchaser. This means finding out what you can from boards and in this case, perhaps from Hunter. No survey can encompass everything and that there is little recourse to get money from the surveyor. This is true for most home surveys too, where the limit of the surveyors liability is also the cost of the survey.

 

[Andreas T]

Thanks for all replies.
Technically, the repair was not a big deal as you were assuming anyway. I had it done by a professional fibre glass expert which brought the total cost including haul out and storage to $ 2,500.

My question is just: Shouldn't it have been the surveyor's responsibility to move the strap so that he could inspect one of the more critical areas, right in front of the keel ?

I know that there is certainly not an unambiguous answer but any other precedences would be helpful.

Thanks Andreas

 

[JoeD]

Boat in sling

If boat was short hauled and not blocked the surveyor couldn't move the straps. Who contracted for the Haul out?

Am sure he inspected the bilge and stringers for damage and found no damage.

This should be a lesson for us all. Might cost a few more dollars to haul and block before survey.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

I've seen lots of surveys but never one in which the surveyor moved, or had the yard move, the straps. What it sounds like, as Charlie and Ross implied, is that the surveyor should have know to look there but didn't. That may be an overisight but don't think that rises to to the level of negligence - only litigation will get you relief but then you, as the buyer probably would be equally culpable of two things - not knowing the history of this model's construction and choosing a surveyor who wasn't familiar with this boat.

The moral for anyone who is still reading is that obtaining a good survey is a function of not only the surveyor's reputation or experience but equally important is his knowledge of the type boat being considered.

 

[Andreas T]

Okay, thanks to all for your input. It's true that he would have had to put the boat back into the water and have the sling moved forward. This is extra effort but the area around the keel is the most critical to look at - he should have known.

I'll write him a letter and wait what he responds.