Oops, shoulda checked those stands

[dlochner]

From my experience, my insurance covered the damage when my boat fell over. If there were discussions between the yard (and its insurance company) and my insurance company, I was not privy to them. My understanding is that typically your own insurance covers the damage first and then the two insurance companies battle it out. When I accepted the settlement, I had to subrogate the claim to the insurance company so they had to right to pursue reimbursement.

The lawsuit is because the owners are pissed off and will lose the use of the boat for quite some time while the repairs are being made. It may also be part of a negotiating strategy to move the repair process along. These boats are often chartered, so there will be income lost while the boat is repaired. That would increase the cost. Charter fees for similar boats run up to $52K per week (yep, over my budget!).

https://www.yachtcharterfleet.com/luxury-charter-yacht-27474/vesper.htm

 

[jon hansen]

yeah, what dave said!

 

[Will Gilmore]

Any of those scenarios may be so, Will. But what wouldn't the yards insurance not cover? If they have a liability policy, it would cover all loss, that caused by employees - even total ignorance.

I would agree, based on my understanding of business liability coverage. However, there may be a history between the yard and their insurer that makes the yard reluctant to admit fault. It could also be a simple conflict of personalities between the Vesper corporation and the yard. Vesper has had work done at that yard before, maybe they shorted the last bill and the yard is angree. I don't, of course, know. I'm just laying out possibilities that make more sense to this scenario than weather, inadequate jack placement or other typical failures of this nature.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Rick D]

As a young man, I handled commercial claims. Most damage caused by professional operations we're excluded. IE, if you cleaned carpets and damaged the carpets, there was no coverage. Also, if there is consequential damage like loss of charter income, that might also not be covered. However, in the many decades since, coverages may have changed.
In other words, there may not have been coverage or full coverage.

 

[jon hansen]

i've been storing inside at the old PJ yard since 1980. (now with new owners). they won't even pick you out of the water until you show then your insurance is up to date and then they make you sign a waiver that says they will cover no damage to your vessel. after that it's up to the insurance companies to battle it out.
i'm still pointing my finger at the captain

 

[TomY]

I would agree, based on my understanding of business liability coverage. However, there may be a history between the yard and their insurer that makes the yard reluctant to admit fault. It could also be a simple conflict of personalities between the Vesper corporation and the yard. Vesper has had work done at that yard before, maybe they shorted the last bill and the yard is angree. I don't, of course, know. I'm just laying out possibilities that make more sense to this scenario than weather, inadequate jack placement or other typical failures of this nature.

-Will (Dragonfly)

I agree, I dunno either.

However, there may be a history between the yard and their insurer that makes the yard reluctant to admit fault. If not the yards fault, then who would be at fault?

What is clear is that the yacht owners suit centers on the yards negligence in blocking the boat. There is no mention of lost charters in the suit. The yacht owner would certainly be entitled to sue for those losses.

Seems this is an angry suit and there could be - as you say - a history with the yard and yacht owner.

The boat was there because of reported steering problems, which could relate to the the work the yard did previously.

 

[Simon Sexton]

*facepalm*

Chances are, if you can afford that boat, you can pay for repairs without even blinking an eye.

 

[dlochner]

What is clear is that the yacht owners suit centers on the yards negligence in blocking the boat. There is no mention of lost charters in the suit. The yacht owner would certainly be entitled to sue for those losses.

We haven't seen the all the legal documents, so we don't know exactly what their claim is. What is certain is that the owners are not happy campers, or this law suit would never have been filed.

 

[jon hansen]

old sailor, real world considerations: when aeolus is hauled or launched, rig in or rig out, i'm down to the yard at 6:00 am with a couple dozen fresh donuts from the local bakery for the yard crew. that's called extra insurance. now they don't care that i'm standing there watching. snake runs the hoist and crew and we're buds.
L.M. is one of Maine's favorite companies. hell the whole country loves what they do. the judge in the case prolly keeps his boat there. the jury, with 6 degrees of separation, all their family works there or supplies there. ain't no shell company dodging taxes down in the islands going to hurt that favorite boat builder up in the best sailing area of the entire world.

what you say?

 

[jssailem]

So Jon, I hear you saying it is going to be a tough experience for a foreign company to come up and mess with LM on their home turf.

 

[TomY]

It still looks like a clear case of LM is responsible for the damage, unless the yacht owner pulled the stands. I just don't understand why the boat isn't in the sheds right now getting repairs, that LM's typical liability of a company this size, would cover.

And the yacht owners must have a policy to cover this damage as well, and the coverage to cover lost income. If not, they have a half insured investment. We wouldn't normally hear about all this as it goes on behind the scenes, the companies will fight it out for who owes who.

We might not know about this if not for the lawsuit and the photo in the Portland news.

 

[thinwater]

How about the fact that the boat could not have been blocked in ABYC practice because the bow was over a bank? There could not have been a stand in the first 10' and no stand at the bow. I could be seeing it wrong. They did this to save yard space, I imagine. But this obvious shortcut puts all of their blocking practices in question.

If LM removed the stands before careful inspection and photography, that is very suspicious and hard to defend. Combined with the absence of bow stands, yeah, they knew it was blocked wrong. As a judge I would be leery of any explanation. There are any number of details that could have been missed, such as no padding under stands, incorrect spacing, or chains that were not tight or missing. If it were actual stand failure you can bet they would have recorded that.

ABYC also says one stand very 10 feet, but I wonder as the size of the boat goes up, if this should not increase, since the windage, and more importantly the momentum if it starts to rock little, goes up in more than direct proportion to length.

 

[Rick486]

I have seen similar size boats at the Hinckley yard in RI and there are literally forests of jack stands holding them up, mast in or out. And not on gravel or soil of any time. Blacktop, with wooden shims under the stand legs. This really does look like a bad practice case to me.

 

[thinwater]

@TomY The proximal cause was a storm with ~ 40 mph winds. I don't think there was any one fatal flaw, it was a combination of several factors:

The boat faced NW and in close proximity to the barn. If you stood on the foredeck, there was no land between the boat and Toronto some 130 miles away. The wind no doubt hit the barn and buffeted the boat with apparent winds in excess of 50 mph.

The asphalt surface was solid, but not perfectly level. Water and ice may have gotten under the jack stands.

The cover added windage.

The number of jack stands was marginal. It was (and still is) a 30' boat that had 2 jack stands per side and one under the bow. The rule of thumb is one jack stand for every 8' of boat. We were on the edge.

The jack stands were not made by Brownell.

While I have no evidence, I believe the keel was not properly blocked. I believe it was only blocked in the middle in one place. Standard practice is to block the keel in 2 places fore and aft. This prevents the boat from rocking fore and aft on the blocking.

This was only the second year the marina was using jack stands, so they were inexperienced with them.

If I put all this together I think when the storm blew through the boat started rocking back and forth on the inadequate keel blocking which was made worse by the cover (more windage) and the proximity to the barn which caused more buffeting. Eventually one of the jack stands moved (probably due to the ice underneath) and failed. Then everything went to hell.

The marina and BoatUS insurance made it all right and except for an overworked (or procrastinating surveyor) The whole process was relatively painless and I only lost a couple of weeks of sailing.

Unless I'm missing something in the pics (and I looked at other pics of the above accident), the main problem is that they didn't chain the stands together. This is a very serious failure and is probably the root cause. Read Brownell instructions. As you said, they were new to this.

 

[jssailem]

I noticed that the paper was advertising marijuana could there be a recreational connection?

Since were throwing out conjecture there are al sorts of possibilities.

 

[Tom J]

*facepalm*

Chances are, if you can afford that boat, you can pay for repairs without even blinking an eye.

You would think so, but if the boat is corporate owned, then it is all about the bottom line. Any loss of profit is unacceptable. As a dockmaster, I reserved on one occasion 110' of our face dock for a charter yacht. The yacht anchored out overnight, and we lost over $300 of dock charges. I spoke to the captain as he steamed away the next day, and he said they had decided not to dock overnight, and he refused to make good on the charges. I notified all of our boatyards in New England to look out for this boat. After this, we routinely rang up the dock charges 24 hours before arrival. I can't see a private owner acting this way. Some of the millionaires we dealt with would nickel and dime us for fuel charges, etc., but they never skipped out on the bill.

 

[dlochner]

Unless I'm missing something in the pics (and I looked at other pics of the above accident), the main problem is that they didn't chain the stands together. This is a very serious failure and is probably the root cause. Read Brownell instructions. As you said, they were new to this.

@thinwater Were you referring my accident or the Vesper accident? If you were referring to my accident, where did you see the photos?

On my boat, the jack stands were chained, however, they were not Brownell stands and they were not chained in the recommended manner. Brownell wants them chained in the middle of the stand, these were chained at the top of the stand. Chaining at the top of the stand allows the base to wiggle and dance as the boat rocked. Eventually one stand gave way and down they went.

The single keel blocking is visible in this photo. That block served as a pivot point allow the boat to rock. Earlier in the season, one of the stands had moved and needed to be repositioned. That was a warning sign, but we were too inexperienced with stands to recognize it. This was only the second season using stands, before we were all on cradles.

The number of stands is also marginal. It was a 30' boat with 2 stands per side, probably should have had 3. In subsequent years, they used more stands.

 

[jon hansen]

my sensibilities are that a qualified paid captain or prudent owner would of never allowed the yard to make such a mistake. seamanship is akin to preventive maintenance.
all i'm saying is don't let this happen to your vessel.
boats like kids, take control of your ownership.
i was taught a long time ago, "nobody, nobody takes care of your toys like you do"

 

[Meriachee]

i was taught a long time ago, "nobody, nobody takes care of your toys like you do"

Ain’t that the truth!

 

[DayDreamer41]

Here is the language from our winter storage contract, which I would assume is typical

"Each owner is required to carry his/her own insurance against loss or damage by theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, fire, wind, water, or act of God governing his/her boat and its contents, with a waiver of subrogation rights endorsement, and shall provide a copy of the policy to XXXXX Marine upon demand. XXXXX Marine shall be solely responsible during the period of storage for the security, care and condition of the Owner’s boat and all equipment thereon, including cradle and boat covers. In the event of loss or damage to such property from an insurable peril, Owner agrees to look solely to Owner’s insurance to cover such loss or damage, and hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives any right of recovery against XXXXX Marine for such loss or damage."