ABYC and the surveyor

[Nereussailor]

A friend is selling his boat (stink potter) and the surveyor did a survey for the prospective buyers. One of the things he noted was that there was no bilge high water alarm. The boat was built in 2005. If the builder didn't put one in at the time the boat was built and it wasn't code back then does one have to be installed before selling it? If it was code back then, shouldn't the builder be responsible for installing it?

Dave S

 

[Rick D]

That sort of stuff makes me nuts. I had to replace a bunch of hose on my last boat because it didn't have 'USCG Approved' on it. Forget that it was exactly the same hose. Your friend can simply tell the buyers broker that the call was out of line and why and how he will not remedy it. If it's an insurance survey, he's probably doomed.

 

[Chuckbear]

These surveyor are a major pain. First, there is no "code" and second ABYC Standards are just that, standards, primarily for the boat builders. There is not now nor has there ever been any requirements to bring a boat up to ABYC Standards. But once a surveyor puts it on the survey, especially with an insurance company, you are screwed. The seller, needs to have the surveyor show where it is required by any official agency that a high water alarm or anything else is required. If using only ABYC, he needs to move this to his recommendation page with a note that this is strictly his opinion or remove it from the survey, pending him being responsible for the loss of the sale due to an improper and incorrect survey. Since I am and have been a surveyor, I have seen this all to often. Chuck

 

[Rich Stidger]

FWIW, when I had my ten year insurance-required survey three years ago, the surveyor told me up-front that there were certain things that the insurance company was going to expect to see. One was a high-water alarm, the other was a CO detector in "all areas". Also a propane fume detector was required.

Just so happened that I had installed at my option a propane detector and I had already installed a home-type CO detector in my aft cabin. Although there were no CO detectors in the salon or vee berth, this omission was allowed. I did have to install a high water alarm.

All of these items are good ideas, and there is no argument not to have them. My heartburn is that I was TOLD that if I wished to continue having insurance I MUST install.

 

[Winkfish]

I've got no love for insurance companies, but if I'm going to pay you if you lose your boat, you can bet I'm going to make sure you reduce that risk as much as possible.

 

[Chuckbear]

FWIW, when I had my ten year insurance-required survey three years ago, the surveyor told me up-front that there were certain things that the insurance company was going to expect to see. One was a high-water alarm, the other was a CO detector in "all areas". Also a propane fume detector was required.

Just so happened that I had installed at my option a propane detector and I had already installed a home-type CO detector in my aft cabin. Although there were no CO detectors in the salon or vee berth, this omission was allowed. I did have to install a high water alarm.

All of these items are good ideas, and there is no argument not to have them. My heartburn is that I was TOLD that if I wished to continue having insurance I MUST install.

Rick, Was that because that is what the insurance company actually "required" or is that because that is what he "believed" the insurance company expected as a result of him constantly add the requirement to his survey. These are important details.

 

[Rich Stidger]

Rick, Was that because that is what the insurance company actually "required" or is that because that is what he "believed" the insurance company expected as a result of him constantly add the requirement to his survey. These are important details.

I guess I really don't know the answer. What I remember him telling me was that "all insurance companies are looking for these items and that if I didn't already have them installed I would need to do so".

 

[BarryL]

Hello,

I don't understand the fuss. Someone hired a surveyor to examine a boat. The surveyor didn't find a high water alarm and noted it in his report. What should the surveyor have done, ignored it? Your friend, the seller, should say something like "that's right, there is no high water alarm. The boat didn't come with one and I have not installed one." End of discussion. The prospective owner then decide on what he wants to do.

Do you really expect a surveyor to know what year each regulation came into being and then know each year of the boat and then try to match them up? They surveyor is supposed to report on the condition of the vessel as he finds it, nothing more and nothing less.

Barry

 

[tommays]

On my Cal 29 i had to move the fuel fill from the orginal location on the cockpit floor up to the rail becasue he refused to write is as built and while i like the new location i REALLY dont believe it is any safer

It also cost a crap load of money

And there are 100s of Cals with it still down there

 

[Tim R.]

And then there's the insurance company

My surveyor used terms like "properly maintaned and upgraded by a very conscientous owner", "like new condition", "few problems".

His 3 items that he stated should be resolved ASAP were as follows:
- replace fire extinguishers
- replace raw water intake hose between strainer and engine
- check forward port chainplate for possible leak

The insurance company would not insure it for navigation until those 3 items were resolved and I had 30 days to do the rest of the even more insignificant suggestions by the surveyor.

The surveyor was in shock. He offered to write the insurance company a letter stating the vessel was safe for navigation. After the letter they insured the boat and said I had to complete the top 3 in 30 days and the rest at the next haul out.

Great surveyor, BTW, if anyone in S. Maine needs one. Tony Theriault.

Unfortunately I could not use my preferred insurance company as they do not insure for live aboard.

 

[Chuckbear]

Hello,



Do you really expect a surveyor to know what year each regulation came into being and then know each year of the boat and then try to match them up? They surveyor is supposed to report on the condition of the vessel as he finds it, nothing more and nothing less.

Barry

That is the point, there IS NO "regulation" therefore why is it on the survey. You are absolutely correct that the surveyors job is to report on the condition of the vessel and nothing more. Chuck

 

[OldCat]

That sort of stuff makes me nuts. I had to replace a bunch of hose on my last boat because it didn't have 'USCG Approved' on it. Forget that it was exactly the same hose. Your friend can simply tell the buyers broker that the call was out of line and why and how he will not remedy it. If it's an insurance survey, he's probably doomed.

Seriously - in this economy - are you going to risk wiping out the deal - or get a quote and negotiate it with the buyer? Regardless of 'right way' or 'wrong way', the buyer is likely to want whatever their surveyor wrote up. Another buyer might not be so easy to find - so just as is often done with an 'unreasonable' item in a home sale inspection - the seller needs to get a quote to 'fix' it and unless he doesn't want the deal - eat the cost or negotiate with the other party.

JMHO,
OC

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

My experience is that insurance companies require one thing - a boat which has "passed" survey meaning any noted deficiencies are rectified. I don't have a high level alarm but don't doubt if my surveyor wrote one was required, my underwriter would ask it be done. To my way of thinking, I'd be better served by a surveyor who stipulated compliance with current standards as it would force me to make my boat arguably safer. What's the problem with that?

 

[Maine Sail]

That is the point, there IS NO "regulation" therefore why is it on the survey. You are absolutely correct that the surveyors job is to report on the condition of the vessel and nothing more. Chuck

If you bought a boat that was built to "ABYC standards" in 2005, and it had "enclosed accommodations" then it should have a high water alarm and should have been built to meet H-22 among other ABYC standards. This was part of the standards in 2005.

You're correct that there is no "regulation" but in general what surveyors say goes with insurance companies unless you can challenge it with the current accepted standards. Kind of tough to challenge this one as the current safety standards recommend a high water alarm.

ABYC H-22 Electric Bilge Pump Systems

22.7.3 On boats with an enclosed accommodation
compartment, an alarm shall be installed indicating that
bilge water is approaching the maximum bilge water level.


One of my peeves is when a surveyor recommends something to "comply" with a safety standard but then does not reference the applicable standard leaving you guessing. If the surveyor had cared to actually open his ABYC standards reference he could have quickly, in about 30 seconds, referenced H-22 - 22.7.3 and left no questions....

 

[Chuckbear]

Right you are MS and I am not saying we should not bring our boats up to the best safety standards. But in 2005 only a handful of builders manufactured their boats to full ABYC compliance. Remember that manufacturers are not required to do this as they are voluntary standards and "guidelines", not regulations. So does that mean that every 2005 boat surveyed must now be brought up to ABYC standards to pass survey because a few manufactured to those standards? The question is not whether it is best to have a boat meet the standards, rather is it a surveyors job to require in a survey that those standards be met when a vessel is perfectly sound, safe and seaworthy as it was originally built. Chuck

 

[Maine Sail]

Right you are MS and I am not saying we should not bring our boats up to the best safety standards. But in 2005 only a handful of builders manufactured their boats to full ABYC compliance. Remember that manufacturers are not required to do this as they are voluntary standards and "guidelines", not regulations. So does that mean that every 2005 boat surveyed must now be brought up to ABYC standards to pass survey because a few manufactured to those standards? The question is not whether it is best to have a boat meet the standards, rather is it a surveyors job to require in a survey that those standards be met when a vessel is perfectly sound, safe and seaworthy as it was originally built. Chuck

I agree! I would be very curious to know who the builder was and if it was one who claims to build to the "standard".

Our 2005 Catalina had a big old ABYC sticker on the transom and it did not fully comply with the standards, yet as a buyer, one would be led to believe it did fully comply, it did not. If of course you were not also an ABYC member you would never know this..

As always the standards are GUIDANCE and voluntary for builders but in the last few years have become more & more of a legal precedent in some court rulings where the ABYC standard is used as the evidence model for safety.

If it were me I would certainly go toe to toe with the surveyor because once he writes it the insurance company will want it. While I have high water alarms on my own boat I see very, very few ABYC built boats using them. Some think the red light on the bilge pump switch satisfies the "alarm" standard, it really does not because it only tells that the pump or switch is on not whether the water is at or near max capacity of the bilge..

When I do work on a customers boat I will do nothing that does not comply with the current ABYC standards. That is my own personal rule. If the customer does not like it, tough. I will work to the current safety standards or better for liability reasons and CYA. I don't do a lot of work for customers, as it is quite part time, but so far every one has been more than pleased that I am doing work that met or exceeded the current standards for safety. Much easier to hold up the standard and say see it was done to current accepted industry standards rather than what I felt could "get by" with in the event of a failure, fire, sinking etc. etc......

 

[Winkfish]

The reason surveyors will use standards, even if not required, is because people (individuals or insurance comapies) will be relying on their survey. From a liability standpoint, surveyors will be held to a "reasonable person" standard - i.e. here's a published respected guideline recommending, for example, a high water alarm. "Mr. Surveyor, why did you not recommend one for this boat (that took on water and sank before the owner could do anything to stop the water) when that is part of this well-respected published standard?"

 

[Stu Jackson]

Hello,

I don't understand the fuss.

Do you really expect a surveyor to know what year each regulation came into being and then know each year of the boat and then try to match them up? They surveyor is supposed to report on the condition of the vessel as he finds it, nothing more and nothing less.

Barry

Barry, yes I would. In the construction industry the APPLICABLE codes (and standards for that matter) are EXTREMELY important because new codes and standards are being written and eventually adopted for use every year.
As MS said, if Code A was being used when the vessel was built, it IS applicable. However, there's kinda a "grandfather clause" (like a Santa Clause!) that does apply, 'cuz if the boat was built BEFORE the code was written and adopted, then it shouldn't apply.

Don's right that enhancements and improvements aren't a bad thing to do. F'rinstance, my boat came without fuses at the battery banks. They weren't required when my boat was built. Did I add 'em. You betcha!

That's why I insist that the YEAR of the codes be included in documentation for all the engineering design reviews I do for specifications for my clients. It's good practice to avoid having "good idea upgrades" be misinterpreted as "requirements."

There's a BIG difference.

The surveyor SHOULD know when material changes were required when performing his work. One size fits all does NOT apply.