# Boat sank at the dock



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Our beautiful 43' sailboat sank at the brokerage dock where she was listed for sale. Overnight. She was in great condition, and well maintained, at least when she was in our care. We've been all over her after the fact, while she was on the hard, and haven't been able to find the cause. (She was pumped out and re-floated, in the slings, and we weren't there -- boatyard gave us 3 hours notice to make the 3 hour trip, and the "notice" was emailed, so we had no idea ). Here's my question--do we have an advocate in this nightmare? Our insurance broker (who had been pretty good about maintaining contact over the last 10 years as long as it concerned us paying our premiums) has gone quiet. We seem to be at the mercy of the people to whom he sold our policy, and they're not giving us any love either. We're not sure how to handle this. I'd put the barfing smilie here but it's kind of annoying.


----------



## Yorksailor (Oct 11, 2009)

More details of where it happened and the insurance company concerned?

Any recent work on seacocks, water pumps or prop shaft? I saw a boat sink because the prop shaft and not been keyed in properly and when they hit reverse parking her the shaft backed out and nobody noticed before they went home!

If she sank and you can't find the cause it is a good bet that someone hid the cause!

Phil


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

I would put some pressure on your agent to step up and give you some customer service. Of course, the agent is not liable, as he is just the "agent."

Really strange that no cause was found. Sounds like it should be covered, no?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I don't get it; your insurance agent sold your policy to someone?


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

They kind of farm them out. Not that I get it either. They put out bids-- who wants to make an offer to insure this boat?


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Not going to go into names right now. Will be happy to later, though, if we get screwed.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Yikes, a terrible situation. FWIW, William Buckley relates a situation in his book "Airborne" where his yacht sank at a dock, and after recovery no cause could be found... on a cruise sometime later one of the guests stepped below and found a foot of water in the cabin. He discovered that the electric bilge pump was running hard - in reverse. If I remember the discharge line lacked a siphon break or it was blocked.

On some vessels, if the head water intake level is left up, the bowl will overfill and start to fill the boat.

A loose or defective sink discharge hose is another common source of flooding. 

You (or the insurance company) may just need someone to play the Sherlock Holmes and find the cause.

Regardless the cause, I would expect the insurance company would have to pay up. The financial hit for you may depend on whether your policy has a declared value for a total loss, that figure then replacing any likely sale price.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Well you won't really know anything till they find the cause. That is likely the reason for your agents silence. There is nothing he can commit to until it is determined what happened. If they find it was something like a toilet that was left back flooding by someone who was looking at the boat, then they will likely try to charge your broker's insurance company, if it was determined that it was caused by lack of maintenance causing a seacock to break they may deny any coverage altogether (normally there are exclusions in the insurance for things like corrosion). Or if it is found to be a covered event then they may just write you a check for the covered amount. I am not saying any of the scenarios above is what happened, or even possible just that the insurance guy is likely waiting for an evaluation before saying anything. Is this your KP-44 you posted about in the past? If so I am extra sorry as it is one of my favorite boats of all time and likely what I want to get in about 10 or so years to prepare to cruise off into the sunset on.

Here is a thread to read:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/168849-i-hate-boats.html

It is a LONG LONG thread and about a different issue, but has a happy ending (well I don't think it has ended yet, but on it's way) but if you read it you will see what is involved in a major insurance claim. Not like a car accident where the guy has a laptop and a printer in the Gecko car and they pay you on the spot. Strange though it should be obvious what caused it. And if they do pay you, send me an PM and if it is located in the North East perhaps we could work out a deal if you buy it back from the insurance company. You may want to pay for a survey to be done so you know for sure what caused it and what needs to be done to bring the boat back. The surveyor works for the person paying the bill so the insurance companies surveyor may not find in your favor.

One last word, I have never heard of a broker that did any maintenance while they had a boat at there brokerage dock. So if it was there long, it may have deteriorated, but I doubt they are liable for maintenance at all unless specifically agreed upon ahead of time. I know when I have looked at boats, I have heard things like "Oh I should tell the owner that there bilge pump is out" or "we told them to replace that last month, thought they had already."


----------



## single2coil (Apr 12, 2014)

May I suggest , perhaps bit early, an attorney needs to time of ownership and liability. The insurance may string you out for months and months. Much like Medsailor thread. 
Especially if it is a large claim. Remember insurance companies do Not like to pay. I am sure more facts will surface. All parties have liability insurance , even if they say they don't.
Good Luck


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

questionsquestions said:


> She was pumped out and re-floated, in the slings, and we weren't there -- boatyard gave us 3 hours notice to make the 3 hour trip, and the "notice" was emailed, so we had no idea ).


*NO PHONE CALL???????*

Sounds like your broker definitely dropped the ball 

I wish I could say I was surprised. He and I would definitely be having a conversation...


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

questionsquestions said:


> Here's my question--do we have an advocate in this nightmare? Our insurance broker (who had been pretty good about maintaining contact over the last 10 years as long as it concerned us paying our premiums) has gone quiet. We seem to be at the mercy of the people to whom he sold our policy, and they're not giving us any love either. We're not sure how to handle this. I'd put the barfing smilie here but it's kind of annoying.


Kind of hard to jump on the band wagon about poor response time from your insurer or insurance broker when you give us no time line.

The underwriter will send a surveyor to investigate and then make a determination based on the surveyors report. If you are unhappy with their determination, valuation etc. hire your own (better qualified) surveyor to argue against them.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

joethecobbler said:


> another reason insurance is a rippoff


Did you even read Medsailor's thread? I think that proves the benefit of having insurance if your boat is worth anything.

But I suspect that facts don't matter to you. You'll just go on your anti-insurance rants no matter what the facts say.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

I stopped doing marine insurance investigations several years ago because I was so frustrated and angered that ninety percent of the claims I investigated were either grossly exaggerated or outright fraud. Too often the underwriters paid out on these claims because it was cheaper than fighting them.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The OP used the term insurance broker. That may be how they refer to all insurance salespeople, however, it technically refers to an individual who sells insurance on behalf of an insurance carrier, but has no ability to act on their behalf. An Agent, on the other other hand, does the same, but can act on the carrier's behalf. Such as binding coverage. In the end, both brokers and agents typically represent several carriers and good ones can help you understand who provides the best coverage, claims processing, etc. Not just the best price, which is too often buying the worst coverage or claims support. 

If your broker/agent isn't helping now, they should be kicked to the curb for any more of your business. Helping with claims is partially where they earn their keep.

You're going to have to determine the cause of the flooding, as it could impact your claim. Not every cause is covered in every policy. 

Good luck.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

joethecobbler said:


> another reason insurance is a rippoff


This isn't helping the OP. Please let's not turn this into a debate about insurance.


----------



## deltaten (Oct 10, 2012)

no matter how ya look at it, it just sux.
sorryfor your woes, mate


----------



## Rapp (Nov 16, 2014)

You might wanna look into a private insurance adjuster,they usually work on a contingency fee and would certainly be in your corner and know the Ins games ropes.I've dealt with them in other ways never for boats,but I'm sure they're there.


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

mstern said:


> I don't get it; your insurance agent sold your policy to someone?


That's what insurance brokers do, they are not insurance companies but trade around.

We recently had a case here in Norway.
Boat was insured through a broker in Lemma Europe Insurance Company Ltd
Lemma went bankrupt Lemma Europe | Liquidation | Insurance | business News on SuperyachtNews.com
A few days after the boat was a total loss ($ 5000000)

The boat owner had to drag the broker to court and won.
There where two reasons he won
1) The broker did not inform the boat owner about the bankruptcy
2) The broker had not made it clear in the paperwork that they only sold insurance..

In Norway we have security systems in place that will protect the customers if an Norwegian insurance company is going broke, but that was not the case for Lemma registered in Gibraltar.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I'm thinking good thoughts for you.

The broker is on vacation. On Monday he is going to make everything right.

The Insurance company just can't find your policy due to taking over another company but on Monday it will show up.

Then it is just a matter of issuing the check.

I'm thinking about Jan 1st.

That's the way it is going to go down. 
First priority is to start checking out new boats you don't have any time to waste.


I know these things.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

joethecobbler said:


> how is this helping the OP?
> I forgot, only you can have an opinion.
> my bad.


hey I too can post a no help response to a no help response about a no help response :laugher


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I think the problem, perhaps better described as a misunderstanding, is that one believes can buy insurance and it will cover any loss, no matter the reason. That, quickly bluntly, is selfish. It's like placing a bet on 17 on the roulette wheel. You bet the ball will land on 17, the house bets it won't. The analogy is you bet your boat will sink, the house bets it won't. The ball lands on 18 and house won't pay. Then you get upset that it's so close to 17 they should pay anyway.

Where it gets fuzzy is all the technical language that defines the bet both sides are making. It never covers anything and everything. It can't really. Some risks are unmeasurable. Then comes the most frustrating part. Some insurance companies will argue the merits of most claims, hoping to reduce there payout to more meek clients. Others will write the check immediately. Guess which policy will have a higher premium. 

You need a good agent/broker to help a layperson identify the difference.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am really sorry to hear of your travails. I have been through some of these kinds of things either with some of my boats ( struck by lightning) or other people's boats, ( the yard winterized the boat and the yard did not put a hose clamp on a water intake and when the boat was launched it slowly filled the boat over a several hour period of time. That one was hard to find since the clamp appeared to be in place, and the water flow was very slow until it was submerged a few more inches since the top of the nipple was pretty close to the waterline.).

As others have pointed out your insurance broker is only a salesman, he is not your insurance company. Your actual insurance company should have issued you a written policy which lists your rights and coverages. It typically describes how to make a claim including a phone number to call to make a claim. Also, You typically get a wallet card with the name of your actual insurance company, your policy number, and the phone number for the claims department as well.

When I have had a claim, I have called the claims department number and they assign either some and /or all of a claims officer, marine surveyor, appraiser, and/or an investigator. On occasion these have all been one person. That person comes down and evaluates your claim. They are often authorized to pay to have the boat hauled, and to pay for mitigation, such as hauling out the engine and having it cleaned inside and out to prevent further damage, or force ventilating the boat to dry it quickly before mold can form. 

That investigator will attempt to develop a likely cause for the claim, assess the cost of repairs, and issue a recommended settlement. In my case, I have always been offered what I thought was a fair settlement, but I know that I am probably an exception. I have also heard of terrible abuse by insurance companies which would require an attorney. 

If other damage is discovered as the repairs are being made, the investigator is typically called back to look at the discovered issue, and may issue a 'supplemental' payment which is intended to pay for this additional work. The settlement that you will be asked to sign should include language that defines that supplementals will be issued if additional damage is discovered and how that process will work. 

So the first place to start is to look at your insurance policy. Then call and make a claim as required. Most policies require that the owner file the claim in a specific period of time, and that the owner do what they can to mitigate further damage, such as washing the salt out and then drying out everything quickly in the case of a boat which sunk. You should ask the claims department about that since some companies want everything left as is until the investigation occurs.

While an attorney may ultimately be required, that is not the place to start. While a cause of the sinking may never be determined, the cause may be irrelevant to whether you whether or how much get paid depending on the language of you policy. Most policies pay the costs of a sinking unless the owner purposely caused it. It won't pay the cost of the defective element that caused the sinking but will pay all else less your deductible. If the cause was boatyard neglect, the insurance company will go after the boat yard's insurance and you will only be required to testify if that proceeds. If the boat yard loses, the only impact on you is that you won't have to pay your deductible.

Respectfully ,
Jeff


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Some clarifications-- it's been 3 1/2 weeks since the boat sank. The one and only time we have had communication with the broker/agent is when we called him to notify him of the accident. Since then no replies to emails or calls. Yesterday I tried hitting #2 when I called the office (the line for insurance claims)-- it leads to a dead end. No ****. Sure wish I'd tried that when we first called them for insurance.

Let me contrast our previous experiences with a GREAT insurance company-- ERIE Insurance, based in Erie PA, but available now in in many states. Through the years of our lives as well as our parents' lives, any insurance claims (including a major house fire) have been handled quickly, politely, and with great professionalism, always with the broker (the person with whom we always have contact, and who "knows" us) as the intermediary in the process. He/she is the person we call if we have questions or concerns about anything, and he/she responds quickly. I understand that the difference in this situation is that these brokers are representatives of Erie Insurance only, and that the guy with whom we have our boat insurance is not. But the overwhelming problem in this situation is that though we've paid our boat insurance faithfully for many years, and now that we come to the moment when we have a claim, there is NO ONE who represents or advises us in this situation. It's easy to say "get a lawyer," but lawyers are expensive, I'm think we've all noticed. I also resent that I should have to resort to that. The point of my dissatisfaction is simply this: In this unfamiliar and trying situation, we are surrounded by professionals (marina maintenance people, boat salespeople, surveyors, adjustor, all with experience in marine insurance losses, all fighting for their own interests. And unless we HIRE a lawyer, we stand alone, with no knowledge or experience, with a potential huge loss.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm no expert, but it's the Internet so I'll pretend to be one:

If it's 3.5 weeks and you haven't gotten a visit from an insurance adjuster, something is seriously wrong, and you may even have a case of insurance fraud. A lawyer might be the only way out of this, and timing is critical at this point. You might also look into your state's insurance regulation agency - they might provide some guidance on how to proceed to protect your rights.

There are numerous issues that could dictate whether you are entitled to coverage, but at the very least you must be visited by an adjuster to begin the process of determining root cause and whether it is covered.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

Call the insurance company, not your agent or broker, and go through the claim process as described in the policy.

This summer I had a claim on my boat insurance, provided billing statement, estimates, photographs, but when I realized the claim was only slightly more than the deductable, called them back and canceled the claim, no problems.

Make your call to the insurance company in a relaxed and clear voice as if you are making a call on channel 16.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

questionsquestions said:


> Some clarifications-- it's been 3 1/2 weeks since the boat sank. The one and only time we have had communication with the broker/agent is when we called him to notify him of the accident. Since then no replies to emails or calls. Yesterday I tried hitting #2 when I called the office (the line for insurance claims)-- it leads to a dead end. No ****. Sure wish I'd tried that when we first called them for insurance.
> .


Yes but, your broker/agent is not your insurance company. Making a claim with him or his non-existent claims department could be totally irrelevant. We're you ever actually issued a policy? Does it list the name of the actual insurance company?

You need to look at your policy and follow the procedures on your policy. You need to properly contact your insurance company as they define that within your policy. Three and a half weeks is a long time not to have properly filed a claim and that may be where you lose out.

If you have never been issued a policy, then as others have said, you may have been scammed and you don't actually have insurance. Or your broker/agent is not a broker/agent but a fly by night insurance company who writes policies and then may or may not find people to underwrite those policies. If that is the case then this may become consumer fraud issue and that will involve lawyers, who may take that case on contingency.

Jeff


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

TakeFive said:


> I'm no expert, but it's the Internet so I'll pretend to be one:
> 
> If it's 3.5 weeks and you haven't gotten a visit from an insurance adjuster, something is seriously wrong, and you may even have a case of insurance fraud.


We have had contact with the adjustor. He sent us a letter telling us our claim number. Then we called him, and he told us to have our agreement with the sales brokerage forwarded to him. Not to beat a dead horse, but this guy is NOT on our side.

BTW, we appreciate all the input from others with experience with their own losses, as well as knowledge of others' losses. And yes, we know that the missing information is what exactly went wrong on the boat. Unfortunately, the boatyard's lack of timely notification on the re-floating of the boat has left us unable to (maybe ever) determine the cause. If someone was on the boat (a prospective buyer, for instance) and left something open that should have been closed, we'll never know.


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Jeff_H said:


> Yes but, your broker/agent is not your insurance company. Making a claim with him or his non-existent claims department could be totally irrelevant.
> 
> You need to look at your policy and follow the procedures on your policy. You need to properly contact your insurance company as they define that within your policy. Three and a half weeks is a long time not to have properly filed a claim and that may be where you lose out.
> 
> ...


Yeah, no, we do have insurance, did look at the policy the day after the loss, did find the paragraph where they told us to notify them "in writing" of the loss, "immediately following", and did that as well.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

questionsquestions said:


> We have had contact with the adjustor. He sent us a letter telling us our claim number. Then we called him, and he told us to have our agreement with the sales brokerage forwarded to him. Not to beat a dead horse, but this guy is NOT on our side.
> 
> BTW, we appreciate all the input from others with experience with their own losses, as well as knowledge of others' losses. And yes, we know that the missing information is what exactly went wrong on the boat. Unfortunately, the boatyard's lack of timely notification on the re-floating of the boat has left us unable to (maybe ever) determine the cause. If someone was on the boat (a prospective buyer, for instance) and left something open that should have been closed, we'll never know.


Sounds like so far you've complied with the notification terms.

Has the adjuster, or a designated surveyor, actually visited the boat to investigate? If not, then something's fishy after 3.5 weeks. You may think that there's nothing left to see, but a good surveyor can find a lot of things. And the surveyor would also say what work needs to begin immediately to minimize the consequential damages.

If they can't find the cause, then the insurance may have to pay out your claim. That seems to be what happened with Medsailor, and they're paying for his rebuild.

Where is the boat broker in all this? He would have records of all authorized visits to your boat, and if he's destroyed those it's a huge RED FLAG. Your insurance company should be ALL OVER HIM because his insurance company is their free meal ticket if they can pin it on him.

I'm not suggesting that the boat broker was responsible for maintenance (probably not unless agreed to in writing) -- I'm saying that he would have been with a possible buyer who may have done something to cause the damage, like opened a seacock, pulled off a hose, etc.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

You need to become a seriously squeaky wheel. Best guess is you're dealing with an insurance company that takes the approach of seeing who will just go away and limit their claims losses. Don't make an easy mark.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I should think that if it sank in the care of a broker, at their dock, they would have at least a partial responsibility here.
I'd spend the money to get an attorney and let him do all the work. Insurance companies will try to bully you, but probably would not mess around with a competent attorney nearly as much.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

capta said:


> I should think that if it sank in the care of a broker, at their dock, they would have at least a partial responsibility here.
> I'd spend the money to get an attorney and let him do all the work. Insurance companies will try to bully you, but probably would not mess around with a competent attorney nearly as much.


Whether or not the broker has any liability would be dependent on the brokerage agreement. Most broker's agreements leaves the boat owner with the sole responsibility to maintain their vessel. It would be very unusual for an agreement to make the broker responsible but it does happen which is why I would speculate that the adjuster requested the broker's agreement.

I don't see the advantage of bringing in an attorney until it has been determined that the insurance company is not performing in accordance with the policy or they otherwise stop responding.

Since QuestionsQuestions now has a contact person and a claim number it would make sense to call to request a description of the process and a timeline, trying to get that in writing, but at least taking copious notes and follow up with an email or letter summarizing their understanding of the process-timeline. Then follow up on the phone and with written summaries to make sure that the process is proceeding as agreed or they know why it isn't.

Jeff


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Jeff_H said:


> Since QuestionsQuestions now has a contact person and a claim number it would make sense to call to request a description of the process and a timeline, trying to get that in writing, but at least taking copious notes and follow up with an email or letter summarizing their understanding of the process-timeline. Then follow up on the phone and with written summaries to make sure that the process is proceeding as agreed or they know why it isn't.
> 
> Jeff


Good idea.


----------



## tweitz (Apr 5, 2007)

So sorry to hear of your situation. I can sympathize because I had a similar situation earlier this year. After being launched by the yard, out boat partially sank at the dock overnight. it turned out that the yard foreman had failed to notice that there were sea cocks under the sink in the head, and one of the sea cocks was open with no hose attached. It stinks. 

But the yard immediately contacted me; I was a couple of hours from the boat and unable to get there immediately, but they immediately hauled the boat, pickled the engine, dewatered her with pumps and accepted full responsibility. They also removed anything that might hold water or dampness, installed a dehumidifier on board and kept fans running to dry out the boat for more than a week. I did contact my insurance company, Boat US, who immediately assigned a contact person and within a couple of days sent a surveyor to inspect the damage. We did a survey of the boat with the yard owner, myself, the surveyor provided by my insurance company and one provided by the yard's insurance company. Both surveyors seemed to go out of their way to make sure that anything in any doubt was to be completely replaced, especially all of the electrical doohickeys, such as VHF, stereo, wiring panels, wires, alternator, starter, batteries, etc. They replaced everything soft on the boat (mattresses, cushions, etc.). Since the boat had been in winter storage, much was not on the boat, such as the chartplotter and sails, and so was not affected. Fortunately, the pickling of the engine seems to have worked and they ran multiple oil changes through it and the analysis of the oil and fuel has been fine.

After the joint survey, I spoke to the surveyor from my insurance company in confidence and he said that the yard was quite responsible. Unfortunately, in his experience, there are many yards that would have simply reconnected the hose or closed the seacock, and then said the cause of the sinking was unknown. Makes one wonder about the "unknown" origin of your sinking.

In my case, my insurance paid nothing, I paid no deductible, the yard and yard's insurance covered everything, and we got relaunched about 2 months later (though there were a few parts that came in later). The boat is, I suppose, at least as good as it was before the sinking, since it now has some updated electronics, new batteries, and other electrical, new cushions and covers, and seems to show no ill effects. I was quite concerned about mildew or smell, but the efforts of the yard seem to have solved that; I was also concerned that some of the floor boards or cabin liners might have ill effects, but I have seen none.

I hope your ending is as happy as mine, but I would be quite concerned about the insurance company's silence. BoatUS was on top of it almost instantly, before there was any discussion of cause or cure, and the quick work on the boat surely reduced the loss dramatically.


----------



## vega1860 (Dec 18, 2006)

Not to get off the subject of insurance, but...

Isn't it interesting how often boats sink or partially sink immediately after leaving the boatyard. 

It happened to me twice. The first time after having a new engine installed, it was twelve hours before I arrived and discovered ankle deep water in the cabin. The second time we were aboard and were able to deal with it immediately.

Lesson learned: Be there when the boat is launched and go aboard immediately to check everything.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

The very experienced guy that got me interested in sailing had a routine for a freshly launched boat - he slept on board on a settee the first night with one foot on the cabin sole.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

when my boat goes in this spring (hopefully) I am going to pay a little extra for them to do what they do with the wooden boats.. leave them in the slings overnight. It has been a few years since my Sprite has seen the water and I did a lot of serious structural repairs to her keel.. so I want to make sure I do not find a mast sticking up out of the water that morning.

And yes, I will sleep aboard her that first night (if I sleep at all)


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

vega1860 said:


> Not to get off the subject of insurance, but...
> 
> Isn't it interesting how often boats sink or partially sink immediately after leaving the boatyard.
> 
> ...


I worried (and fretted, and worried some more) after launching our boat after the last haul out. Because of scheduling conflicts, and delays, my boat partner couldn't be there for the launch and I had to drive back to my office soon after I got the boat back in her slip. I did wait around for a half-hour or so once I tied the boat up (sure that at any moment something was going to bust loose and the bilge pump would start whirling away). everything looked fine when I left, but I wasn't really comfortable until my partner could check the boat thoroughly the next morning and give me a call.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

vega1860 said:


> .....Be there when the boat is launched and go aboard immediately to check everything.


This is a best practice, but I get to be there mid-week about one in five. However, I always go the weekend prior to launch and personally close every thru hull, inspect the prop seal, and test the bilge pump and high water alarm.

To our yard's credit, they will not launch a boat without a working bilge pump. Some owners get cranky, when they haven't hauled their batteries back yet. I have seen several boats at the bottom of their slip in the spring. Seems to be a high risk time.


----------



## BoatShowAvenue (Nov 26, 2014)

I think the insurance company has to take responsibility, also the dock should give you more answers, hey where responsible for taking good care of your boat.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

It's during discussions like these that I appreciate my ultra-simple Oday 23. Only one through hull below the water line: an unused speedo.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

BoatShowAvenue said:


> I think the insurance company has to take responsibility, also the dock should give you more answers, hey where responsible for taking good care of your boat.


In forty years of boating, I've never worked with a broker, or stayed at a marina, where they exercised any responsibility for my boat. Although I am sure one can contract either to assume such responsibility, it seems pretty unlikely the OP did so.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

While someone may be liable for negligence itself, I would bet the slip contract and brokerage contract explicitly exclude their general liability.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

sailingfool said:


> In forty years of boating, I've never worked with a broker, or stayed at a marina, where they exercised any responsibility for my boat. Although I am sure one can contract either to assume such responsibility, it seems pretty unlikely the OP did so.


I agree I used to work for a power boat dealer and broker when in college (high end go fast boats in the 80's) and I know for a fact we never did any maintenance on any brokered boats at all. We would mention it to the owners and they would take care of it or had us find someone to do it. All of the boats were very expensive and well maintained. Fun job in college to take out customers all summer, but not fun when the commission checks never really came in. Oh well I still had fun out on the water.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

1. A large percentage of claims are fraud. The insurance company is not out to get you, but to protect the premiums of the rest of us.

2. Maintenance is the single biggest cause of sinking at the dock. It is not a covered loss as the insurance company will not cover a loss due to inadequate maintenance.

If you have any survey from the past, especially one given to the insurance company at any time, all items should be fixed, repaired, or mitigated in some way and keep proof of that. A maintenance log, receipts and pictures will go a long way to saving your butt when the time comes.

If you have any glaring issues like hose clamps, hoses, etc. They will cost you a fortune if they are the cause of sinking.

As stupid as it sounds, we use a pilots checklist on our boat. 

Why is it not stupid? Just about any dock sinking can be attributed to a maintenance issue. If you walk into court with documents, receipts and logs showing you have maintained the boat as prudently as possible, there is not a judge or jury who would side with the insurance company unless the act was proven deliberate or a result of workmanship on a recently completed job by a yard or other hired professional.

3. This leads me to the "out" many yards and professionals are using in their work-orders. They ask you to sign away your right to allow the insurance company to subrogate on your behalf. This means if they cause the boat to sink, the insurance company would pay your claim, then go after the yard that was found to be the cause. If you sign away that right, your policy is null and void and you have to fight the yard yourself and their liability can be written as such they that they will replace the defective part only, and pay for the haul to do so. Leaving the rest of the boat ruined and possible hefty environmental and towing/salvage bill.

4. Document EVERYTHING. Times you called, who you called, who you talked to, what you did, etc. If you are ever asked a question in court and state that you kept notes on everything and if you may refer to them, then give exact details, you will impress a judge. Trust me, they will come in with those records of when you called, who you talked to, etc.

5. If you have good records, can document everything, the boat was in great shape, etc. Talk to a good attorney in a consult and have him at the ready if it starts to go south.

6. Same as #5 on shape and documentation, make sure you stop at nothing to find the reason the boat sank, if they can't find a reason, get the police involved with a police report if you think it may have been human caused, or pay the yard to keep the boat in a slip next to the yard until the problem is found if you think it was caused otherwise. Be more concerned with finding out why then who is going to pay or get paid.


A lot of people blast the insurance companies for failure to pay on the loss when they don't maintain their boats at all and then complain to the world about it. If there is a years worth of growth on the bottom and the boat looks like it was last cleaned when Carter was president, don't even bother putting a claim in. 

It breaks my heart to hear the many stories about a boat sinking after a yard or mechanic made a mistake. Make sure not to sign your rights away and let the insurance company fight the yard for you.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

I would file a complain with your states insurance regulator. They may be able to provide valuable assistance. If nothing else if they get enough complaints they will shut down the broker or underwriter in your state. Looks like you are in New York, so that would be here: Insurance Information For Consumers


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

RainDog said:


> I would file a complain with your states insurance regulator. They may be able to provide valuable assistance. If nothing else if they get enough complaints they will shut down the broker or underwriter in your state. Looks like you are in New York, so that would be here: Insurance Information For Consumers


The insurance company has done nothing wrong yet. What are you going to complain about? They have an adjuster assigned and the adjuster will review the claim, speak with the yard, the brokerage, hire a surveyor to determine the ammount and cause of damage, etc. There is a lot involved and a process it has to go through.

You don't sink your boat, or wreck your car for that matter, and expect someone to cut a check a few days/weeks later, unless it is cut and dry. Let them work through it, but the OP should be prepared.

Again, the reason they do this is to keep people from using the insurance company as an out when they can no longer afford to keep their boat.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

tdoster said:


> The insurance company has done nothing wrong yet. What are you going to complain about? They have an adjuster assigned and the adjuster will review the claim, speak with the yard, the brokerage, hire a surveyor to determine the ammount and cause of damage, etc. There is a lot involved and a process it has to go through.


Almost 4 weeks has passed, apparently without a visit from a surveyor. Does that seem unusually slow?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have to say that the behavior of the insurance company does not match any experience that I have ever had with a claim to a marine insurance company. In most cases the insurance company rep's have been aboard within days of the report. 

They have done phone interviews with me asking detailed questions about my written report. They have wanted me there during their survey so that we both see the same things and can discuss them. They have interviewed the yard within a couple days of the claim. They have issued instructions on (and agreed to pay for) methods of mitigation where appropriate.

The idea that there has not been comparatively frequent contact from the surveyor/adjuster/ claims agent, seems very unprofessional, and unusual, especially in the case of a sinking where mitigation and protection is so time critical.

In my life, my family has had a boat that was a total loss after being driven on the rocks in a late season tropical storm, and I had a boat which lost its rig, a racing collision that sliced open a brand new headsail and bent stanchions flat to the deck, a strange chemical leak that ate the sealant out of the keel joint and caused the boat to start leaking rapidly, and a boat that was hit by lightning. I have helped others through a number of claims. And while not all of these claims were paid or paid promptly, the one common occurrence in all cases is that the insurance companies were 'all hands on deck' from the first phone call to their sense of resolution of the claim. 

The fact that a surveyor or adjuster has not been all over this boat is just plain suspicious. Even if the insurance company suspected fraud, they would have been all over that boat if for no other reason than to support their suspicions . Assuming we have been told everything accurately, there is no way to justify the lack of attention from this insurance company. 

Jeff


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Okay, to clarify and update: The surveyor hired by the insurance company was there to see the boat the day after it sank, and also the day it was experimentally re-floated. He too was given short notice on the re-floating, and arrived after the boat had already been in the water for a time (maybe 1/2 hour or so). We were informed too late and were not able to be there at all. 

When we were first informed that the boat had sunk, we called the insurance broker, and the adjustor called soon after. We asked if he wanted it raised right away or did he want someone to see it first. He told us then that he couldn't tell us what to do. So great. We were informed last week by this same insurance adjustor that it was our responsibility to get someone to give us an estimate for repairs. We asked the yard to give estimates, they just called today to say that they will not be able to get started on that until "after the first of the year." Meanwhile, we're paying $350/month for them to keep the boat in the yard, as opposed to the $160/month it was costing for it to be in the water there, when it was for sale. So now we have to figure out who else to call to get an estimate from, in an area where we don't know anyone.


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

tdoster said:


> 4. Document EVERYTHING. Times you called, who you called, who you talked to, what you did, etc. If you are ever asked a question in court and state that you kept notes on everything and if you may refer to them, then give exact details, you will impress a judge. Trust me, they will come in with those records of when you called, who you talked to, etc.
> 
> 6. Same as #5 on shape and documentation, make sure you stop at nothing to find the reason the boat sank, if they can't find a reason, get the police involved with a police report if you think it may have been human caused, or pay the yard to keep the boat in a slip next to the yard until the problem is found if you think it was caused otherwise. Be more concerned with finding out why then who is going to pay or get paid.


We started tonight to seriously document-- I appreciate the advice. We also have about a hundred pictures taken last spring for a prospective buyer from overseas who wanted to see every thru-hull, bulkhead, hose clamp, connection, etc. It was a big pita at the time but I'm glad now we did it. I know every Tom Dick and Harry would come on here and say their boat was very well-maintained and up-to-date, etc, but this boat really was, and we have lots of pictures to prove it.

As far as finding out what happened to cause the boat to sink, that's easier said than done. By the time we got there the day after, seacocks were closed that had previously been left open for the showing of the boat (sink drains, etc.). The seacocks are Groco expanding rubber plug style, which few people seem to be familiar with.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Have they at least pickled the motor and started drying out the boat with dehumidifiers? If not there is damage that may not be able to be repaired happening now. Wood rots, and mold will start to form in places that can't really be cleaned like behind the liner. Since you are waiting on them, it seems they should be charging the in water storage fees but that is small potatoes compared to any new damage that will unlikely be covered. How high did the water get? Just above the floor boards? Above the engine? 

Where is the boat located? (IE Florida, or North East) That can play a big roll in what needs to be done. Things are just not adding up. 350 a month for a boat that size does not sound bad, but that depends on where it is.


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Engine has been pickled, dehumidifiers run, the entire interior was washed down and sprayed with some sort of anti-mold stuff. Mattresses and cushions etc are off the boat. Water got above settees and berths, just below the electrical panel.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Not that it will help you now, but maybe in the future:

I have an alarm on my boat that will alert me if the battery is on low voltage or the bilge water gets high. The alarm will send me a text to my cell phone. I think the monthly charge is about $20 a month for the cell use and the alarm unit itself was about $200. It is some money, but it gives me piece of mind and if water sets the alarm I should have time to get to the boat to stop the leak. My unit is no longer made:

My Boats Gear

I normally check the boat every few days. Last week I checked on it and found the bilge pump running continuously. The problem was the float switch had apparently developed a leak and even though it was down, the salt water allowed partially continuity and the pump was running at about 1/2 speed. If my battery had run down or the bilge level got high- I would have gotten a text.

You can also get alarms sent for things like freezing temp, intrusion, gps movement of boat, and just about whatever you like. There are many types of alarms systems now available.

Here is another unit now available:
http://aqualarm.net/bilge-alarms-sw...ter-alarm-with-cell-and-email-alert-p-70.html


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

tdoster said:


> .......They ask you to sign away your right to allow the insurance company to subrogate on your behalf. This means if they cause the boat to sink, the insurance company would pay your claim, then go after the yard that was found to be the cause. If you sign away that right, your policy is null and void and you have to fight the yard yourself and their liability can be written as such they that they will replace the defective part only, and pay for the haul to do so. .......


The only time I was required to provide a waiver of subrogation was at an airport, not a marina. However, it had to come from the insurance carrier themselves, as they are the party that is waiving their right. Then, of course, they charged me more, since their loss exposure was higher.

I've not looked to see if policies are typically void, if you waive that right. It would make some sense, but I don't know how you can waive another party's rights, without their consent.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> The only time I was required to provide a waiver of subrogation was at an airport, not a marina. However, it had to come from the insurance carrier themselves, as they are the party that is waiving their right. Then, of course, they charged me more, since their loss exposure was higher.
> 
> I've not looked to see if policies are typically void, if you waive that right. It would make some sense, but I don't know how you can waive another party's rights, without their consent.


What Is Subrogation ... and Why Is My Contract Waiving It? Will explain this to you.

Why it pays to read all the laungage on every contract you sign. A work order is an enforceable contract. Your insurance policy is an enforceable contract.

San Diego Log has a column on the website called 'ask an attorney' The Log Newspaper | California Boating & Fishing News

There you may find specifics on sunk at the dock cases and results. I think it should be required reading for all boat owners - along with all the contracts we sign daily...


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

questionsquestions said:


> Engine has been pickled, dehumidifiers run, the entire interior was washed down and sprayed with some sort of anti-mold stuff. Mattresses and cushions etc are off the boat. Water got above settees and berths, just below the electrical panel.


So what is the problem, the yard did what it was supposed to do.

It is now up the boat owner to work with the insurance company.
If the incident is covered insurance pays, if not the owner is responsible.

All the broker does unless contracted otherwise is to facilitate the transaction between owner and buyer.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

questionsquestions said:


> We were informed last week by this same insurance adjuster that it was our responsibility to get someone to give us an estimate for repairs. We asked the yard to give estimates, they just called today to say that they will not be able to get started on that until "after the first of the year." Meanwhile, we're paying $350/month for them to keep the boat in the yard, as opposed to the $160/month it was costing for it to be in the water there, when it was for sale. So now we have to figure out who else to call to get an estimate from, in an area where we don't know anyone.


There is nothing that requires that you get the estimate from the yard that you are in. You are completely free to ask another yard to come in and do an estimate with the understanding that their estimate should include the costs to move the boat to the other yard.

The worst that can happen is that you get turned down by the other yard. The more likely is that you will end up with two independent estimates from two separate yards making it harder for the insurance company to deny the cost estimates for the repairs.

The best that can happen is that the yard that you are in gets nervous and prepares a claim more rapidly. By the same token, it takes quite a bit of time to prepare a proper estimate for the sinking of a 44 footer. So losing a week or two is not the end of the world as far as things like this go. The difference in price between land and water storage while awaiting repair may be covered in your policy, you will need to check. I know that my insurance paid to keep my boat on land while they assessed the damage and while she was repaired after the lightning strike.

Jeff


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

questionsquestions said:


> We started tonight to seriously document-- I appreciate the advice. We also have about a hundred pictures taken last spring for a prospective buyer from overseas who wanted to see every thru-hull, bulkhead, hose clamp, connection, etc. It was a big pita at the time but I'm glad now we did it. I know every. Tom Dick and Harry would come on here and say their boat was very well-maintained and up-to-date, etc, but this boat really was, and we have lots of pictures to prove it
> 
> As far as finding out what happened to cause the boat to sink, that's easier said than done. By the time we got there the day after, seacocks were closed that had previously been left open for the showing of the boat (sink drains, etc.). The seacocks are Groco expanding rubber plug style, which few people seem to be familiar with.


It is a painful process, but make sure when you talk to your adjuster to set expectations at the end of the call of what the process is, next steps, and what they need from you.

It sounds like the yard is the problem right now. Are there other yards in the area?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Not knowing what state the OP is in, or what the laws of that state might be...

I would comment that "insurance" is a highly regulated industry, and insurance companies often violate those regulations. It is always worth calling your local (city, county, state) insurance commission or consumer affairs department and finding out what the actual laws governing your insurance are. 

For instance, with auto insurance, in many states the insurer has 30 days in which to make an offer and/or payment, no matter how ridiculous that offer might be. If they don't respond in 30 days, they simply have to pay out in full , without protest, and the means for valuing the loss are also dictated by the law. Insurers often find creative ways to pretend they don't know how the required valuations must (MUST) be made.

So that's one question, which can be answered locally for free on the phone. What is the insurer required to do, in terms or timely payment and payment amount?

The other question goes to contract laws, for the yard contract and the insurance contract. I'd bet the yard contract says "Not responsible for anything in this universe, especially unsupervised..." BUT contracts are also governed by state laws and precedents from the state courts.

Launching a boat, without checking for leaks and water ingress, could easily be construed as "gross negligence" and sometimes, the change from simple negligence to gross negligence voids the waivers in the contract, and makes someone like the yard responsible anyway. The insurer would then regain the rights to subrogation, if they wanted to pursue the matter. often, they just raise premimums and just don't care. But again--that's something to explore either with the local Consumer Affairs depaterment, or by spending a hundred bucks for a short conference with a lawyer.

None of this is new, from the regulatory/business side of things. And all of the ansers will depend on local/state laws.

Stick a boat in the water, don't look at the waterline an hour later to see how it is floating...How hard is it to LOOK at a boat? I'd push for the "gross negligence" button.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

hellosailor said:


> Not knowing what state the OP is in, or what the laws of that state might be...
> 
> I would comment that "insurance" is a highly regulated industry, and insurance companies often violate those regulations. It is always worth calling your local (city, county, state) insurance commission or consumer affairs department and finding out what the actual laws governing your insurance are.
> 
> Stick a boat in the water, don't look at the waterline an hour later to see how it is floating...How hard is it to LOOK at a boat? I'd push for the "gross negligence" button.


Horse Hockey.

Gross Negligence against whom? So far, it appears everyone is doing their job and the OP is only worried and may be expecting more from other parties involved. Your post is chock full of Inaccuracies and bad advise.

Why is he worried?

The Log Newspaper | California Boating & Fishing News - My-Boat-Sank--but-My-Insurance-Company-Won-t-Cover-the-Loss


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

tdoster said:


> Horse Hockey.
> 
> Your post is chock full of Inaccuracies and bad advise.


Well it is just sailnet, not a legal forum.

And in the article that you cite, I think that the guy is complaining that it was not covered by the packing gland not having been maintained, but that it was in fact a seacock that caused it. Would it not be the same reason for not covering it, lack of maintenance whether it was a seacock or a packing gland?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Gross negligence against who? gee, I guess against the corporation and their employees who recklessly dropped a perfectly dry hull into a large body of water, without checking to see if it would float.
Kinda like tossing a baby into a safely fenced back yard and then stepping out to buy a carton of cigarettes. Oh, wait, the cops arrest people who do that now, don't they? Something about child endangerment. Same thing, just toss the boat in the water while no one is around. Keep that launch schedule, that's the single most important thing, right.


paul-
I'm sure that on the newbie's planet, no one ever needs to call a consumer protection bureau to find out whether their insurer is playing fast and loose. He should be glad he doesn't live on my planet, where the insurers sometimes get flustered and change their tune when they are told "Oh, and Mister xxx at the insurance commission said that if you have any problem with this, here's his direct number so he can explain it."
He's right, it is terribly bad advice to suggest that someone find out their legal rights or obligations. For sure.


----------



## elgatosunrise (Aug 31, 2007)

yikes, sorry to hear that - i know its an obvious question, but was your automatic bilge in good working order?


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

hellosailor said:


> Gross negligence against who? gee, I guess against the corporation and their employees who recklessly dropped a perfectly dry hull into a large body of water, without checking to see if it would float.
> Kinda like tossing a baby into a safely fenced back yard and then stepping out to buy a carton of cigarettes. Oh, wait, the cops arrest people who do that now, don't they? Something about child endangerment. Same thing, just toss the boat in the water while no one is around. Keep that launch schedule, that's the single most important thing, right.
> 
> paul-
> ...


Show me the part of his post where he says the boat was recently launched. I think you're basing a potentially libelous accusation on a HUGE assumption.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

miatapaul said:


> Well it is just sailnet, not a legal forum.
> 
> And in the article that you cite, I think that the guy is complaining that it was not covered by the packing gland not having been maintained, but that it was in fact a seacock that caused it. Would it not be the same reason for not covering it, lack of maintenance whether it was a seacock or a packing gland?


I understand it is just Sailnet and our opinions, but:

When you and I run into issues like this, the first thing we do is google it. That will take you to a thread. The information in the thread will either help or hurt. The advise the OP takes could destroy him financially. Raising your Peacock Feathers in process like this could upset either the insurance company or the yard. His fate lies in both their hands.

The yard, may have full salvage rights on the boat and can charge whatever they want if they do. The insurance company has plenty of language and precedence to deny the claim legally depending on the specific laungage of the OPs policy.

The insurance company will do their best to come to a fair conclusion, but in reality the burden of proof lies with the OP.

Playing nice and by the rules goes a long way when people have you by the short and curlies.

Getting a consult with an attorney is always a good idea before doing anything as that is the only advise any of us should go through.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Gross negligence against who? gee, I guess against the corporation and their employees who recklessly dropped a perfectly dry hull into a large body of water, without checking to see if it would float.
> Kinda like tossing a baby into a safely fenced back yard and then stepping out to buy a carton of cigarettes. Oh, wait, the cops arrest people who do that now, don't they? Something about child endangerment. Same thing, just toss the boat in the water while no one is around. Keep that launch schedule, that's the single most important thing, right.
> 
> paul-
> ...


Oh I never would have suggested that you should not try to find out what your legal rights are, just that tdoster seems surprised that there might be inaccuracies on an internet forum. (and I am not even suggesting that I agree that there was any inaccuracies) Also the article that was referenced does not necessarily have anything to do with the OP's situation. I think that the OP should contact the insurance board and find out directly what should be expected. My point is more that the OP is not really going to get much from any forum as we don't really know all the details. The OP has been vague and evaded simple questions and seems to leave a lot of pertinent details out. Has not even stated where it is. Location could be very important as to what caused the sinking. If it is in the north it might have been caused by freezing water and so on. I just don't think we know enough about the situation. The OP also seems to expect that a broker should have prevented the sinking, I don't see how they would unless it was due to someone who was looking at the boat. Otherwise the fact that it was at the broker's dock is irrelevant, unless they had some sort of all inclusive maintenance contract. That would seem to be very unusual unless the boat was being used for charter or something like that. Especially at the low rate she states they were paying a month. That alone indicates to me that it is simply a cheap slip while it is for sale. To me there is way to much unknown to make any kind of blame.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

tdoster said:


> I understand it is just Sailnet and our opinions, but:
> 
> When you and I run into issues like this, the first thing we do is google it. That will take you to a thread. The information in the thread will either help or hurt. The advise the OP takes could destroy him financially. Raising your Peacock Feathers in process like this could upset either the insurance company or the yard. His fate lies in both their hands.
> 
> ...


Maybe the OP would best wait for the cards to be on the table and see what his hand looks like, before he spends several hundreds of dollars or more out of pocket for advice he may not need.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

hellosailor said:


> Gross negligence against who? gee, I guess against the corporation and their employees who recklessly dropped a perfectly dry hull into a large body of water, without checking to see if it would float.
> Kinda like tossing a baby into a safely fenced back yard and then stepping out to buy a carton of cigarettes. Oh, wait, the cops arrest people who do that now, don't they? Something about child endangerment. Same thing, just toss the boat in the water while no one is around. Keep that launch schedule, that's the single most important thing, right.
> 
> paul-
> ...


1. I believe you have failed to read the thread before spouting your mouth off on things that are not true. Feel free to PM me with the details of Mr. X and what insurance commision and the details? Insurance is regulated by each State with a Department of Insurance. They handle licensing and regulate companies agents and brokers, among other functions such as rates and regulations. It is the exception and not the rule for violations. Most States post violations just as they do for any other State Licenced entity. There are bad apples in all industry, it is the exception, not the rule and there is nothing to indicate giving the OP advise to tick off an adjuster at this point who is holding his life in his hands by threatening him.

The OP stated further information that the Company is working with him. He is upset that the adjuster did not give him advise on what to do with the boat. It is not his job. It is the OP's job to read the laungage provided normally on the back of the ID Card or at least somwhere on every policy packet that the insureds responsibility is to mitigate further damage to life and property. This means, haul the boat.

2. What the heck are you talking about? They dropped the boat in the sling to find the leak. How did you want them to do it, fill the boat with water and see where it is coming out while it is blocked?

3. Idiotic analogies make zero since here. Are you 15? What does a baby have to do with a boat in a sling on a crane or travel lift? Please read the thread.

Now, would you like to have discourse that is helpful in this situation? I sure hope you never go through a major issue like this and have someone give you bad advise that ruins you financially.

The best advise I can give you is not to threaten anyone who may have your fate in their hands until you are sure your threat is actionable and the basis is factual.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

sailingfool said:


> Maybe the OP would best wait for the cards to be on the table and see what his hand looks like, before he spends several hundreds of dollars or more out of pocket for advice he may not need.


It never hurts to consult with an attorney and a lot of time the initial consultation is free or low cost. It T's it up quietly and the OP is not waiting around. When it is time to get things done, getting a letter from an Attorney is far more powerful to an Insurance Company than a letter from the DOI. One they have to defend the claim denial, the other they only have to defend the infraction which may result in a letter of correction.

The OP is able to share more information with the attorney than he can here. The boat is a 43' Yacht, that I would assume in the range of 50-150K+. If you had that much money, on top of the salvage, remediation, haul and launch, storage, etc. at stake, would that not be worth a couple hundred to talk to someone who truly has your best intrest at heart and not a call center employee at the Depatment of Insurance?


----------



## Woodfinatic (Jan 2, 2014)

Ive owned a sunk boat...try to lift the aft end and make it nosedived down in the water..then throw sump pump in..unless its really far down then from my standpoint ur screwed and will have top go the insurance route.( goodluck)


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Ah-hem. Take a breath boys. There's been some thread drift and some rock throwing, none of which is helping the original poster.

First, nothing in his original post says anything about launching the boat. He said it was at the brokers dock. I would take issue with the fact that no one called him about the catastrophic damage to his vessel, but rather only sent an email. Beyond that it sounds as if the yard has done the basics (yard bill aside).

In the mention of cleaning and dehumidifying the boat there's no mention of finding the cause. Has anyone really done a detailed inspection? Has the boat been hung in the slings to see if the source of the leak is obvious? I would think someone at the yard should have been checking for this when the boat was pumped and hauled


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

JimMcGee said:


> Ah-hem. Take a breath boys. There's been some thread drift and some rock throwing, none of which is helping the original poster.
> 
> First, nothing in his original post says anything about launching the boat. He said it was at the brokers dock. I would take issue with the fact that no one called him about the catastrophic damage to his vessel, but rather only sent an email. Beyond that it sounds as if the yard has done the basics (yard bill aside).
> 
> In the mention of cleaning and dehumidifying the boat there's no mention of finding the cause. Has anyone really done a detailed inspection? Has the boat been hung in the slings to see if the source of the leak is obvious? I would think someone at the yard should have been checking for this when the boat was pumped and hauled


Jim, not to be desrespectful in any way, and I understand it is difficult to read 8 pages of posts, but concentrate only on all of the posts sent by the OP.

The boat was leak tested in the sling according to the OP after remediation. This is the only way to determine what failed outside of the obvious.

Insurance surveyor inspected the boat. OP stated that no cause has been found yet

"As far as finding out what happened to cause the boat to sink, that's easier said than done. By the time we got there the day after, seacocks were closed that had previously been left open for the showing of the boat (sink drains, etc.). The seacocks are Groco expanding rubber plug style, which few people seem to be familiar with."


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

There are two things that will determine your experience going forward:
1) Is your insurance company experienced with boats or is this a sideline? 
2) And are they a reputable company? Size and name recognition have nothing to do with whether they are reputable.

The only way to know if the insurance company is reputable is to talk with the shop managers at local yards. They know because they deal with insurance work. However the yard working on your boat is unlikely to be candid for obvious reasons.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

tdoster said:


> Jim, not to be desrespectful in any way, and I understand it is difficult to read 8 pages of posts, but concentrate only on all of the posts sent by the OP.
> 
> The boat was leak tested in the sling according to the OP after remediation. This is the only way to determine what failed outside of the obvious.
> 
> ...


My experience is a insurance adjuster/surveyor is more concerned with counting the dollars. They may try to determine cause or they may rely on the yard. It depends on whether the company is using an adjuster or a real marine surveyor.

The OP also indicated that the boat was pulled and stored on the hard. I didn't catch any mention of it being leak tested in the slings. But as you said there have been a lot of posts...


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

JimMcGee said:


> My experience is a insurance adjuster/surveyor is more concerned with counting the dollars. They may try to determine cause or they may rely on the yard. It depends on whether the company is using an adjuster or a real marine surveyor.
> 
> The OP also indicated that the boat was pulled and stored on the hard. I didn't catch any mention of it being leak tested in the slings. But as you said there have been a lot of posts...


Yea, I went to the OP's profile and looked at "all posts" so all I saw was the original posts. I found that useful to see if there were some details I missed. Yes, some insurance companies especially ones that do not do a lot of marine will have a claims adjuster who well might have just left the auto body shop looking at a VW and is now estimating the damage on a boat. I suspect that is the case here as the insurance company told them to get estimates for repairs. Good thing is that they said to get estimates at least that indicates they are not out and out denying the claim.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Woodfinatic said:


> Ive owned a sunk boat...try to lift the aft end and make it nosedived down in the water..then throw sump pump in..unless its really far down then from my standpoint ur screwed and will have top go the insurance route.( goodluck)


She was raised the same day. I don't think you are going to be "lifting the aft end" of a 44 foot sailboat!


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

tdoster said:


> 4. Document EVERYTHING. Times you called, who you called, who you talked to, what you did, etc. If you are ever asked a question in court and state that you kept notes on everything and if you may refer to them, then give exact details, you will impress a judge. Trust me, they will come in with those records of when you called, who you talked to, etc.
> 
> 5. If you have good records, can document everything, the boat was in great shape, etc. Talk to a good attorney in a consult and have him at the ready if it starts to go south.
> 
> 6. Same as #5 on shape and documentation, make sure you stop at nothing to find the reason the boat sank, if they can't find a reason, get the police involved with a police report if you think it may have been human caused, or pay the yard to keep the boat in a slip next to the yard until the problem is found if you think it was caused otherwise. Be more concerned with finding out why then who is going to pay or get paid.


This is good advice.



tdoster said:


> 1. A large percentage of claims are fraud. The insurance company is not out to get you, but to protect the premiums of the rest of us.


What I've learned over the past year is that perception is naive. Insurance fraud, real fraud, by the insured is relatively rare.

The inflated number from the insurance industry's own advocacy groups puts homeowners fraud below 10%. Someone who is involved in these cases estimated the real number is below 2%. In their estimation there is far more fraud committed *by* insurance companies than the other way around.

Unfortunately you have to proceed as though the insurance company will act in bad faith and hope you never need the documentation.

You simply CANNOT assume the insurance company will deal with you in good faith until you have seen them do so.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

joethecobbler said:


> another reason insurance is a rippoff


What a glib unsubstantiated comment without any merit.


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Okay, "OP" here. People wanting to know what the problem is, I said it in my first post:

*"Here's my question--do we have an advocate in this nightmare?" The answer is no.*

There are lots of people involved, many with experience of sunken boats, some with lots of experience. They all have their own interests. We have no personal experience in this situation, and we are the ones who stand to lose the most. We're being asked to direct this whole "show," with full knowledge that something we do (or don't do) may affect the outcome of this situation. (We're grateful for the input from this forum-- that's why we came here.)

I will clarify a few more things later, but I can't give place and names right now. I think it's obvious why that would be a bad idea.

Thanks all.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Sorry to hear about your loss. I went through something similar recently and my general advice is to pull up a chair. This is going to take a while. Months. Several months. Also be the squeaky wheel. I was generally happy with my interactions with SafeCo insurance but also getting ahold of the adjuster was sometimes like calling into a radio show. On a couple days I tried calling 15+ times in a day and never would get though. At other times (when they wanted to communicate with me) I would get responses to calls and emails within minutes. 

Squeak Squeak Squeak.... 

PM me if you want to know more. I'd be happy to chat on the phone about the process. I hope it works out for you and I know the part you're in now (where you don't have an advocate and everything is unknown) is the worst part.

MedSailor


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

questionsquestions said:


> Okay, "OP" here. People wanting to know what the problem is, I said it in my first post:
> 
> *"Here's my question--do we have an advocate in this nightmare?" The answer is no.*
> 
> ...


The answer is YES. Find a good attorney who specializes in maritime AND insurance to guide you through the process and make sure everyone is being up and up on ALL sides.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

JimMcGee said:


> This is good advice.
> 
> What I've learned over the past year is that perception is naive. Insurance fraud, real fraud, by the insured is relatively rare.
> 
> ...


** OFF TOPIC **

Let's quantify that number of ~10%. Property/casualty insurance fraud amounts to about $32 billion a year. Or ~10%. So, if I am paying $1000 a year in insurance for my boat and $100 of the premium is paying for fraud, are those real numbers to you?

Questionable insurance claims rose by 16 percent from 100,201 in 2011 to 116,171 in 2012.

A lot of fraud is not reported and done on a high percentage. Like betterment by adding the deductible into the repair costs so there is no out of pocket to the insured. Still fraud and still passed onto everyone else with higher premiums.

You have to assume the Insurance Company (or anyone else for that matter) will uphold their contract with you and for insurance that you will uphold the warranty to them. Meaning you didn't lie on the application, or not maintaining the insured property. Only an attorney can get past all the fine print and make sure everyone is treated fair. If everyone were honest, the insurance company could cut checks the next day.

The 2% is way off and it is probably more proportioned to the economy as a whole as are all fraud numbers in everything.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

question for the OP.

Do you have a seperate line on your policy for Salvage?
Do you have a seperate line on your policy for Enviormental - fuel and oil remediation?


----------



## luv4sailin (Jul 3, 2006)

So here is the answer:

GET A LAWYER WHO SPECIALIZES IN THESE ISSUES!!!

Sorry for shouting, but that is the only answer. Period!


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

luv4sailin said:


> So here is the answer:
> 
> GET A LAWYER WHO SPECIALIZES IN THESE ISSUES!!!
> 
> Sorry for shouting, but that is the only answer. Period!


That's not so easy. I've had the experience of working with an attorney regarding a yard's damage to my vessel. I found that attorneys specializing in this subject area are at least rare, if they exist. My suspicion is there's not enough events or litigate-able value in a city or area to support a shingle, and its not practical to do such work via an 800 number. Sure you can find attorneys who list "insurance disputes" on their CV, but mostly likely that expertise is included in a long list of most every other form of legal dispute...so forget the expertise part. At least that is my experience in Boston. And forget an idea that an attorney is going to assess a case like this and give you some free advice. Given he/she most likely wont understand the relationships, they'll want you to pay the $150-250/hour for 3-4 hours to read all the agreements to look up some case law, etc., before they can tell you there's little chance there's money on the table to cover the costs of a suit, costs which make boat dollars look minor.

Talk of a fee-attorney with several insurance companies already involved...I don't think the um-recovrable value is there.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

sailingfool said:


> That's not so easy. I've had the experience of working with an attorney regarding a yard's damage to my vessel. I found that attorneys specializing in this subject area are at least rare, if they exist. My suspicion is there's not enough events or litigate-able value in a city or area to support a shingle, and its not practical to do such work via an 800 number. Sure you can find attorneys who list "insurance disputes" on their CV, but mostly likely that expertise is included in a long list of most every other form of legal dispute...so forget the expertise part. At least that is my experience in Boston. And forget an idea that an attorney is going to assess a case like this and give you some free advice. Given he/she most likely wont understand the relationships, they'll want you to pay the $150-250/hour for 3-4 hours to read all the agreements to look up some case law, etc., before they can tell you there's little chance there's money on the table to cover the costs of a suit, costs which make boat dollars look minor.
> 
> Talk of a fee-attorney with several insurance companies already involved...I don't think the um-recovrable value is there.


Google "Attorney Maritime Insurance" in your area, I am sure you will find someone who specializes.

There are three facets to this. The broker, the yard and the insurance company. Chiefly, no apparent cause for the sinking. The attorney can look at the language of all the contracts, work orders, listing agreements, etc. that the OP has entered into and advise him of how to move forward. Sadly many times it is bend over and take it and you should not have done X or Y. That is why it is sometimes better to have one before you do something stupid than after to just tell you that you did something stupid.

Again, we are talking about a 43' yacht, and spending a grand on good advise to help keep you from making a twenty plus grand mistake later is money well spent to me.

It was an atorney who advised me on what to do when having the boat hauled at a facility that requires you to give up you right to subrogate. Call the insurance company and let them know before hand. If they tell you that you are out of luck, find another company. You should be able to endorse your policy for that haul or if a lot of work is being done, purchase a builders risk policy to cover it.

You can get insured for anything, but don't ever expect a basic policy to cover you for everything.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

tdoster said:


> Google "Attorney Maritime Insurance" in your area, I am sure you will find someone who specializes.
> ...


Actually the fact I've done that in the past is the reason I say its likely to be pointless. Hey, maybe Boston is a backwater, the OP's boat is in XXXXXX {redacted per OP}, you give Google a shot and see if you can provide him a promising lead.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

sailingfool said:


> Actually the fact I've done that in the past is the reason I say its likely to be pointless. Hey, maybe Boston is a backwater, the OP's boat is in Oriental NC, you give Google a shot and see if you can provide him a promising lead.


I found one in about 10 seconds: (Location Redacted at the request of the OP)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Note: I have nothing to do with this attorney nor endorse in any way, just the result of a google search in XX and a few popped up.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

tdoster said:


> I found one in about 10 seconds:
> 
> {Redacted}
> 
> Note: I have nothing to do with this attorney nor endorse in any way, just the result of a google search in NC and a few popped up.


Well done, looks like the real thing. They need a Boston office...


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

tdoster said:


> ** OFF TOPIC **
> 
> Let's quantify that number of ~10%. Property/casualty insurance fraud amounts to about $32 billion a year. Or ~10%. So, if I am paying $1000 a year in insurance for my boat and $100 of the premium is paying for fraud, are those real numbers to you?
> 
> ...The 2% is way off and it is probably more proportioned to the economy as a whole as are all fraud numbers in everything.


Just a quick response as I don't want this thread to degenerate into an insurance rant.

First without getting into a long post on insurance statistics I find your numbers highly questionable. The 2% number came from an attorney who does a lot of work in this area. There is simply no way in hell that $100 of your boat premium is going toward fraud mitigation.

Second, fraud committed by insurance companies (bad faith) is so common today that we _*expect*_ it. An entire industry (public adjusters) has grown up to deal with it.



tdoster said:


> You have to assume the Insurance Company will uphold their contract with you...


Are you willfully naive or do you work for an insurance company?

Feel free to PM me if you must as we're getting away from helping the original poster but your response was a finger stuck into a VERY sore wound after dealing with a lengthy claim on a catastrophic loss for most of this year and an insurance company that did not act in good faith.

In fact their behavior has been so outrageous that if I hadn't lived through it I'm not sure I'd believe it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I can't say what fraud stats are right or wrong. However, I can say that claims experience is not the same from one carrier to the next. They are businesses and take different approaches. 

The real problem, IMO, is that consumers of insurance are most focused on the annual premium and not the coverage provided. Save 15% in 15 minutes worked for a reason. They almost always lower coverage in the process. The companies that try to keep their premium more competitive, often do so by trying to limit claims payouts. You really have to know who you are dealing with and the cheapest premium is not always the best value.

Goodness, I've even heard people thump their chests over their low premium, implying that the insurance actuaries have declared that owner to be the greatest seaman and lowest risk around. I shake my head.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

As Minnewaska mentioned, the "squeaky wheel" principle is probably one you need to follow persistently. Remember to keep a detailed record of all names, contacts, and events in the timeline of the entire episode. If it comes to a lawsuit of some sort, this kind of record-keeping is invaluable and can serve to make you appear as the most responsible party. The holiday season may be part of the reason for any delays.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Good record keeping is a good idea, however I find that email communication is best as opposed to just documenting phone conversations.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

JimMcGee said:


> Just a quick response as I don't want this thread to degenerate into an insurance rant.
> 
> First without getting into a long post on insurance statistics I find your numbers highly questionable. The 2% number came from an attorney who does a lot of work in this area. There is simply no way in hell that $100 of your boat premium is going toward fraud mitigation.
> 
> ...


Guess what. I had the same wound. I got an attorney and I got the stupid lecture. Life is not fair and the only reason we have government regulation is because we as a collective group are not smart enough to understand the contracts that are implied on us and/or we sign every day. We expect someone else has our best interest at heart.

Instead of crying about it and pointing the finger at the most proximate source of my pain, I read law, precedence, contracts, and found a whole forest through the trees. We are always reminded of the phrase caveat emptor, but forget what it truly means. Do you buy a boat without going through it, having it hauled and surveyed? Unless you are a gambler, probably not. Do you buy a car at a dealership and not read all the fine print on the contract? MOST People don't and are surprised when something bad happens and they are left out to dry. Do you buy an insurance policy without fully understanding the company and what you are covered for? Most people buy on price alone.

What I do for a living is inconsequential to this discussion. I took a lot of interest in it because I have empathy, but didn't use it as a sounding block to beat up on anyone or any industry as everyone is out to defend themselves, be it an individual, small company or enterprise. I am using it as a "Hey, I know your pain well, instead of beating up on anyone, lets educate ourselves as a group discussion on what we can do so we are not the next victim." As a whole, I always expect the other party to fulfil their contractual obligations. If I was too stupid to understand the contract I entered, then I really can't blame the other side, even though emotionally I am very angry and that usually falls on the most proximate cause of my anger.

Instead of using the anger to bash, I choose to use it to get educated on the subject and use my mistakes as lessens to keep it happening again. And that means reading a contract and maybe spending $'s prior to making another mistake instead of losing tens of thousands again down the line.

Now, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion regarding the fraud stats and insurance companies in bed with the attorneys' and all of them out to get you. But it is up to us to mitigate our losses personally and not trust without verification. We mitigate what we can, accept some, and transfer as much as we can afford to another party - insurance. There is good and bad in everything, but if you do your homework up front, you can mitigate the bad in your life substantially, and understand what you are accepting and transferring. As we get older, we tend to accept less and mitigate and transfer more with added wealth and wisdom.

An insurance policy is a contract. If you did your homework up front and went with a reputable company and upheld your portion of the contract, they will indemnify you in the event of a disaster and reimburse for the loss, but their job is not to put you in a better place. And they do make mistakes and even some are in bad faith. The contract is the key, but the onus is on the party who feels the contract was violated to prove it was, not the other way around. If you ask me to sail your boat to Key West for you and we come to an agreement and you pay me half up front, but the boat only makes it to Jacksonville on the date expected and you choose to file suit, it is up to you to prove that I did not fulfill my contract to you, not up to me. I will defend it and say there were extenuating circumstances that prevented me from getting the boat all the way and maybe in the form that the boat was in bad condition, or the weather was not suitable to get it there on time. Your case has merit to go to trial since the contract was to get the boat to Key West on a particular date, period. I would probably lose the case because even though there were extenuating circumstances beyond my control, I still contractually agreed to get the boat to Key West on an established date. So, the next time I add language to the bottom of the contact that states the possible events that I may not be able to get the boat on time and my outs. So, when you file suit on me next time, the judge will look at the contract and dismiss without merit because my response is that I was unable to fulfil the contract because of contractually extenuating circumstances - the fine print. At that point it would be up to you to prove the extenuating circumstances were not a factor making it much harder to prove.

With that being said, if you understand your policy, your obligations, and the contract you are entering into, you can bet that it will be upheld and contrary to the poster in Boston, there are attorneys' coming out of the woodworks to take a case against an insurance company when it is an absolute contractual violation. Also contrary to another poster, they are not all in bed with the insurance companies, they work for their client and a good one is not going to take a case that he doesn't think he can win. I would rather have an attorney who has worked both sides on my team. The result is most of us only talk to the attorney after something bad happens instead of using them for advisement prior. The usual result again is you should not have done X and done Y - when we pay to have someone tells us we were stupid.

In response to the fraud numbers. You have to take the most valid source and trust that or be in a position to create your own baseline. We deal with sided statistics on everything and everyone is paid by someone, but the numbers came from an independant source and are investigated and reported to the government. You could argue that the crime statistics in your city are not valid, but there is a defined process to gather those statistics and it is still better than the hearsay of an attorney.

It does come out of your premiums period. Expenses are always passed down, you know that. Take a good company like USAA, which is a true mutual. You will see faster changes in premiums with them, then say another company that reinvests more and is accountable to a market and/or shareholders. Premiums have zero profit attached with true mutuals.

For respect for the OP and his situation, I am going to leave it at that and hopely post mortem we can all learn more.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

questionsquestions said:


> Okay, to clarify and update: The surveyor hired by the insurance company was there to see the boat the day after it sank, and also the day it was experimentally re-floated. He too was given short notice on the re-floating, and arrived after the boat had already been in the water for a time (maybe 1/2 hour or so). We were informed too late and were not able to be there at all.
> 
> When we were first informed that the boat had sunk, we called the insurance broker, and the adjustor called soon after. We asked if he wanted it raised right away or did he want someone to see it first. He told us then that he couldn't tell us what to do. So great. We were informed last week by this same insurance adjustor that it was our responsibility to get someone to give us an estimate for repairs. We asked the yard to give estimates, they just called today to say that they will not be able to get started on that until "after the first of the year." Meanwhile, we're paying $350/month for them to keep the boat in the yard, as opposed to the $160/month it was costing for it to be in the water there, when it was for sale. So now we have to figure out who else to call to get an estimate from, in an area where we don't know anyone.


Based on this I don't see any problem with the underwriter, adjuster, surveyor or insurance broker. What do you expect them to do without estimates ?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

boatpoker said:


> Based on this I don't see any problem with the underwriter, adjuster, surveyor or insurance broker. What do you expect them to do without estimates ?


Again, if you go back to the beginning, I think the OP was asking a rhetorical question "Is anyone on our side?" I don't think he was complaining about the process itself so much as lamenting that he felt that everyone involved - from the insurance company to the yard to the adjuster - was looking out for themselves and not for the boat owner.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

mstern said:


> Again, if you go back to the beginning, I think the OP was asking a rhetorical question "Is anyone on our side?" I don't think he was complaining about the process itself so much as lamenting that he felt that everyone involved - from the insurance company to the yard to the adjuster - was looking out for themselves and not for the boat owner.


Everybody has a part to play, you must take care of your own.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

tdoster said:


> ** OFF TOPIC **
> 
> Let's quantify that number of ~10%. Property/casualty insurance fraud amounts to about $32 billion a year. Or ~10%. So, if I am paying $1000 a year in insurance for my boat and $100 of the premium is paying for fraud, are those real numbers to you?


I think your numbers are a bit off. My understanding is that paying and litigation to dispute claims is typically well less than 60% of an insurance company's operating costs, with marketing, commissions, regulatory operations, and so on requiring the rest. For some companies paying and litigation to dispute claims amounts to well less than 40%. So even if we assume that fraud is 10% of all claims that brings the individual contribution to the 'fraud fund' on a $1000 premium down to something like $40 to $60, which seem pretty minor on a boat whose insurance is $1000.

Also, when someone asked what you do, I would think that it would be significant to disclose what you do if you are the TDoster from Texas who Linked-In says is "Sagitta Administrator / Insurance Applications Developer MHBT" .

Jus' say'n,
Jeff


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

WRT fraud statistics?

They're like homicide statistics. If you can't find any bodies, you can't figure out how many people were killed, can you?

If the insurers, or the prosecutors, or anyone really knew how many cases were fraud, actual fraud not "it might be", then they'd be prosecuting those people for the frauds, wouldn't they?

So any statistic on fraud has to come from "gut feeling", and that makes it not a real statistic at all. "Suspected fraud" "possible fraud" "unknown cause" yes.

Actual fraud? Figuring that out would be like mud-wrestling a greased pig. No way to win that one.


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> I think your numbers are a bit off. My understanding is that paying and litigation to dispute claims is typically well less than 60% of an insurance company's operating costs, with marketing, commissions, regulatory operations, and so on requiring the rest. For some companies paying and litigation to dispute claims amounts to well less than 40%. So even if we assume that fraud is 10% of all claims that brings the individual contribution to the 'fraud fund' on a $1000 premium down to something like $40 to $60, which seem pretty minor on a boat whose insurance is $1000.
> 
> Also, when someone asked what you do, I would think that it would be significant to disclose what you do if you are the TDosher from Texas who Linked-In says is "Sagitta Administrator / Insurance Applications Developer MHBT" .
> 
> ...


What I do for a living has zero bearing on the conversation. My opinions are my own and not from any company or industry I may or may not have worked in the past. I represent no one but myself and trying to help others not make some of the same mistakes I did through thinking on their own and attempting to not use good old American Negativity to do it. Anyone who knows me is well aware that I have had my own PERSONAL string of bad luck and I share a lot of empathy with the OP because of it. I stated in the last post that I would back out and wait to hear the final from the OP until you, as the moderator pulled a stunt that is in extremely bad taste and unprofessional and from the terms of use and privacy statement violating your contract as a representative of Sailnet.

I have family members who work in insurance, legal, a great deal of law enforcement, fire and medical, military and a couple in engineering. Putting all my kids through college with only one having to take loans for. That and personal experience is where my opinions come from, but I don't accept anything said at face value and do my own research.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

If a moderator suspects a user of having a professional interest in a specific subject and that username comes up on another publicly available site it is not unreasonable to ask the question. In a discussion relating to insurance, an insurance professional should declare self interest.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

td-
An insurance professional would have no self-interest in these matters. They are all compassionate, warm-hearted, self-sacrificing human beings who take really minimal salaries while helping hundreds, even thousands, of poor unfortunates in need of claims service.
All those apocryphal tales you hear about insurers committing fraud, being taken to court by heavy-handed government agencies, raking in millions of salaries and intentionally denying claims simply because they know a fairly high percent of the customers will never appeal the [blatantly wrongful] denials...That's just spite, jealousy, and malicious bilge talk.
Insurance professionals only live to serve the policy holders. Especially, if they work for a mutual assurance group, rather than some for-profit corporation.

But if you keep thinking that way, I'll endorse your application for a Skeptics & Cynics International Brotherhood Card, so you can be a genuine card-carrying member. Honest.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

I've long suspected you of being a troublemaker. 

Mind you two and a half years after a lightning strike I have still not finalised my insurance claim including one component (electrical control unit for a diesel heater) where the claim was rejected because the outside of the thing was not blackened. My attitude to insurance reps is not a good one right now.



hellosailor said:


> td-
> An insurance professional would have no self-interest in these matters. They are all compassionate, warm-hearted, self-sacrificing human beings who take really minimal salaries while helping hundreds, even thousands, of poor unfortunates in need of claims service.
> All those apocryphal tales you hear about insurers committing fraud, being taken to court by heavy-handed government agencies, raking in millions of salaries and intentionally denying claims simply because they know a fairly high percent of the customers will never appeal the [blatantly wrongful] denials...That's just spite, jealousy, and malicious bilge talk.
> Insurance professionals only live to serve the policy holders. Especially, if they work for a mutual assurance group, rather than some for-profit corporation.
> ...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I've only had one serious disagreement with an insurer. After a couple of calls to the right parties, they quadrupled their "one and only offer if you don't take this you won't get anything". The manager who called me back said I had left the poor girl in tears. I said that didn't impress me, because if I'd had a recording of her call, I'd have sent her to jail for extortion.

Speaking of which and wandering far OT...almost every cell phone carrier in the US, and only in the US, has required almost every cell phone sold in the US, and only in the US, to have the factory software modified to prevent call recording. Apple doesn't offer it, but it is easily implemented on Android (83% of the world market?) phones, anywhere except on the US market.

And no one seems to know who made that happen.

Just makes it harder to document the "he said, she said" disagreements when they are made on the phone. Unless you've got an antique like a Palm Treo still around.(G)


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

tdw said:


> If a moderator suspects a user of having a professional interest in a specific subject and that username comes up on another publicly available site it is not unreasonable to ask the question. In a discussion relating to insurance, an insurance professional should declare self interest.


That goes off the assumption that the person is trying to persuade or sell a product or service based upon the posts. This is also not anywhere in Sailnet terms of use or privacy policy with what you just stated other than the verbiage below that has a direct statement against "invasive of a person's privacy" 
---

SailNet members may not post objectionable material or contents that are knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, harassing,* invasive of a person's privacy*, or otherwise in violation of any laws including copyright laws. Please remember that SailNet is not responsible for the contents of any message posted by SailNet members and we do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information provided by SailNet members.

---
1. My opinion has been strongly to seek legal advice to the OP and document everything. I am not a lawyer but I have one.
2. I have an opinion on Fraud overall in all facets of life. Hate it
3. I have used sources in my posts to back up my arguments and opinion. 
4. I have had negative experiences with insurance in my lifetime. But as most bad experiences, it is the exception and not the rule. I am empathetic to the OP and his situation.
5. I do not sell or service insurance in any way. And I have not attempted to do so in any post, or attempt to sway anyone to arguments that would benefit me or my family personally. I did not disclose any companies or sway towards any companies and only mentioned USAA by name. Who, by the way insures me and I am connected in no other way to.
6. If there are any non-factual statements in my posts, I have no problem with being corrected, and will stand corrected if the source is tangible.
7. If the moderator wanted to confirm who I am, he should have used a private message instead of posting the information on me or a family member that is used negatively (by subsequent posts) with potential damage to the reputation of the person and/or the company he works for. 
8. I do not appreciate blanket statements about any group, race, religion, or even industry that are not fully founded and my character will defend those actions by individuals against any group, race, religion or industry as a whole&#8230; The character of who myself and my family members are is not dictated by the job the are hired to do.

I used to work in the oil industry. It has no bearing on this or any post I have made other than direct experience with the company.

I didn't disclose where I work, where my family works, etc. It does not apply to my opinion as an individual utilizing the Sailnet forums within the guidelines and rules they set. And frankly it does not matter unless you are using the forum to sell or stump for your company or personal gain. None of which I have done for my or the company anyone in my family works for and it seems there are too many narrow minded people who will prejudge the person. Do I need to disclose my race as well?

I am just another guy who has sailed all his life and my passion is boats and the waters they sail on, not insurance, law, or any other industry or product. And the same can be said for everyone else, what we do and who we work for is not important to the forum. My intention was to help out a fellow boater with my knowledge and personal experience, not have me or my family attacked for the industry they happen to work in not with a rebuttal of the argument, but wise cracks and analogies.

Ball is in your court.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

How unfortunate .... What could have developed into a thread of substance for the OP and others has degenerated into what sounds like a squabble between 5 year olds on the kindergarten playground. Topics like salvage, vessel salvage values, positive and negative outcomes, strategies for handling insurance claims, what to do with a sunk boat, etc has been lost to a high jacking . I know, just like TV......don't like the show, change the channel...Honey, where's the remote?


----------



## tdoster (Feb 21, 2012)

malyea said:


> How unfortunate .... What could have developed into a thread of substance for the OP and others has degenerated into what sounds like a squabble between 5 year olds on the kindergarten playground. Topics like salvage, vessel salvage values, positive and negative outcomes, strategies for handling insurance claims, what to do with a sunk boat, etc has been lost to a high jacking . I know, just like TV......don't like the show, change the channel...Honey, where's the remote?


I appologize to you, the OP and everyone else who has had constructive discourse on this thread for my actions interupting exactly what I hoped the thread would become and just as you described. I should not have taken the bait originally, but I am going to stand firmly on what I feel is the right thing to do.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

tdoster said:


> That goes off the assumption that the person is trying to persuade or sell a product or service based upon the posts. This is also not anywhere in Sailnet terms of use or privacy policy with what you just stated other than the verbiage below that has a direct statement against "invasive of a person's privacy"
> ---
> 
> SailNet members may not post objectionable material or contents that are knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, harassing,* invasive of a person's privacy*, or otherwise in violation of any laws including copyright laws. Please remember that SailNet is not responsible for the contents of any message posted by SailNet members and we do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information provided by SailNet members.
> ...


The lady doth protest too much


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

tdoster said:


> What I do for a living has zero bearing on the conversation. My opinions are my own and not from any company or industry I may or may not have worked in the past. I represent no one but myself and trying to help others not make some of the same mistakes I did through thinking on their own and attempting to not use good old American Negativity to do it. Anyone who knows me is well aware that I have had my own PERSONAL string of bad luck and I share a lot of empathy with the OP because of it. I stated in the last post that I would back out and wait to hear the final from the OP until you, as the moderator pulled a stunt that is in extremely bad taste and unprofessional and from the terms of use and privacy statement violating your contract as a representative of Sailnet.
> 
> I have family members who work in insurance, legal, a great deal of law enforcement, fire and medical, military and a couple in engineering. Putting all my kids through college with only one having to take loans for. That and personal experience is where my opinions come from, but I don't accept anything said at face value and do my own research.


First of all, I am sorry that you are chosing to view my point, about why someone's experience would be relevant in a discussion like this, in a perjorative manner. It was not at all intended to be a personal attack or to 'out' you. There was nothing inherently negative in my comments.

The reason I chose to make that post is that you have made a series of very strong statements in this discussion. If it had been true that the T.Doster that popped up in a quick search of Linked-in had been you, it would mean that you would be contributing with a unique inside view of the insurance industry which would lend greater credibility to your points.

But since that T. Doster is not you, I see this as no harm- no foul.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## pcmm (Jan 31, 2014)

questionsquestions;2422178." Meanwhile said:


> Seems very odd to me that it costs more to keep the boat on land than in the water. my 25 years of owning sailboats, its ALWAYS been the opposite, land storage is always less expensive than in the water. lots of oddities here!


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

pcmm said:


> Seems very odd to me that it costs more to keep the boat on land than in the water. my 25 years of owning sailboats, its ALWAYS been the opposite, land storage is always less expensive than in the water. lots of oddities here!


Not off season. Off season it is normally about half to keep it in the water, as there is less space in the yard. In season of course there is plenty of space in the yard, and fewer slips available so demand would reverse the pricing.

This is also likely in the "service yard" not the long term storage yard. But to me it seems strange that they have to pay the premium while waiting for the yard to even look at the boat.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

So here's a toss-up, is the OP obligated to inform a subsequent buyer that the vessel sank? I think a predictable conflict with an insurance settlement is the inability to collect for loss in value.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingfool said:


> So here's a toss-up, is the OP obligated to inform a subsequent buyer that the vessel sank? I think a predictable conflict with an insurance settlement is the inability to collect for loss in value.


Legally obligated? No. Morally obligated? Yes.

As much a strategic question. If they fail to disclose and it's discovered on survey (and it will be) the deal will fall apart.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

A seller might not be obligated, a broker probably would be obligated--if they knew about it. Which is all part of why so many brokers prefer to know nothing and say nothing, so they can't be held accountable. 

All of which will vary by state and other laws of course.

Still no word on why it sank? (Besides the fact that it wasn't buoyant.(G)


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

1-Still no figuring out of why she sank.

2-We will definitely disclose what happened, if she is still ours to sell when this is all over.

3-Speaking of "outing," I'm ready to out our insurance broker. Last contact we had with him was the day of the accident. Two emails and 2 phone calls later, we're ready to call him, at best, unresponsive. One phone call where he says "Hey, this ball is no longer in my court" would've sufficed, but there's been nothing but silence on his end, for a month.

Bluewater Insurance-- Jupiter, Florida.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"if she is still ours to sell "
Boats are normally titled property, which means it belongs to you until and unless you sign over the title to anyone else. 
Your insurance policy, as a contract, may dictate some terms as to whether you have to surrender title if they declare it to be a total loss. If it is not totaled, it remains yours. (Or the banks if it is financed, whatever.)
If it is totaled, many insurers don't want anything to do with it and will gladly sell it back to you at salvage value--which is usually negotiable. 
Whether your state requires a "salvage title" and whether you can ever re-insure a boat that has been declared a total loss, also are considerations.

Insurers don't always follow the law about titles, sometimes they play fast and loose for their own convenience.


----------



## dorymate1 (Dec 6, 2011)

OP 
It seems topic is lost here. You do need to protect your self if you have any feeling the yard or the insurance co. are no acting in your best interest.
Depending on the insurance co. they may send an adjuster or a surveyor.
If they send an adjuster you should hire your own surveyor so that you have an independent assessment of the lost. 
Your surveyor or the insurance cos. will ask the yard to do an estimate of repairs if needed.
Remember if your boat fully sank there is a very small chance that it could be repaired for the insured value insurers some times use 80% repair to value. to determine total lost. 
The time line can sometimes be a bit longer than we anticipate. The marina and or yard were the boat was stored most likely dropped everything they were doing to get the boat off the bottom pumped out, hauled & blocked & maybe started work to stabilize the boat.
Then the surveyor gets on board and makes a report. The insurance co. surveyor was probably not sitting around just waiting for the next vessel to sink. It may take some time for them to arrive,then usually takes up to a week for them to generate a report and ask the yard for an estimate. 
That estimate also has to go into a yards schedule and in a sinking the surveyor could be asking for a 50 - 100 line item estimate to be generated. 
Then once that is formed it goes back to the surveyor for review. once he has reviewed it and gotten back to the yard with his questions and concerns he and the yard generally agree on the estimate. At that point the surveyor will submit his report & estimate to the insurance co. It then goes to some ones desk that who knows how full it could be. Then once they get to review the claim they will have additional question to be answered by the surveyor & yard. Once they have agreed and answered all questions the insurance co will then take some time (unknown when how & why) to make a determination to repair or total. usually this all takes about 3mo. to complete.
Most insurance companies will pay for the haul stabilization , determination & storage for this period. If they don't or determine not to cover the lost you are responsible for your vessel and all charges.
Now in sinking or lightning claims items arise during repairs that were either missed or unknown at time of investigation. When this happens and does frequently. These items basically go back to square 1 and the surveyor comes back out estimates are made and the back and forth approval process is repeated.
It is not uncommon for a sinking or a lighting strike to take 6 mos. to a year to complete as all sides work through the repairs.
It's always best for you to have a surveyor and or a yard you trust in your corner through out the process.
This is what to realistically expect.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

questionsquestions said:


> Two emails and 2 phone calls later, we're ready to call him, at best, unresponsive. One phone call where he says "Hey, this ball is no longer in my court" would've sufficed, but there's been nothing but silence on his end, for a month.
> 
> Bluewater Insurance-- Jupiter, Florida.


Two phone calls and two emails. Surely that is a typo. It must have been two phone calls and two emails every day since this happened.

Some folks take a month off in the winter.
It is amazing the crazy stuff that happens.

I would try harder.
Send a registered letter.
Visit his actual office and ask neighbors if they have seen him.

Their may be nothing he can do as it may truly be a Insurance company only issue but if you want to find him, which I would, it can be done.

If you know you have legitimate coverage I can see no advantage to him of ignoring you. A phone call costs him nothing.

Their is some disconnect and when you find him it will make total sense.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

No matter what sector, insurance companies are corporations looking to make a profit. They are responsible to shareholders, not you. They are not your friend and will do anything possible to delay or avoid payouts. Insurance "adjusters" who work directly for these corporations are OBVIOUSLY in a gigantic conflict of interest. Their objective is to minimize or avoid paying. Their jobs depend on it. Independent agents are essentially salespeople who have little sway over the companies for which they sell products. They also depend on these companies for their livelihood. Guess whose side they are on. So, in a situation like yours, it seems that the opportunities for delay and non-payment may make it a wise choice to hire your own independent adjuster and surveyor. A letter from an attorney, stating that the delay is causing further damage, emotional stress, and monetary impact could also light a fire under them.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smurphny said:


> No matter what sector, insurance companies are corporations looking to make a profit. They are responsible to shareholders, not you. They are not your friend and will do anything possible to delay or avoid payouts.......


I get your point, but take exception to the absolute. Some are better or worse than others.

As a gross generalization, all insurance companies expect to payout the premiums they take in. They make profit by investing those premiums, while they have them on hand, not necessarily by keeping much of the premium itself over the long term.

Those that charge very low premiums, need to be very careful on what they pay out. However, there are those that are less rigid, but charge for it.

What I find most frustrating is how the consumer knows what coverage they really bought. The contracts are crazy long and complicated and include terms of art in their business. Indeed, if you didn't buy coverage for a very specific loss, the insurance company isn't at fault for not paying the claim. However, the consumer is always pissed. The problem is whether the consumer knew what they were buying and I don't see much from the industry making that clear. Or many consumers taking the time to try.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Some are probably better than others but none of them have your interests in mind. The confusing and obtuse language used in those incredibly long policies can only be for one purpose: to ensure that almost none of the buyers of these policies will read them and even if they do, will need an attorney to understand what they read and what they have paid for. Clear, concise explanations of coverage could easily be accomplished in one simple list. Some companies do this better and more clearly than others. It likely differs from state to state as well, depending on regulations. Being in NY, I likely see the most blatant, wordy, and misleading format

It is ultimately the owner's responsibility to make sure a boat does not sink and to make sure everything is checked before leaving her. It sounds like you did this. Your sinking is VERY mysterious. If you found nothing when she was hauled, there are questions: Why was she hauled without you there and who gave them permission to even touch her? Who boarded her without your permission? Was anyone inside the boat after she was floated? Was she locked up? Who had the key? I mean, glass boats do not tend to sink all that often. There MUST be a cause. Was anyone doing work on her? Does anyone have a reason to sink her? This may be a police matter and that may be the reason for your being in the dark.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

someone left the toilet open.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

zeehag said:


> someone left the toilet open.


Yes, but on any newer boat, all the thru hulls, including bilge pump lines and head outlets, have anti-siphon loops to avoid any possibility of a siphon back into the boat.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

smurphny said:


> Yes, but on any newer boat, all the thru hulls, including bilge pump lines and head outlets, have anti-siphon loops to avoid any possibility of a siphon back into the boat.


it is very easy to glibly say that antisiphon yada yada, BUT it is still THE number one cause iof sunken boats at a dock.


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Water intake for the rear head was turned off at seacock, forward head has automatic closure of valve at head; no manual valves to turn, etc.. Also, on forward head, the water line of the boat was about 1/3 of the way up the toilet bowl. So even if the valve was leaking, the water would not go above that level, until the boat had already begun to sink.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

wow..ok.. what was done to boat at dock to make water ingress occur--is limited as toilet is a rule out---not many other sources for ingress unless a thru hull failed or a hose broke. or the packing gland pulled a solitary bird on ye. i hope you have insurance for this and i hope you dont have to suffer total loss. 
is a sucky thing when boats sink--this is second one in 2 days i know that sunk..one at dock and one in gom.. damn pricey week... sorry you had to suffer this problem, as it is one of, if not the, worst fails possible. for a boat owner. is a sad day.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

smurphny said:


> Yes, but on any newer boat, all the thru hulls, including bilge pump lines and head outlets, have anti-siphon loops to avoid any possibility of a siphon back into the boat.


This is not a 'modern' boat but also not all modern offshore boats have anti-siphons on their loops. Some old timers see anti-siphons as just another device to fail and sink the boat, preferring instead to close the seacock after each use. There are others who are concerned with smell issues on waster lines with anti-siphons.

Jeff


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> What I find most frustrating is how the consumer knows what coverage they really bought. The contracts are crazy long and complicated and include terms of art in their business. Indeed, if you didn't buy coverage for a very specific loss, the insurance company isn't at fault for not paying the claim. However, the consumer is always pissed. The problem is whether the consumer knew what they were buying and I don't see much from the industry making that clear. Or many consumers taking the time to try.


This is a real problem, and I believe quite intentional. During our claim the "manager" we were dealing with went to great pains to make the simplest things seem complicated in terms of what was or was not covered, often drawing simple conversations of coverage out over weeks.

At the end of the day we had replacement coverage on everything (simple), but virtually every household item and repair was a long drawn out fight with lots of obfuscation thrown in and lots of discussions about "assigned value" that had little to do with actual replacement costs.


That's why it's so important to document EVERY conversation and to take a LOT of pictures - even of things that may seem insignificant. A digital camera is your best friend. The fact that something is spelled out as covered in your policy does NOT mean the insurance company will honor that commitment without a fight.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smurphny said:


> Some are probably better than others but none of them have your interests in mind.


Again, I get your point, but not to the extreme. This is like saying every restaurant is only interested in the cheapest ingredients and doesn't care whether you like the meal. Some insurance companies do value a good claims experience, hope you will tell your friends and they sell more insurance at a higher price. I am not as versed in the marine industry to know who they are, but for my home and indemnity, Chub has the reputation to pay. Their premium can be substantially higher than their competitors.



> The confusing and obtuse language used in those incredibly long policies can only be for one purpose: to ensure that almost none of the buyers of these policies will read them and even if they do, will need an attorney to understand what they read and what they have paid for.


Some of that language is likely the result of legal actions taken against them, when they had no intention of placing the bets they were being sued to make good on. More language. Then, the State's likely push some of it on them too.

The common denominator........ trial lawyers. Take a look at how many serve in government and how powerful that lobbying group is.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Jeff_H said:


> This is not a 'modern' boat but also not all modern offshore boats have anti-siphons on their loops. Some old timers see anti-siphons as just another device to fail and sink the boat, preferring instead to close the seacock after each use. There are others who are concerned with smell issues on waster lines with anti-siphons.
> 
> Jeff


I guess my definition of "modern" is any boat in the fiberglass category or maybe pre-holding tank If newer boats are not employing vacuum loops on any thru-hull, near or below the waterline it seems an oversight. They work. I installed them on all my through hulls. And for sure, closing those seacocks if you're going to be away from a boat for any amount of time seems like an excellent idea. If I had to leave a boat unattended for an extended period, I would have some sort of really loud bilge alarm.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> ....
> 
> The common denominator........ trial lawyers. Take a look at how many serve in government and how powerful that lobbying group is.


Amen.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

smurph-
"If newer boats are not employing vacuum loops on any thru-hull, near or below the waterline it seems an oversight."
I don't get it. Galley drains straight down, below the waterline, no siphon break needed. Head intake and discharge...same same. There's a seacok on each line, and the lines are open at sea, secured before the companionway boards and hatch get closed up. Same for the engine intake.
Who needs "more stuff" in the plumbing? Bilge pump line, that's another story.


Best way to deal with some people is to go visit with them in their office. Have a cigar, relax. "Hey, lookit that, I set your waste paper basket on fire. Sorry about that. Hey, I did it again. Good thing YOU got insurance, isn't it?"

Old school.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

hellosailor said:


> smurph-
> "If newer boats are not employing vacuum loops on any thru-hull, near or below the waterline it seems an oversight."
> I don't get it. Galley drains straight down, below the waterline, no siphon break needed. Head intake and discharge...same same. There's a seacok on each line, and the lines are open at sea, secured before the companionway boards and hatch get closed up. Same for the engine intake.
> Who needs "more stuff" in the plumbing? Bilge pump line, that's another story.
> ...


Righto. My galley and head sinks have straight, solid glass tubes as you say so loops are not even possible. The galley sink does have a stopper ball unit though which stops water coming back in when heeled over. It's just the more common flexible rubber tubing that dips down from a thru-hull that can start siphoning water in if the inside end is lower than the outlet. Bilge pumps are a low point. My Yanmar has a high anti-siphon loop as well.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

Well - Something sunk that boat. Maybe clogged scuppers and a lot of rain? It's hard to believe that no one noticed the waterline before it actually sank.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

RTB said:


> Well - Something sunk that boat. Maybe clogged scuppers and a lot of rain? It's hard to believe that no one noticed the waterline before it actually sank.


Well given the time of year, I doubt they have a lot of movement on the slips at the brokerage. So I could see it be quite a few days before someone walked by. Sure in spring thorough late summer there will be folks walking the docks every day, but this time of year they brokerage may not even be open every day.


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Someone from the brokerage walked by the afternoon before the night she sank, putting signs on some boats (not ours), and saw nothing out of the ordinary. He didn't examine waterlines, so the process may have started by then without him noticing. The last time anyone was on the boat was 2 1/2 weeks prior, to view her for buying (they were interested, and coming back, ach.) The bilge was reportedly clean and dry at that time.


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

There had been LOTS of rain in July, with NO problems on the boat (bilge still clean and if not completely dry, then very close to it.) The weather had been clear (or clearish) for weeks before she sank.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

It seems to me that the reason for the sinking should not be all that difficult to determine. Who, what and when? Interview all people involved with the recovery of the boat and determine what was done to get the boat out of the water. Apparently the boat was pumped out and there is no evidence of where the water came from. This needs to be confirmed before additional investigations.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

If all the through hulls are good then maybe the water tank fill was connected to fill with mains pressure water and left unattended?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

questionsquestions said:


> Someone from the brokerage walked by the afternoon before the night she sank, putting signs on some boats (not ours), and saw nothing out of the ordinary. He didn't examine waterlines, so the process may have started by then without him noticing. The last time anyone was on the boat was 2 1/2 weeks prior, to view her for buying (they were interested, and coming back, ach.) The bilge was reportedly clean and dry at that time.


I've noticed that it is SOP for some marinas to send someone around every day to check for disappearing waterlines and then to notify the owners if it looks like a boat is sitting low. Seems like a simple and responsible policy. If the folks there can confirm it was afloat and then sank in a matter of a few hours, like overnight, that narrows down the possible causes considerably.


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

questionsquestions said:


> Our beautiful 43' sailboat sank at the brokerage dock where she was listed for sale. Overnight. She was in great condition, and well maintained, at least when she was in our care.....


So once the insurance nightmare is resolved, where does this leave the OP in their efforts to sell the boat?

What is their best course of action - "buy it back" from the insurance company, refit it/fix the damage using insurance money and re-broker it after the dust settles - or - trade the title for a sizeable insurance check and move on?

How much does a sinking degrade the value of a nice, say $100,000 vessel...what's its salvage value - and is that even the proper term in this case.

Thoughts on where they go from here...post insurance nightmare?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Apparently the boat was pumped out and there is no evidence of where the water came from. "
Were there any SONY videos or DVDs on the boat? Could have been North Korean hackers, trying to sink those videos.(G)

malyea-
All questions about value or best course of action, depend on the particulars of the costs involved. Take two identical boats, sink 'em and refloat 'em. If the woodwork warps and buckles on one, not the other...You might spend $20,000 fitting a new interior, and write off the boat. Or you might buy it, DIY a new interior, and ten years later, the two sell for the same price again.

Little things like the electrical system, ALL of the wiring, may need to be replaced. Should be replaced, most would say. How complex is that job? All depends on the circumstances.

Damned clever, those North Koreans, hacking into a sailboat.


----------



## rbyham (Dec 25, 2012)

I was recently looking at Gulf 29 that the cabin showed discoloring about 1 foot above the sole throughout. Seller admitted it had filled with rainwater before he bought it. He also admitted to having to replace several soft stringers. I walked away but thinking back might like to hear how much of a price deduction should be given for that kind of condition. And replaced stringers? I have heard of that in powerboats but was unaware it was a possible fix for sailboats.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

malyea said:


> So once the insurance nightmare is resolved, where does this leave the OP in their efforts to sell the boat?
> 
> What is their best course of action - "buy it back" from the insurance company, refit it/fix the damage using insurance money and re-broker it after the dust settles - or - trade the title for a sizeable insurance check and move on?
> 
> ...


If the boat is insured for the proper value, and the insurance company ultimately honors the claim and totals the boat, IMO there is no question that the owner should take the money and move on. Why on earth would anyone who wanted to sell the boat anyway want to deal with the hassle of buying it back and doing all the repairs, then the added hassle of trying to sell it with its tainted history?

If the insurance company doesn't pay up at all, then the owner is out the money, and still faced with the prospect of throwing good money after bad an taking on a bunch of headaches at a time that he wants to be rid of the boat. Again, he should dispose of the boat as economically as possible and walk away.

The only viable scenario to fix and market the boat is if the insurance company does not declare it a loss and pays to repair it. In that case the owner has no choice but to keep the boat until it's fixed and attempt to market it.

Of these three scenarios, the latter two are major hassles for an owner that wants to be rid of his boat. The first scenario allows him to be made (somewhat) whole and walk away, which is what he was trying to do by listing the boat with a broker.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Why on earth would anyone who wanted to sell the boat anyway want to deal with the hassle of buying it back and doing all the repairs, then the added hassle of trying to sell it with its tainted history?" 
Or was that a rhetorical question?

Insurer " buys" the boat, so the seller now has their cash. Buys the boat back as scrap for maybe a thousand dollars, the hull, engine, mast, rigging, all still work so now they've got a free boat.

And can putter around replacing the wiring and whatnot when and if it is convenient, or as a hobby. Or upgrading it to a new level.

Either way, it really can make dollars and sense, because as every insurer will tell you, "your" time and labor as an owner has no value anyway.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

hellosailor said:


> "Why on earth would anyone who wanted to sell the boat anyway want to deal with the hassle of buying it back and doing all the repairs, then the added hassle of trying to sell it with its tainted history?"
> Or was that a rhetorical question?
> 
> Insurer " buys" the boat, so the seller now has their cash. Buys the boat back as scrap for maybe a thousand dollars, the hull, engine, mast, rigging, all still work so now they've got a free boat.
> ...


It was not a rhetorical question. OP is selling his boat. He wants out. That's why I suspect that he'll want to take the insurance money and be done with it.

There are lots of boats out there that can be bought "as scrap for maybe a thousand dollars" or for free. That's good for some people, but not for someone who wanted to sell the boat anyway.

The OP can come on here and speak for himself. I was just saying (not rhetorically) that someone selling his boat wants to sell it, and is going to go with the first buyer who is offering a fair price. In this case, I hope for his sake that the buyer is the insurance company, and that they offer a fair price based on his insurance policy.


----------



## dougsiren (Dec 13, 2014)

my powerboat sank at dock, in only 2 ft of water, 3 yrs back, as a muskrat or similar water rodent chewed a 1 cm or less hole in the rubber boot (gasket) around the outdrive. not a nice situation!


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

dougsiren said:


> my powerboat sank at dock, in only 2 ft of water, 3 yrs back, as a muskrat or similar water rodent chewed a 1 cm or less hole in the rubber boot (gasket) around the outdrive. not a nice situation!


How did the salvage, insurance claim and refit go for you?


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

OP here. Thought I would let y'all know that there is no resolution yet, 3 months after the boat sank. No known reason for the sinking, and the boatyard is still "working up an estimate" on repairs. Insurance Co. is, of course, waiting for that estimate. Whoever said pull up a chair had the best advice so far.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Something is very wrong. You should be able to get an estimate to build the boat from scratch by now. Indeed, the estimate is going to have to fully identify what needs fixing and potentially out the cause. That may, or may not, implicate the estimating boat yard.

Eventually, the insurance company could say you took too long, although, you have put them on notice for a claim, IIRC. 

Something just doesn't add up here.

I suppose it is the internet. Maybe this never happened.  Got any pics?


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Yup.


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

questionsquestions said:


> OP here. Thought I would let y'all know that there is no resolution yet, 3 months after the boat sank. No known reason for the sinking, and the boatyard is still "working up an estimate" on repairs. Insurance Co. is, of course, waiting for that estimate. Whoever said pull up a chair had the best advice so far.


Wow -- that's just FUBAR.

If you can swing it, I'd recommend you take a day or two off and go stand on the service manager's desk and make yourself a real pain in his rear end.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Geez, how bad does the boat yard want your business? These the same folks who were in charge of your boat when it sank? Insurance jobs are usually a favorite for boatyards.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I'd have to call a boatyard that needed over three months for an estimate grossly incompetent. Totally unbusinesslike.

And at that point I'd be scared *tless to let them TOUCH the boat, let alone to believe anything they said about an estimate. If they can't make an estimate in a timely manner, why should you have any faith in the accuracy of the estimate when it eventually is rushed through?

Get out of Dodge, have someone else come in for the estimate. It isn't unheard-of for insurance adjusters and "vendors" to place a couple of bucks, or favors, on the side, and for all you know, you're getting the stall in purpose.

Doesn't really matter, it still is way past time to get out of Dodge.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

aeventyr60 said:


> Geez, how bad does the boat yard want your business?....





hellosailor said:


> I'd have to call a boatyard that needed over three months for an estimate grossly incompetent.......


Unless they are culpable in the sinking and they know it.

On the other hand, I don't believe we've ever seen a pic of the boat in question, to know it really did sink. How about it?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Unless they are culpable "
Nah. It only takes a week or two to hire a stranger to hide the evidence. Don't ask me how I know that.(G)


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Based on what we've been told, it does sound like OP is really getting screwed over.

But I am also uncomfortable about how he has dribbled information on us a little at a time. This creates the appearance of one-sided "truthiness" that is too common in these Internet "kangaroo courts."

I'm withholding judgement on this one. The facts are so far from adding up that I'm not going to expend any emotional energy.


questionsquestions said:


> Yup.


People here are trying to give you helpful advice and all you can muster is a smug one-word response and a single-pixel image? WTF?


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> ..... Insurance jobs are usually a favorite for boatyards.


Yes, when the boat yard owners/managers see a responsive, proactive, insurer. Considering what they've seen in this case so far, however, I am not surprised they are reluctant/unwilling to take much if any action for which they may/will have a hard time getting paid and with little merit to placing a lien on a boat that would be more of a liability than an asset to secure repayment

With respect to Blue Water Insurance, there have been many discussions of the shortcomings of that company on several sites including SSCA. Accordingly, why anyone would employ that company escapes me (although its easy to fool some-many?-too trusting folks).


----------



## malyea (Aug 12, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> Unless they are culpable in the sinking and they know it.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't believe we've ever seen a pic of the boat in question, to know it really did sink. How about it?


Trust me....I've seen the photos - it's exactly as the OP has described. Out of respect for the OPs desire for a measure of anonymity thus far, I'll leave it at that. All opinions are appreciated as this is a very real situation. Thanks.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

malyea said:


> Trust me....I've seen the photos - it's exactly as the OP has described. Out of respect for the OPs desire for a measure of anonymity thus far, I'll leave it at that. All opinions are appreciated as this is a very real situation. Thanks.


Fair enough. Although, I don't see how a photo or two is going to disturb one's anonymity. Sounds like they are available. OP's call.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I can tell everyone that the moderators have had enough information supplied to us to be certain that this is not a troll and the general story is real. While the general interactions in this story are very unusual, and the OP has left out details for reasons of their own related to resolving what is now a legal matter, they are genuine in their requests for information, and should not be subjected to innuendo and personal attacks. 

Jeff


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Fair enough. 

Even more intriguing that the moderators would be so in the know.


----------



## BCSAILOR (Feb 15, 2015)

Well, Sounds as if you are in a sticky situation.... I would personally call the broker on a friends phone and see if the broker awnsers and if he/she does you know that the broker is in face ignoreing you... But beyond that this would most likely fall under the catagory of insurance fraud. Get yourself a good lawyer and sue the brokers ass for the value of the damages... 


Good Luck,


Sam


----------



## questionsquestions (Nov 15, 2009)

Okay, all is said and done now-- it's been 5 months since the boat sank, and the check just arrived last week, for the full amount of insurance that we had on the boat. 

Bottom line-- Bluewater sucked-- no contact at all after our initial phone call. We had them as insurers because no one else would insure us, initially-- we didn't have enough experience. Then when we did have experience, we weren't smart enough to switch. 

Unbelievable as it may seem, no reason has ever been figured out for the sinking of the boat. 

The estimate by the yard took a long time, to be sure, but was extremely detailed-- 15 pages long, in the end. 

The boat was auctioned off yesterday as salvage, starting bid was $6500. No idea what she sold for. 

Thanks to those who gave advice. And to those who got frustrated-- we weren't trying to be coy in withholding info-- just making sure we didn't mess up a potential legal situation. As I said before, this was all new to us-- we had NO idea how to proceed; our instincts were to be on the defensive.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Glad you were paid. So, what are we buying now?


----------

