Boat knocked off hard stand

[phyz]

Wow, this discussion is interesting, and I'm reading each post carefully--they are all useful.

Because I'm a physicist (optics and geophysics), I am especially curious about hydrodane's thoughts re nondestructive testing. I'm aware of water meters and thermal imaging and their controversies, although I do not know enough to have an informed opinion. Of course, there's the good old hammer. I'm curious now about NDTs that can search for bad places in the glass...

I am also following the insurance posts with great interest. FYI, if you casually look online, you can find an appeals court decision from the middish 2000s that is very closely related to my issues, and boy is it interesting. A quick google will find it; it's a real eye opener and no doubt would make some fun postings. Takeaway for me: reading and 'understanding' the contract is not enough...

(Oh and remember, advertising is an invitation to enter a relation, not the relation itself. So if I can exclusively advertise 'A' yet write a lawyerly contract that *everyone must sign if they want to do business with me* that says 'not A', no worries! Or is it so? Off to law school I guess; skills to include fiberglassing hulls, calculating earthquake epicenters and battling storms and corporations)

I'm proceeding with due diligence (finally!), with the guarded assumption that people and institutions will act in good faith, until they demonstrate otherwise. Also, I'm going to keep cards close in the opposite event.

Thank all of you very much,

Jim

[Reefmagnet]

The 3 primary methods for NDT on a non conductive material would be x-ray, ultrasound and dye penetrant. Out of those, I think only ultrasound maybe would be both practical and useful on fibreglass itself (although x-ray in theory would be great for things like rudders and maybe even keel bolts). Even so it could be replaced with the regular "percussion test" using a soft faced mallet or the like. Having said that I think overstressed fibreglass would only be revealed by exposing it to allow visual observation.

In any event, the OP's boat looks to have has split along the line where the two halves where joined in construction after, it seems to me, the leading edge of the keel struck the ground. It would be relatively thick glass in the hull itself in that immediate area, but I'd suspect that there may be damage to the floor and stringers and maybe also some internal furnishings/liner tabbing separation.

In any event, it's probably fixable but at what cost is the question.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by phyz

Hi Valhalla360,

From inside, the nuts are fastened to the bolts, and a mixture of resin and asbestos is poured into the recess to seal the nuts in place.

Jim

Seriously?

Why on earth would a manufacturer do this. First off, embedding keel bolts is terrible. How can one tighten when (not if) they loosen?

Secondly, ASBESTOS!!!!!????????? Now you not only have a harder then necessary effort to access the keel bolts, you have a haz mat situation where you can't use a grinder to remove the material without spewing asbestos fibres all over the inside of the boat (that will need to be completely cleaned out) while wearing a supplied air suit.

I would never have thought anyone would use asbestos as a filler in a keel sump, even before everyone know how hazardous it was, there's just no need. Now Vermiculite, I can see, but that stuff is benign.

RamblinRod
About Sheen Marine

[Iaangus]

Just a heads up, neighboring boat owners insurance and boat yards insurance won't want to pay if they are not negligent. Boat fell over, of course they are negligent, right? Maybe not if the wind was excessively strong. Insurance will want to call it an act of nature, not their fault they don't want to pay. Do NOT agree, acknowledge, insinuate, infer or say that it wasn't their fault. You must BLAME somebody if you want their insurance to pay. Insurance company can use your words against you. I would recommend saying very little to the adjuster, if they send a second adjuster to talk to you he will be the heavy hitter, an expert, if not a lawyer, to try to get you to damage you own case before it could potentially go to court. Hopefully it won't come to this but if it does be prepared. Remember you're swimming with sharks. good luck.

[a64pilot]

As far as NDT, the good ole hammer you speak of is probably the most useful tool, known as the "coin tap test"

Fully encapsulated Asbestos like the millions of houses that are covered in it, (asbestos shingles, floor, ceiling tiles etc) I don't think is dangerous, but grinding it out may liberate it? I guess you would have to do that kind of work with it wet?

[s/v Beth]

Regarding Asbestos- best to take off all valuables from the boat and then have it buried. That stuff is too dangerous to work with IMHO. As a physician, I have seen a few people die of this and it isn't pretty. Don't die of respiratory failure 20 years from now because you loved an object. Sorry.
My experiences with boatyards here in the PNW has been good. I think they will do their best to make it good. (of course I could be wrong) I am hopeful.

[Discovery 15797]

Living in the PNW I read this post with great interest.

As I read your initial post you stated the Irwin was knocked off its stand and into your vessel due to very high winds (act of nature). So, in order to blame the owner of the Irwin you would have to prove that the owner of the Irwin was negligent. This would mean that you would have to prove the owner did something that would precipitate this accident.

Since the yard attendants hulled the boat and placed the supporting stands and chains on both the Irwin and your boat it is unlikely the owner of the Irwin is negligent (assuming he did not adjust the chains or stand pads, or intentionally unfurl the sail during the wind storm).

Since you only have liability insurance I suspect your insurance company is not going to be very helpful since they essentially have no skin in the game. (But maybe they will help point you in the right direction.) The yard is likely lawyering up already. Most yards have contracts that include clauses that indemnify the yard due to acts of nature. (Have a lawyer read the contract you made with the yard when you had your boat hulled out.)

Your best bet may be to let this play out and see what the yard is willing to do for you. I am sure the owner of the Irwin is also going through some heartache as well. If the owner of the Irwin had comp. ins. his insurance company will likely be duking it out with the yard's insurance company.

While many of us on this forum can sympathize with you, and speculate about fault (point fingers) in the end you are likely going to have to get a really good lawyer familiar with insurance claims to really help you with your case.

[phyz]

Good evening...I appreciated your post. Thank you!

In general, many (most) of your points are spot on. Your call to work with people I especially appreciated.

However, I believe that in almost every case of an accident in a commercial or industrial setting, causative human error, or more likely a string of human errors, is involved. The built environment is primarily human produced with the express intent of minimizing any adverse effects of the external environment, and the processes and equipment are advertised, notionally intended and even possibly designed (well or poorly) to prevent failures that can cause loss to property, life and limb. In principle, economics usually are secondary to those concerns (as an extreme example, witness the money NASA spent to protect its several dozen shuttle astronauts and rather modest launch facilities and spacecraft). As a corollary, in the (very unlikely) event that no human error was involved, then nature surely must bear the full brunt of the blame. Also, accidents in the built environment almost always involve human error, often culpable (because the brute forces in the real world tolerate no excuses and contracts).

Causative paths are complex and can involve personal actions and inactions, which are expressed as physical conditions and events. Then there are the additional circumstances of the physical environment, which are assumed to be controlled in a nominal environment (rain, wind, sun etc).

As in all accidents, there was a chain of causes that produced this accident. On reflection of the facts of a given event, that causative chain can be elaborated and demonstrated. I'm an aerospace engineer and physicist who's worked in risk management on several missile and spacecraft projects over three decades. In this case, I have been able to model the broad strokes of what happened and identify what was caused by human error (including negligent action and/or inaction).

Which circumstances caused this particular event? Is it likely that the wind alone caused the accident and the specific outcomes? That is a matter of fact (e.g., wind speeds and direction, forces, torques and the mechanical resistance of devices intended to hold them at bay), and as I posited above, very unlikely in general, and in this case, absolutely not. Was there negligence? Yes. By what party or parties? No comment.

A nasty rub comes if and when institutions fail to live up to the spirit of fair play, decency, common sense and integrity. Instead, they rely on deception and the power of money to bully their way around and are 'penny wise and pound foolish'.

To take a real-life, relevant but sufficiently vague example, company 'A' advertises that it provides highly desired yet commonplace service 'X', but in fact, they contract 'not X', because 'X', despite being what the customer is sold on, and if not a marine lawyer, thinks he's/she's getting, would expose them to a relatively modest and manageable liability. It's a game where if you're lucky, and we often are, you will usually win. However, they will, within the bounds they've carefully tried to manage, always win.

Then again, sometimes they make a mistake and are not so clever or motivated as the 'little guy' (hi VW).

We should always first endeavor to obtain win-win outcomes, of course. I firmly believe that, but I will protect my own.

Again, thank you, peace and good evening.

[hamburking]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

in the end you are likely going to have to get a really good lawyer familiar with insurance claims to really help you with your case.

The cost of that lawyer would likely exceed the value of his claim, with no assurance of any restitution.

[UNCIVILIZED]

Sorry to hear about this. Sad news indeed, & I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for a good outcome for you.
Please keep us apprised of what happens, including that which transpires before all's said & done.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

Living in the PNW I read this post with great interest.

As I read your initial post you stated the Irwin was knocked off its stand and into your vessel due to very high winds (act of nature). So, in order to blame the owner of the Irwin you would have to prove that the owner of the Irwin was negligent. This would mean that you would have to prove the owner did something that would precipitate this accident.

Since the yard attendants hulled the boat and placed the supporting stands and chains on both the Irwin and your boat it is unlikely the owner of the Irwin is negligent (assuming he did not adjust the chains or stand pads, or intentionally unfurl the sail during the wind storm).

Since you only have liability insurance I suspect your insurance company is not going to be very helpful since they essentially have no skin in the game. (But maybe they will help point you in the right direction.) The yard is likely lawyering up already. Most yards have contracts that include clauses that indemnify the yard due to acts of nature. (Have a lawyer read the contract you made with the yard when you had your boat hulled out.)

Your best bet may be to let this play out and see what the yard is willing to do for you. I am sure the owner of the Irwin is also going through some heartache as well. If the owner of the Irwin had comp. ins. his insurance company will likely be duking it out with the yard's insurance company.

While many of us on this forum can sympathize with you, and speculate about fault (point fingers) in the end you are likely going to have to get a really good lawyer familiar with insurance claims to really help you with your case.

Well, I'm no lawyer, but if another boat drags anchor in high wind and hits your boat. He is responsible. Is there a difference? Not sure. I suspect, the first boat to topple is responsible and his insurance company will try to get the yard to pay for their loss.

[hamburking]

It was a collision between three boats...I wonder what COLREGS says about this? Who had the right of way?

[keepondancin]

I am in no way trying to be critical, find blame, make accusations. You generally carry insurance for protection in case of an event. Your liability insurance gives you protection for liabilities from events you or your boat caused. Isn't there an assumed assumption that the decision was made to self insure for personal property values, and accepting all the risks?

[Ramjet60s]

Originally Posted by phyz

Hi folks,

I'm sorry to introduce myself with such a sad thread, but I would like to get your thoughts about an accident my boat was in on the hard.

As many of you know, a fatal windstorm ripped through Washington yesterday. Our boat, a 1979 Newport 30, was knocked off its stand by an Irwin, which was itself blown onto my boat by the wind. No one was injured. I'm in the midwest, but my sister took pictures, some of which I've attached. As you can see, there is a huge crack in the leading edge of the keel, the mast is bent, and the port spreader is broken off. The shrouds seem to be intact, with the exception of the port upper shroud. Our aft pulpit was smashed against the next boat, which mine tipped into (it received superficial damage, the Irwin somewhat more, and mine, in the middle, the worst), and there is a lot of other damage to the upper and lower hull, which I think is more superficial.

I haven't had a surveyor out yet--I just got word late this afternoon. We only have liability insurance, but I am hopeful that the other boat's and/or yard's insurance companies are going to handle this. Those conversations will begin tomorrow.

I know we need a survey immediately, but I thought I'd reach out tonight and get feedback on the damage to the keel, which looks like the worst of it. I'm afraid this looks like a bad piece of business, very bad. FYI, on these boats the keel is encapsulated and the keel bolts are glassed in.

If you have any constructive thoughts regarding the keel and/or insurance, I would greatly appreciate them. This is extremely heart rendering. I spent the entire year and most of my fluid assets making her safe and sound, readying her to move onto in a few months...

Thanks in advance,

Jim
S/V Fatty Lumpkin

I had my Pearson 43 dropped one foot on the hard while the crane was lifting it to put it back into the water the bottom line is 6 months later and $85,000 later paid by the yard everything was fixed.

Rodger