Boat Held Hostage By Marine Transport Company

[Dansante85]

BTW, Tomfl, the mast has been missing for 33 days, the boat has been held by Steadley for 50 days. I agree that having TropicalEscape's posts for counterpoint are beneficial to the discussion whatever his connection to Steadley. I do think thought that he needs to reign in his tone a bit to have any credibility given the serious nature of this discussion.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by Dansante85

I agree with Longbow. TropicalEscape certainly seems very agitated about defending a man he claims to have only talked to once on the phone. And in that conversation he certainly learned a lot of details, even including the name of the FBI agent investigating Big Dob Marine. BTW, Bluewater, Dan Steadley is the trucker, not Creole-Belle the boat owner.

I know that ... did I say something that appeared to make me think Steadley is the boat owner? If so, please ignore it because it would have been a typo or misunderstanding. No, I will never go near the name Steadley or Big Dog Marine.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Dansante85

BTW, Tomfl, the mast has been missing for 33 days, the boat has been held by Steadley for 50 days. I agree that having TropicalEscape's posts for counterpoint are beneficial to the discussion whatever his connection to Steadley. I do think thought that he needs to reign in his tone a bit to have any credibility given the serious nature of this discussion.

Not sure if you get to SA much but it is much more of a free for all over there than it is here, something that is both good and bad. Quite frankly Tropicalescape would be considered one of the milder posters there.

One thing a lot of folks don't understand about the law is the concept of "de minimis" which is often taken to mean the law does not sweat the small stuff. As a sailor I understand your concern that the mast has been missing for 33 days as opposed to my term of about 30 days, or the boat which was suppose to be delivered on 22 Sept still not being delivered on 24 Oct. But a judge would look at this as a de minimis issue, sorta like close enough for government work.

As an example suppose the trucker delivers the boat next week and your mast as well. It is hard for me to see how the courts would want to get involved. Sure for you and the boat owner the trucker is a PITA, but it is not really that big a deal in the eyes of the court.

On the other hand if six months goes by and the cargo is still missing the courts would have a different view. In some cases, especially with contracts containing a performance clause, it is easy to pick a date where the courts get involved. But in this case I suspect the court would say let's give this thing a month or two and if it does not sort itself out we will take a closer look.

On the other hand if the boat or the mast can be located it would be a simple matter to get a replevin order and solve the problem. The court's reasoning behind this is along the lines of how much civil damages would be expected. Lets say not having your mast for 30 days prevented you from winning the AC and world wide fame, civil damages would be huge and you would be free to take that route. On the other hand do you think you would try and get civil damages if you got your mast tomorrow.

My best guess is the trucker has more to worry about from DOT and his insurance company than the courts.

[Deepdraft]

The shipper may need a new name for his business... I'm thinking Bad Dog Transport... Lost Dog?

;-)

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by Deepdraft

The shipper may need a new name for his business... I'm thinking Bad Dog Transport... Lost Dog?

;-)

Haha, anything with big, bad, dog, steadily, steadly, steadley, instead; will be a red flag; and sadly for NC, anything that suggests a connection to North Carolina or Carolina with those words, will stop any of us in their tracks and make us think first. What a shame for all of the great businesses there are in North and South Carolina. Maybe they will quickly shun this shyster?

[DMC]

I would be sure and report this carrier to the ICC, (Interstate Commerce Commision). They are the governing agency that grants authority to Carriers to operate. If the complaint against the Carrier is valid, the ICC will pull their numbers, and they wont be able to operate.

I would definately be in touch with the Magistrate at the Carriers home municipality and at the destination municipality.

The behavior of this Transporter are totally unacceptable, and this company should be exposed, put out of business, and prosecuted.

The ploy about discovering that the boat is 6K heavier 250 miles after the boat was loaded is BS. Why wasn't the weight noted when it was first loaded? If the lift didn't have a scale it could have been weighed at a truckstop nearby. But to say that because the boat weighed 26K instead of 20K, caused damage to the trailer, and tires is a crock of dung. What probably happened is the Driver blew a couple of tires and wants the OP to pay for the tires and damage to the trailer, and possibly his own boat. This $3800 dollars extra that the Driver is asking for is an enormous.

The Trucker or Carrier entered into an agreement to have the boat transported for a fee. The Trucker has a responsibility to deliver the boat free of damage. The only way the Trucker/Carrier can hold the boat is for nonpayment of agreed payment on delivery. The fact that the Trucker asked for half of the payment up front although not a deal breaker, indicates to me that the Trucker is operating with very little reserve capital in reserve. Most Carriers only ask for a small deposit to act as a binder when entering into a contract.

I truly hope that the OP is able to get this boat back in one piece. I would highly recommend carefully documenting the delivery. And would thorughly inspect every detail of this boat and note any damage on the inspection report prior to signing and paying for the transportation.

I used to transport automobiles and know a little about how the trucking business works.

[TUNA]

Just for clarification, the Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995. Operating authority for motor carriers is now granted by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As far as I know boats are a non-exempt commodity and operating authority would be required to engage in interstate for hire transportation of such.

Continuing on that, U.S. DOT is a regulatory agency, not a law enforcement agency; therefore, no boots on the ground, just heels and wingtips on the carpet. State DOT’s do have work boots on the ground; they plow snow and fill potholes! The confusion may come where too often commercial motor vehicle enforcement arms of other agencies, state police, highway patrol, local jurisdictions, etcetera, are idiomatically referred to as “DOT cops”.

The goal should be to get the OP’s boat (and the masts as well) to their destinations. My gut tells me there is a lot more to this story.
Best regards,
Jimmy

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by TUNA

Just for clarification, the Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995. Operating authority for motor carriers is now granted by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As far as I know boats are a non-exempt commodity and operating authority would be required to engage in interstate for hire transportation of such.

Continuing on that, U.S. DOT is a regulatory agency, not a law enforcement agency; therefore, no boots on the ground, just heels and wingtips on the carpet. State DOT’s do have work boots on the ground; they plow snow and fill potholes! The confusion may come where too often commercial motor vehicle enforcement arms of other agencies, state police, highway patrol, local jurisdictions, etcetera, are idiomatically referred to as “DOT cops”.

The goal should be to get the OP’s boat (and the masts as well) to their destinations. My gut tells me there is a lot more to this story.
Best regards,
Jimmy

Well if boats are non-exempt, as I guess due to wide load permits required, did you look at the document I attached to post #429 copied from the DOT web site. It says at the top in large red letters "This Carrier has no current Operating Authority with FMCSA"

So does that mean that Big Dog cannot at this time, legally carry non-exempt cargo, specifically boats, for hire in interstate commerce?

[Sir Rondo Normal]

I would think that Big Dog is very close to being Dead Dog

[TUNA]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Well if boats are non-exempt, as I guess due to wide load permits required, did you look at the document I attached to post #429 copied from the DOT web site. It says at the top in large red letters "This Carrier has no current Operating Authority with FMCSA"

So does that mean that Big Dog cannot at this time, legally carry non-exempt cargo, specifically boats, for hire in interstate commerce?

The over dimensional aspect has no bearing on the non-exempt status. As far as their right to engage in interstate carriage, my interpretation would be they are not in compliance.

Exempt cargo is generally unprocessed agricultural stuff. Produce is a good example, but there is a complete list available somewhere I'm sure.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Well if boats are non-exempt, as I guess due to wide load permits required, did you look at the document I attached to post #429 copied from the DOT web site. It says at the top in large red letters "This Carrier has no current Operating Authority with FMCSA"

So does that mean that Big Dog cannot at this time, legally carry non-exempt cargo, specifically boats, for hire in interstate commerce?

Not sure if it was posted here or at SA but the trucker guy is associated with multiple companies in NC, TX, and (IIRC) FL. This was one of the gripes about him but it also could mean that some of these other companies have the required paper work to carry boats. I am not saying this is the case, just that it is possible.

Moving on I am not sure about other state DOTs, but in FL there are white cars with blue markings saying Florida Dept. of Trans at weigh stations. I have also seen these FDOT cars on I10 and I75 along side trucks and the guys were wearing FDOT uniforms. My understanding was if a truck did not stop or had an auto pass violation the FDOT cars would run them down, sometimes with help from FHP. Not sure if the guys wear boots or shoes, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say this qualifies ad FDOT boots on the ground. Same goes for the FDOT guys at weigh stations.

[TUNA]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I attached to post #429 copied from the DOT web site. It says at the top in large red letters "This Carrier has no current Operating Authority with FMCSA"

By the way, this is on point and most helpful, IMHO, for both the current topic and for those researching and/or vetting a carrier in the future. This thread could benefit from more contributions like this.

[JayCall]

Tomfl-you are a bit out of the water on the de minimis. The phrase generally addresses value or $$, not time. The OP's case, if it went to court, should be a breach of contract-i.e. the boat was not delivered as promised, and would seek delivery of the boat. If that is the only issue claimed by the plaintiff, that is the only issue a court will decide. Courts only decide what is out before them byt he parties. No court is going tell the partied "Lets see wait and see if the defendant delivers your boat, and if he doesn't in 30 dasys, come back and see me." The court has both parties in front of it, (assuming the defendant shows up, if not the plaintiff wins), and will resolve the case immediately. The court will simply determine if the boat was delivered and if not, it will order the defendant to deliver it within some prescribed time.

The de minimis concept could come into play if the plaintiff claims damages-he must prove them to have the court order payment from the defendant. If they are a de minimis amount, the court would simply deny the damages claim.

[S/V Illusion]

Please keep this thread open. It is one of the most entertaining discussions I've ever read here although long since moved away from being constructive. It is always great reading comments from internet sailing experts about a topic they know virtually nothing about.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by JayCall

Tomfl-you are a bit out of the water on the de minimis. The phrase generally addresses value or $$, not time. The OP's case, if it went to court, should be a breach of contract-i.e. the boat was not delivered as promised, and would seek delivery of the boat. If that is the only issue claimed by the plaintiff, that is the only issue a court will decide. Courts only decide what is out before them byt he parties. No court is going tell the partied "Lets see wait and see if the defendant delivers your boat, and if he doesn't in 30 dasys, come back and see me." The court has both parties in front of it, (assuming the defendant shows up, if not the plaintiff wins), and will resolve the case immediately. The court will simply determine if the boat was delivered and if not, it will order the defendant to deliver it within some prescribed time.

The de minimis concept could come into play if the plaintiff claims damages-he must prove them to have the court order payment from the defendant. If they are a de minimis amount, the court would simply deny the damages claim.

Seems to me your post is a very shoddy analysis of my post.

The key part of my post was that the simple way to get the OP's boat back would be a replevin order. Of course that assumes one knows the location of the boat, and to some extent the location of the trucker. I doubt any lawyer would advise a breach of contract suit when a replevin order would get the boat much quicker.

My mention of de minimis was related to the post I quoted with the claim that I had said the cargo had not been delivered around thirty days after the date in the contract and the real number of days is thirty three and counting. I went on to point out that the longer the delay in delivery the greater the potential damages. I also asked the guy who was looking for his mast what amount of damages he would ask the judge to award because the mast was delivered late. Not to say the non delivery is not a PITA but I would bet the judge would view any damages asked for to be de minimis.

If the mast or the boat are located replevin is the quickest and cheapest way for the rightful owners to get possession. While the boat owner might be able to justify some damages for travel and lodging it probably would not rise above the max a small claims court could award. While that may not be the standard one has to wonder if a judge might not take that into consideration.

While all the facts are not clear I still think if there is an insurance carrier the right approach is to make them aware of the situation. Since there are posts at SA indicating Big Dog does have insurance I would not be surprised if the OP got a lawyer who contacted the carrier and they are already working to resolve the matter out of court.