The full timeline of what went down (besides the boat) of the Polina Star

[Rorzech]

Aren't Oyster's naturally found at the bottom of the sea anyways ?

[HankOnthewater]

Originally Posted by Rorzech

Aren't Oyster's oysters naturally found at the bottom of the sea anyways ?

Funny, indeed you are right, but with the correction in red

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by Polux

Even if surveyed it was impossible to find find out that the keel calculations and building were improperly done.

Maybe so, but a surveyor down island found something?

[Seymore]

<<Quote>>"Over the last 10 years, only a handful of yachts have suffered keel failure in the open sea, for example, the Cheeki Rafiki in May 2014"

I disagree, with the presumption that 'only a handful of yachts', etc. It's the nature of such things that when keels fall off in the middle of the ocean, crews often don't have time to put out a mayday or launch a life raft. I presume that the above comment is unduly rosy, that there are more than a handful of yachts that have lost their keels in the past ten years. The above comment is dismissive. The keel failures and structural failures.in modern yacht design should be formally addressed.

[Jim Cate]

I presume that the above comment is unduly rosy, that there are more than a handful of yachts that have lost their keels in the past ten years.

This statement, presented with no data to back it up is itself presumptuous. There is no more reason to believe your statement than theirs... rather less, I'd say, considering the lack of large numbers of unaccountable disappearances at sea.

Jim

[RaymondR]

A knowledgeable boat builder assuring the owner that there is not a problem with a keel which begins leaking badly and which later falls off should be treated as criminal negligence and become a police matter. Maybe the owner should bring a charge of criminal negligence against the builder?

[double u]

...& if they are not knowledgable & build such big boats they should be locked up too...

[Polux]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Very interesting. I wonder if part of the decision to liquidate involves unseen communications from Oyster's insurer though. I know UK law differs from the US, but over here there are varying standards for negligence and error, versus "gross negligence" and actual criminal misconduct. If Oyster's insurer were to say "You were notified in a timely manner, you were grossly negligent to allow the vessel to remain at sea, and since you likely knew of a defect and intentionally tried to deny it...You have no coverage, you eat the loss."
...

The owner insurance paid the boat. I don't know if the insurance was after Oyster for an indemnification due to negligent building and maintenance.

Independently of that the owner was asking 2.6 million euro as indemnification for all losses, personal and otherwise linked with the boat loss. Oyster refused mediation and they were going to court for what should have been an expensive litigation.

[CarstenWL]

I wonder if the owner will still trust the skipper, and if he has been able to find other work, if not.

Why should the owner no longer trust the skipper? Seems to me he did a great job.

Carsten

[sailorboy1]

Given the history timeline I can barely believe the captain was willing to sail the boat across the Atlantic (I can oboy believe it because he did). Isn't that like continuing to drive your car down the highway after you have been told the wheels are about to fall off?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Given the history timeline I can barely believe the captain was willing to sail the boat across the Atlantic (I can oboy believe it because he did). Isn't that like continuing to drive your car down the highway after you have been told the wheels are about to fall off?

The fact that they continued to use the boat shows at least some confidence in the keel issue. It doesn't diminish the negligence of Oyster though IMHO. There will also be huge financial losses to ALL the owners of Oysters since Oyster engineering, design, QA, build, and ethics have been shown to be less than their reputation would suggest and casts a shadow of suspicion on all their products.

[kmacdonald]

Financially, the loss of PS would only be the tip of the iceberg. I would guess there would be a class action suit on behalf of all Oyster owners seeking damages for loss in value of their boats. Toyota lost such a suit with the Tundra acceleration problem and had to compensate Tundra owners.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The fact that they continued to use the boat shows at least some confidence in the keel issue.

See I feel it shows that the boat captain was crazy.

This captain and crew are lucky to be alive. They sailed a boat that had had a keel problem in the past, and which they can been told by surveyor HAD a keel problem, and STILL sailed it across the Atlantic.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

See I feel it shows that the boat captain was crazy.

This captain and crew are lucky to be alive. They sailed a boat that had had a keel problem in the past, and which they can been told by surveyor HAD a keel problem, and STILL sailed it across the Atlantic.

I don't know that I would have done that but Oyster did assure them it was fine. At the time that might had meant something. In hindsight it was less than worthless.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Financially, the loss of PS would only be the tip of the iceberg. I would guess there would be a class action suit on behalf of all Oyster owners seeking damages for loss in value of their boats. Toyota lost such a suit with the Tundra acceleration problem and had to compensate Tundra owners.

A class action suit wouldn't be worth it if the co. went tits up. I believe to recoup from the officers or investors fraud would need to be established, good luck on that one.