Bareboat charter with volunteer pool

[unbusted67]

Say a private company owns a vessel and uses it in a "Time Charter" capacity. Meaning they provide a captain and crew for paying customers during business hours.

But in the off hours, a municipality wants to use the same vessel as part of its emergency response plan. The municipality, through a volunteer pool of captains and crew, would charter the boat under a "bareboat" charter contract.

Does the fact that this is a volunteer crew change the nature of the charter agreement? Does anyone know if there is legal precedence for this type of arrangement?

[BigBoater917]

IANAL, I think it would depend on the charter contract with the vessel owner. A bareboat charter is exactly that and it would be the responsibility of the charterer to provide adequately licensed crew regardless of how they are being compensated.

[Snore]

The safest position for the charter firm to take is that the vessels are chartered for recreational use. As such the use of the vessel as part of an ERP would require vessel owner’s approval and that the lease would need to insure the vessel.

They can enter into a separate contract that states, “In the event the governor or president declares a state of emergency the vessel shall be placed at X’s disposal. Prior to removing the vessel from provider’s dock a video record will be made of the condition of the vessel. X shall staff the boat with a USCG Master with experience operating this type of vessel. At the end of the lease, vessel shall be hauled and surveyed. X shall be responsible for any damages occurring during the use of the vessel. X shall also be responsible for providing liability insurance during the lease period.”

This would work out a win-win and avoid them using the boat for non-disasters.

[valhalla360]

A few issues:
- Check with your insurance company. A boat in commercial service for emergency response will probably be considered a drastically higher risk compared to a pleasure cruise charter boat. Think about it...if there is someone in danger in a really tricky place, an emergency responder is much more likely to take the rescue boat into that area in less than ideal conditions.
- Bareboat chartering is typically a pleasure boat activity. Licensing requirements are typically set aside for non-commercial owner/operators. Bareboat charters usually get the same treatment as the renter is also the operator and it's similar use to typical non-commercial pleasure boating. Here you have what would probably be considered commercial operations as the operator is a 3rd party put on the boat specifically to run the boat. If there is an accident, I bet someone's lawyer would try to claim this and blame you for not mandating a licensed captain.

Reality, contact your insurance company and get it in writing that you are covered or this type of use. Also contact your lawyer and get confirmation that providing a licensed captain is not a requirement (they likely will need to consult with a specialist lawyer to confirm).

[unbusted67]

Sorry just to clarify, the contract would specifically outline that the charterer has to abide by the vessel's COI manning requirements so there would be no chartering the boat without a licensed captain.

Also the boat would only be used to make ambulance runs, transport fire crews, and prisoners back and forth between an island. It would never be involved in rescue or anything like that without us, the owners, operating the vessel. I guess I should outline that in the contract as well?

[hellosailor]

Ben-
I think your question could give a lawyer a headache.
First of all, the municipality probably shares "sovereign immunity" as part of a state. So, who's going to be able to sue it? For what? The answer will be very particular to the way sovereign immunity is applied by your state legislature and the courts.
Then too, there's the question of "civil response". Again, state and local laws give special protections to volunteer firemen and/or other emergency responders, paid or volunteer.
And for icing on the cake? In some states, the local response *could* legally be performed under state military (militia) laws, which often allow any militia officer to commandeer any civilian resource. (Yeah, no one likes to mention that. Even on 9/11, NYS refused to implement that response, and yes, NYS has the laws that expressly authorize it.)
So...
First you've got to be very sure which teapot will be placed on the stove, before you worry about which tempest might be in it.
I would suggest that the local powers-that-be should be told "Speak to corporate counsel and figure out which activation gives you the necessary protections".
And again, going back to 9/11, our mayor or governor *could* have activated a direct response on the state level, instead of calling for a federal one. The same resources would have responded in both cases, the difference being who got to pay the bill. (Oh.)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

Sorry just to clarify, the contract would specifically outline that the charterer has to abide by the vessel's COI manning requirements so there would be no chartering the boat without a licensed captain.

Also the boat would only be used to make ambulance runs, transport fire crews, and prisoners back and forth between an island. It would never be involved in rescue or anything like that without us, the owners, operating the vessel. I guess I should outline that in the contract as well?

Really not a bareboat charter if there is a requirement for a hired licensed captain...but if you want your insurance to be in force you better verify and document that they have the correct licensing.

You still likely need commercial insurance that specifically calls out and covers the operations.

As someone else mentioned, once they are in the boat, if an emergency comes up, they could easily commandeer it for other purposes.

[unbusted67]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Really not a bareboat charter if there is a requirement for a hired licensed captain....

Not true at all, in fact that's what makes it a bareboat charter:

"Bareboat, or 'demise', charters are a type of charter party where the charterer hires the vessel for a period of time and just hires the ship 'bare'; in other words without a Master or crew. The charterer staffs the boat, supplies bunkers and is generally free to decide where to take the vessel and what to do with it (within the contractual limits set out in the charter). "

-Shipping Law Blog
The Shipping Law Blog: ARTICLE: Bareboat Charters

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

Not true at all, in fact that's what makes it a bareboat charter:

"Bareboat, or 'demise', charters are a type of charter party where the charterer hires the vessel for a period of time and just hires the ship 'bare'; in other words without a Master or crew. The charterer staffs the boat, supplies bunkers and is generally free to decide where to take the vessel and what to do with it (within the contractual limits set out in the charter). "

-Shipping Law Blog
The Shipping Law Blog: ARTICLE: Bareboat Charters

Your quote doesn't really conflict as you will have a requirement for licensed master (and possibly crew) separate from the actual charterer (the agency who does the chartering can't be directly licensed and odds are the city manager or whoever signs the contract won't be acting as the licensed captain). Plus, I can pretty much guarantee the quote wasn't considering your unusual situation anyway. If you tell someone you are bareboat chartering without lots of details about your unusual situation, the presumption will be that no licensed captain is being provided either by you or the charter company. That's typical bareboat charter practice.

Other than to confuse the discussion, it really doesn't matter what you call it...the end operational requirements still hold true.

[hellosailor]

Maybe I'm misreading this but it seems to simplify down to:
"...boat would only be used to make ambulance runs, transport fire crews, and prisoners back and forth between an island."
and,
" It would never be involved in rescue or anything like that without us, the owners, operating the vessel. "

But an ambulance run is essentially a rescue, there's no difference there. Or does the OP mean "medical transport", which in the US is very definitely NOT ambulance service?

It is unclear if the OP's intent is that the boat never be operated by someone else, or, that the boat be operated by someone else only at certain times.

I think these things need to be clarified and then gone over with the USCG and an attorney, to make sure there are no lines of commercial charter being crossed.

It might be better overall to form a commercial charter company, at arm's length, and for the owner to charter the boat out to the municipality, to themselves, and to whatever other qualified charterers there were. Make the whole thing a legitimate commercial operation, which keeps the tax man and the marine authorities all happier. And in the long run--doesn't cost anything more.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Maybe I'm misreading this but it seems to simplify down to:
"...boat would only be used to make ambulance runs, transport fire crews, and prisoners back and forth between an island."
and,
" It would never be involved in rescue or anything like that without us, the owners, operating the vessel. "

But an ambulance run is essentially a rescue, there's no difference there. Or does the OP mean "medical transport", which in the US is very definitely NOT ambulance service?

It is unclear if the OP's intent is that the boat never be operated by someone else, or, that the boat be operated by someone else only at certain times.

I think these things need to be clarified and then gone over with the USCG and an attorney, to make sure there are no lines of commercial charter being crossed.

It might be better overall to form a commercial charter company, at arm's length, and for the owner to charter the boat out to the municipality, to themselves, and to whatever other qualified charterers there were. Make the whole thing a legitimate commercial operation, which keeps the tax man and the marine authorities all happier. And in the long run--doesn't cost anything more.

Also in the original post: "a municipality wants to use the same vessel as part of its emergency response plan."

I think the OP really needs to figure out what they are trying to do and get their insurance and lawyer to sign off that they are covered.

Though I'm betting by the time they figure out what he really wants to do and put in reasonable protections for him, it's not going to sound nearly as good of a idea.