Since
Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the eastern U.S. has been hit with 7
hurricanes that have caused damage to tens, if not hundreds of
thousands of boats. This means that there is nearly an equal number
of boats that have been repaired and put back on the market. In
itself, that would not be a problem, except that so many of these
damaged boats were sold as salvage to speculators who then made
substandard repairs and put them back on the market.
(Posted 1997)
What prompted me to write this article is that increasingly
I am hearing of complaints against surveyors who have failed to
discover major damages and structural faults with storm damaged
boats. These cases have involved such serious instances as:
- Bottoms splitting open
- Hull sides delaminating
- Stringers and bulkheads broken loose
- Failed hull/deck joints
- Water saturation of hull & deck cores
- Fires caused by corrosion in electrical apparatus and systems
- Machinery failures due to inadequate repairs
Fortunately, storm damaged boats are fairly easy
to discover. All he has to do is to be particularly alert, and approach
every survey that he performs with this possibility in mind. There
are a lot of these boats out there.
Many of these boats were totaled out by the insurance
company and sold as salvage. Many were bought up in large numbers
by salvage speculators who are in the business of restoring and
reselling. Very large numbers were repaired under insurance claims.
Some were simply purchased by individuals looking for a bargain
or a project where repairs were ultimately made by an amateur. In
any case, the repairs were just as likely to have been poorly accomplished
as not. This is not to suggest that all storm damaged and repaired
boats have faulty repairs. I personally know of many speculators
who performed quality repairs. On the other hand, I know of some
who are so unscrupulous that they attempted to cover up damages
rather than make repairs. There are a lot of these out there, too.
Hull Damage is rather easy to spot because
it is so difficult to restore damaged hull surfaces to their original
contours. Only the most highly skilled repairers are capable of
making a hull repair, say on the hull sides, so well that some evidence
of the repair is not visible. This is especially true on boats where
the gelcoat finishes were repaired. Precisely matching gelcoat color
is nearly impossible so that, after just a few years, discoloration
or mismatched colors of the repaired area are usually a dead give
away.
Another potential indicator is a hull that has
been painted, particularly a late model boat where there is no apparent
reason for the painting. Always suspect boats that have been repainted
and investigate carefully. Painting a hull yields a much higher
gloss than gelcoat, and this higher gloss will reveal the imperfections
of a repair more readily than gelcoat.
Sighting a hull is an important part of the survey.
To sight it properly one needs good lighting conditions. If a boat
is hauled out inside a covered building, there's a good chance that
the lack of light will inhibit the surveyor's ability to detect
repaired areas.
To sight the hull, one needs to utilize reflected
light off the hull sides to show up imperfections. This is done
by moving around the hull in such a way that you observe the bottom
and sides by this reflected light method. It involves sighting down
the surface of the hull at an angle nearly parallel to the surface,
so that a fairly large area is showing a reflection. And it is this
reflected light that best shows up irregularities in the surface
such as grinder marks or poor fairing.
The bottom, particularly painted bottoms, are most
difficult. But then the bottom is where the repairer usually does
the poorest work because it is hard to reach. On the other hand,
the surveyor rarely has good lighting conditions on the bottom so
that it is here that he needs to be extra careful. Make sure that
the boat gets lifted up high enough that you've got good light and
unobstructed visibility. Be especially alert for grinder marks and
poorly faired surfaces.
Sounding Once repaired areas are discovered,
sounding the hull sides out will give an indication of whether repairs
were properly made. I do not recommend using a plastic hammer to
do this as plastic against plastic does not give the best audible
result. Using a large coin or medallion is much better at detecting
subtle changes in the density of the material. It can often show
up soft fillers where the plastic hammer won't.
The Interior Examination from the interior,
if there is any access at all, will often tell the whole story.
Often the repairs are made without repainting on the interior and
the method of repair will be apparent. Or it may be repainted, but
the paint is so fresh that the repair still shows up, as fresh paint
on the inside of an older boat is a dead giveaway. Also look for
fiberglass dust and other debris that may not have been removed.
If the repair looks sloppy, I then go back over
the exterior with my coin, sounding out the entire hull surface
area looking for delamination or large areas that were filled with
putty. What I'm most concerned with are areas where the reinforced
plastic was not returned to its original structural strength. Many
times a shoddy repair will not restore damaged laminate, but merely
cover it up with fairing, thus leaving a very weak area that is
likely to fail at a later time. This is precisely what I most want
to avoid.
One problem with this is that some of the highest
quality fillers are very hard and may not show up any audible change
in sound. Fortunately, someone who short cuts repairs is not likely
to use this very expensive material, but rather cheaper materials
like Bondo or other auto body materials which are soft enough that
they do show up. If they use the hard stuff, I'm stuck because I
can't tell. In that case, the best I can do is write it up in as
much detail as possible and then declaim responsibility for determining
the effectiveness of the repair.
Decks & Superstructure Examine the decks
and superstructure with the same degree of care as the hull. For
if substandard repairs are likely to appear anywhere, it is here.
Use the same sighting techniques as for the hull, being alert for
grinder marks and general unfairness.
The hull to deck joint is another area where short
cut repairs are most likely. Examine the sheer line carefully, looking
for evidence of filling and unfairness. If at all possible, try
to inspect the deck joint from the interior. Stress cracks and numerous
loose screws in the rails may indicate that the area is weak. Or
there may be a condition where many of the deck fasteners are all
broken loose as a result of the vessel hitting against pilings.
Signs of excessive leaking on the interior may foretell this situation.
Sinking It is extremely difficult for a
repairer to cover up all evidence of a boat having sunk. There are
now so many sunk hurricane boats in existence that my philosophy
has become "guilty until proven innocent." It takes me
about 15 minutes of careful examination to determine whether a boat
has been sunk or not. Here's a short list of the best indicators:
- Corrosion in, on or behind electrical panels, terminal blocks
and other electrical components where there is no other explanation
for the existence of corrosion except sinking.
- Interior hardware: look for rusty steel hinges, lighting fixtures,
screws inside cabinets, drawer slides and other corroded hardware
that was not replaced.
- Water stains on bulkheads, partitions. Examination of raw
wood behind interior structures will usually leave clear evidence
of a boat that has sunk. Often times the water lines are clearly
apparent. They are usually to be found in areas that are hard
to reach.
- An older boat with too many new replacements. How else does
one explain an older boat where everything is new?
- Older boat is too clean and has virtually nothing personal
on it. When there are no signs of anyone having owned the boat,
one has to wonder why.
CYA While it is not the surveyor's responsibility
to research the past history of the vessel, he does need to do something
to protect himself. Many times a survey will reveal suspicions of
sinking or other serious damage that may be hard to prove. Making
such an allegation without being able to prove it could cost the
surveyor dearly. So could finding obscure evidence but not reporting
it. So what to do?
The only solution for this dilemma that I know
of is to do an extra good job of surveying the boat. I've run across
more boats that have had good repairs than bad. I've had cases where
there were indications of the boat having been sunk, but not incontrovertible
evidence, just hints. The only thing I can do is to look extra close.
If there is no clear evidence and everything performs up to standard,
then the best I can do is to advise the customer of the possibility,
of my suspicions, and to state that I can't prove it.
If I can point to specific evidence, then I feel
that I have to write that up in my report, but only after photographing
it and documenting my file thoroughly. I adopt the attitude that
whatever I say, I have to be able to successfully defend my words
in court. If I wouldn't be comfortable saying it on a witness stand,
then I don't say it. But whatever I do say, I make sure that its
totally accurate and verifiable.
Properly Repaired Boats Every year I run
across at least a half-dozen boats on which I detect storm damage.
Most of these are properly repaired. Whether or not a surveyor has
an obligation to report these facts, or suspicions, to the buyer
is a tough question to answer. When it comes to late model and very
expensive boats, I find it very rare that repairs were not properly
made. Usually they were so well done that only an expert could detect
them. If I am totally confident that the repairs were first rate,
more often than not I do not inform the customer. My reasoning is
that to inform him of prior damage is often very stigmatizing and
could kill the sale for no valid reason. Properly repaired damage
is not a defect, and does not affect the value of the vessel, except
possibly in the mind of a non expert.
The difficulty with reporting properly completed
repairs in the report is that it is likely to draw the suspicion
of the lender and the insurer. They may reject the vessel or loan
based only on your comments that they wrongly interpret. Or, they
may come back and ask you to state that the repairs were properly
made. Now you're in a box because you don't know how the repairs
were made; you're only evaluating based on what you can see. And
you can't see inside the laminate. So to make that statement in
writing is to start sawing the branch that your perched upon.
The degree of severity of prior damage is the main
criteria that I use for making my decision. That, and whether the
repairs are detectable by anyone other than myself. If, for example,
a 52' Hatteras had a substantial hole in the hull side, or major
hull/deck joint repair work done, then I'd probably feel obligated
to inform the customer, to protect myself and him. If the hull sides
had just been banged and scratched up, then probably not. I draw
the line between minor, moderate or major repairs. If the repairs
are readily detectable, then I feel that I have to tell him. Chances
are that he will eventually find out anyway, and he may be very
unhappy that I didn't tell him.
Great works of art such as very old paintings have
been repaired and restored so many times that of the original painting,
there's not much left. That does not reduce their value. Houses
and buildings have major roof damage and repairs all the time. Cars
and other vehicles are also routinely repaired without the requirement
for disclosure. The legal requirement for disclosure is based on
the propriety of the repairs. A person can be held liable for knowingly
selling defective merchandise.
The surveyor is held to essentially the same standard.
Probably the best way to answer this question is to determine whether
there is any possibility that the condition could result in an economic
loss to the client. If it could, then the condition must be disclosed.
|
