Fuel tank leak

[Mr Googler]

Cool.

Unlike the weather he could be enjoying afloat

 

[Bouba]

Unlike the weather he could be enjoying afloat

You are a fine one to talk? you have five good boating days a year on the Welsh Med and you’ve already wasted two of them?

 

[stelican]

You are a fine one to talk? you have five good boating days a year on the Welsh Med and you’ve already wasted two of them?

Could you get an interim boat

 

[Bouba]

Could you get an interim boat

I’m struggling to afford the boat that doesn’t work

 

[Hurricane]

Any news on insurance? As I've said before, my insurance would cover this so there's a chance yours does too.

Would this be a latent defect?

 

[petem]

Would this be a latent defect?

This is the clause that covers it (Topsail policy)...

2.4 loss of or damage to the Vessel’s Machinery caused by the failure of any component, provided that:
(a) the Machinery is less than 10 years old from the date of first manufacture;

 

[julians]

This is the clause that covers it (Topsail policy)...

2.4 loss of or damage to the Vessel’s Machinery caused by the failure of any component, provided that:
(a) the Machinery is less than 10 years old from the date of first manufacture;

That sounds like it would cover any damage caused by the fuel leaking from the failed tank, but not cost of rectifying the failed tank itself. And I thinkin boubas case there has been no/minimal damage from the leaked fuel , aside from some cleaning up/getting rid of the smell.

 

[petem]

That sounds like it would cover any damage caused by the fuel leaking from the failed tank, but not cost of rectifying the failed tank itself. And I thinkin boubas case there has been no/minimal damage from the leaked fuel , aside from some cleaning up/getting rid of the smell.

It's covered because 'Tanks' fall under the definition of 'Machinery'

 

[Portofino]

It's covered because 'Tanks' fall under the definition of 'Machinery'

I am with Julians interpretation.It’s the damage from the failure in this case a bit of easily clean up mess not the actual component that’s gone bang , the tank .
Other wise with your interpretation the ins policy is in effect a boat warranty for 10 yrs, amongst other things like 3 P etc ……. it ain’t a warranty for the builder .

 

[Portofino]

Would this be a latent defect?

Hard to pin that one because ( see previous posts on tank metallurgy) they have a variable life , a finite life they all eventually leak one day .Some like this sooner very early .

The only way In my mind you could get that to stick is ( read my earlier posts ^^^ higher up ) is get the ins co with the help of a French survey team to diss Beneteaus build quality-re compromises on the hull structure at the tank area and using deliberately a tight stuffed in tank with no frame mounts / straps ( needs chopping out etc ) as part of the structural integrity, it’s was a deliberate ploy to save 1/2 penerth of glass / balsa .The metal tank is this taking forces and unnecessary flexing = busted seems / welds = prematurely leak what we have here .

But it’s gonna take a uncharacteristically brave FR surveyor to front up M Beneteaus legal team with this allegation and get away being able to work again in the Fr marine industry.

You are imho on a high way to nowhere attempting to force Beneteau into accepting a latent defect in the build centering on the tank instal .

Better keep them on board , get someone from Beny to quietly to eye ball it and hopefully from Bouba pov make a significant contribution to a fix .He keeps schum .The world never hears etc .

Closing the door after the horse has bolted ………!

 

[Bouba]

Well if you thought this saga was going on too long.. I can tell you…it just grew legs and now it’s running…the next stage of the blame game is getting a marine survey…an expert is arriving tomorrow…we will see what he says.
In the meantime, the boatyard found the hole that I identified halfway up one side to go with the ones they found in the bottom.

 

[Mr Googler]

Can the cutting start after that? This thread needs photos!

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Well if you thought this saga was going on too long.. I can tell you…it just grew legs and now it’s running…the next stage of the blame game is getting a marine survey…an expert is arriving tomorrow…we will see what he says.
In the meantime, the boatyard found the hole that I identified halfway up one side to go with the ones they found in the bottom.

Multiple holes doesn't sound good.

 

[Bouba]

Can the cutting start after that? This thread needs photos!

Well, that depends on the expert....

 

[Bouba]

Multiple holes doesn't sound good.

No..recently the yard received information from the tank manufacturer (who supply Beneteau) and they recommend their new system of mastic and patching...we were prepared to listen to this (that’s why we visited today)...but now they found new holes the yard isn’t confident that it’s a viable solution.
The yard don’t want to proceed without factory support...they won’t be liable in case of a problem down the road.. and they don’t want to force us to take liability....so hopefully, an independent survey will somehow lead us to a solution...it’s looking grim if I am honest... and it’s increasingly looking like a legal fight??

 

[Croftie]

I assume you still have heard nothing back from Beneteau?

 

[Bouba]

I assume you still have heard nothing back from Beneteau?

The yard is in constant touch with Beneteau....they are a Beneteau dealer and the director of the yard knows the factory executives personally....but he is increasingly frustrated by them.
After the expert gives us a report we will decide if we have a leg to stand on if we open up a dispute with Benny...

 

[markc]

it’s increasingly looking like a legal fight??

and that's the last thing you want to do in France

 

[petem]

I am with Julians interpretation. It’s the damage from the failure in this case a bit of easily clean up mess not the actual component that’s gone bang , the tank .
Other wise with your interpretation the ins policy is in effect a boat warranty for 10 yrs, amongst other things like 3 P etc ……. it ain’t a warranty for the builder .

But the policy says...

"... loss of or damage to the Vessel’s Machinery caused by the failure of any component ..."

A tank is defined as Machinery so loss to it by the failure of any component (which I assume includes failure of the tank itself) is covered.

BUT, there's an exclusion that says...

"making good any fault or error in design or construction;"

So if Bouba had my policy, for example, he would need to prove that the failure of the tank was not due to an error in design or construction. It's looks likely to me that the failure of the tank is due to a design or construction fault however it doesn't seem that this is a common issue with these boats.

Ironically, if Bouba had accidentally put a self tapper through the tank he'd be in a much better position.

 

[Bouba]

But the policy says...

"... loss of or damage to the Vessel’s Machinery caused by the failure of any component ..."

A tank is defined as Machinery so loss to it by the failure of any component (which I assume includes failure of the tank itself) is covered.

BUT, there's an exclusion that says...

"making good any fault or error in design or construction;"

So if Bouba had my policy, for example, he would need to prove that the failure of the tank was not due to an error in design or construction. It's looks likely to me that the failure of the tank is due to a design or construction fault however it doesn't seem that this is a common issue with these boats.

Ironically, if Bouba had accidentally put a self tapper through the tank he'd be in a much better position.

At the moment the clause in my policy document about providing legal assistance is the one I’m most interested in...