circumnavigation
New member
In March this year I collected my steel ketch from France after a £70,000 refit for a Circumnavigation that was due to commence in May (this year). Coming through the English Channel, with water coming over the bow, nothing unusual, a very dry boat below became awash. The mechanical (manual) and electric bilge pumps were coping, no problem at all. Water then started to work itself down through the deckhead and run in to the main electrical control box! Running 220v, 24v and 12v systems the very unwanted horror commenced with short circuiting and instruments and major electronic equipment ceasing to function. Before it was possible to ascertain what was goinging on I was electrocuted. Before cutting off all power, I contacted Falmouth Coastguard to explain the situation in English, as I was off the NW coast of Brittany, which I know very well (based in Jersey). They contacted CROSS Corsen who contacted me to identify the problem and the course of action necessary to take. The Ile de Batz Life Boat was sent to tow me to the commercial port of Roscoff (not normally available to yachts). With power now instructed to be cut off, to save fatility, I had to wait for the life boat in the March spring tides with a very strong easterly tide and NE wide 5-6.
On arrival at Ile de Batz, before the life boat could enter the harbour, the coxswain treated me to lunch, while I contacted my insurers (Pantaenius). My vessel has been insured with them for the past 20 years in Hamburg. Within minutes I was informed to do the best I could under the circumstances and that they (Plymouth) would respond with the name of the French Surveyor that would deal with this. Sure enough, they responded within 30 minutes with a number to contact. Since that date of 18th March 2003, the surveyor has taken charge of everything, but whatever one's feelings are about Pantaenius and, I for one, being very shaken over the incident and now very luck to be alive, have struggled with the way that claims are organised. This said and the moans that were shared with the staff at Pantaenius, under the circumstances at the time, everything that was asked by them has been carried out. Bearing in mind that we are talking about having this resolved under French Law, the surveyor, under Frence Law, informed the authorities of his findings of possible criminal negligence against the shipyard that carried out the major part of the refit. However, in France, civil proceedings come before the criminal undertakings. I, Pantaenius and the loss adjuster could not be blamed for not knowing this! The vessel has been taken from Roscoff to Brest to Lorient where, at present, she remains for the Court Surveyor to report to the civil proceedings who was responsible. When this is ascertained, criminal proceedings will commence and can lead to the MD of the company being placed in Prison for such an offence.
During all this activity and now almost six months on, the Proceedings have commenced and with absolute respect to Pantaenius, as they could have had the 3-4 months of repairs started (all wood inside to be taken out and a complete rewiring and checking of all electronic equipment and communications equipment undertaken, but the decision is left to the court as to when they can commence, in order to ensure that the insurer's could recover their payout (whatever that is going to be). Pantaenius requested that we keep account of the uninsured losses, while they have already paid out for the incidentals to get my boat to Lorient and pay for hotels, marina fees etc. The Uninsured losses will continue until my boat is back in Jersey, the intended destination back in March.
What has come out of this so far? Yes, I was very annoyed with Pantaenius at the beginning, as they were my first contact, because I had spent time, money (lots of it) to purchase and refit and prepare for a 5-year circumnavigaton, including a retirement. Virtually on the eve of setting off, someone's negligence had put my life at risk. They were the first to contact, but they took it in their stride and now, time having passed and a lot of water under the bridge, I have come to terms with what has happened and that it is going to be one year late in setting off. They were there, afterall, to help and assist to get this organised. Suffice to say, that the French authorities are taking this very seriously, as this could have happened on the Transatlantic, losing the boat and maybe our lives and, why, because what was out of sight was not sealed and allowed excesses of water to pour in from the deck around a dorade (covered with a wooden box). If this had happen and she sunk, no one would have known WHY!
My boat is not likely to be taken out of the water much before November. I am happy to know that whatever the cost is to rectify the situation (I have not been given any of the estimates) that is what it is going to take, along with the uninsured losses. It is unreal to believe that one will lose a NCB for criminal negligence on someone elses part, but Pantaenius will assist me to recover the costs of the claim and retrieve the insurer's outlay.
Obviously, there are those that may not know what makes an insurer insure something or to decline it, but it does help if there is a good line of communication from both sides.
<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema.html
On arrival at Ile de Batz, before the life boat could enter the harbour, the coxswain treated me to lunch, while I contacted my insurers (Pantaenius). My vessel has been insured with them for the past 20 years in Hamburg. Within minutes I was informed to do the best I could under the circumstances and that they (Plymouth) would respond with the name of the French Surveyor that would deal with this. Sure enough, they responded within 30 minutes with a number to contact. Since that date of 18th March 2003, the surveyor has taken charge of everything, but whatever one's feelings are about Pantaenius and, I for one, being very shaken over the incident and now very luck to be alive, have struggled with the way that claims are organised. This said and the moans that were shared with the staff at Pantaenius, under the circumstances at the time, everything that was asked by them has been carried out. Bearing in mind that we are talking about having this resolved under French Law, the surveyor, under Frence Law, informed the authorities of his findings of possible criminal negligence against the shipyard that carried out the major part of the refit. However, in France, civil proceedings come before the criminal undertakings. I, Pantaenius and the loss adjuster could not be blamed for not knowing this! The vessel has been taken from Roscoff to Brest to Lorient where, at present, she remains for the Court Surveyor to report to the civil proceedings who was responsible. When this is ascertained, criminal proceedings will commence and can lead to the MD of the company being placed in Prison for such an offence.
During all this activity and now almost six months on, the Proceedings have commenced and with absolute respect to Pantaenius, as they could have had the 3-4 months of repairs started (all wood inside to be taken out and a complete rewiring and checking of all electronic equipment and communications equipment undertaken, but the decision is left to the court as to when they can commence, in order to ensure that the insurer's could recover their payout (whatever that is going to be). Pantaenius requested that we keep account of the uninsured losses, while they have already paid out for the incidentals to get my boat to Lorient and pay for hotels, marina fees etc. The Uninsured losses will continue until my boat is back in Jersey, the intended destination back in March.
What has come out of this so far? Yes, I was very annoyed with Pantaenius at the beginning, as they were my first contact, because I had spent time, money (lots of it) to purchase and refit and prepare for a 5-year circumnavigaton, including a retirement. Virtually on the eve of setting off, someone's negligence had put my life at risk. They were the first to contact, but they took it in their stride and now, time having passed and a lot of water under the bridge, I have come to terms with what has happened and that it is going to be one year late in setting off. They were there, afterall, to help and assist to get this organised. Suffice to say, that the French authorities are taking this very seriously, as this could have happened on the Transatlantic, losing the boat and maybe our lives and, why, because what was out of sight was not sealed and allowed excesses of water to pour in from the deck around a dorade (covered with a wooden box). If this had happen and she sunk, no one would have known WHY!
My boat is not likely to be taken out of the water much before November. I am happy to know that whatever the cost is to rectify the situation (I have not been given any of the estimates) that is what it is going to take, along with the uninsured losses. It is unreal to believe that one will lose a NCB for criminal negligence on someone elses part, but Pantaenius will assist me to recover the costs of the claim and retrieve the insurer's outlay.
Obviously, there are those that may not know what makes an insurer insure something or to decline it, but it does help if there is a good line of communication from both sides.
<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema.html