Owner wins claim against UK builder

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asm
  • Start date Start date
Where does the insurance company fit into this whole story ?? Did they not make any contribution to repairs ??

Had the boat been built as per spec and still suffered significant damage and sank Pearl would not be getting sued??
 
Insurer doesn't fit in much. Even if they paid the boat owner they would inherit his rights to pursue the builder, so whichever way you cut it in a case like this the seller of the boat ( in this case the builder) pays

Ref your second para yes your statement is correct. But the whole point of this case is that the boat wasn't correctly built, so I don't see your point
 
Last edited:
Thanks JFM. I was just confused as to why the owner was claiming for all costs and the insurance company had not got involved.

My second statement was a follow on wondering how the insurance had managed to not be involved and avoid the 'risk' of the claim from the boatbuilder.
 
Never seen a Pearl model other than from a distance so I will not comment on their design or quality.

BUT is it correct, from what I have heard, that Pearl have the hull and super structures manufactured in China?

If correct where and by whom are they moulded. (China is a big place)

After the Tarquin Trader problems I just wondered if the same yards are involved.
 
I thought only the 75 was moulded in Far East then fitted out in Portsmouth Doug. And I thought the 55/60 was moulded by pearl and fitted out in uk, near Birmingham. But happy to be corrected on all that
 
jfm said:
I thought only the 75 was moulded in Far East then fitted out in Portsmouth Doug. And I thought the 55/60 was moulded by pearl and fitted out in uk, near Birmingham. But happy to be corrected on all that
Click to expand...

I think the new 65 and 75 hulls are moulded in Turkey, then fitted out in Portsmouth. The 60 is the max hull size that can be moulded in Goldicott near Stratford on Avon.
 
We've just bought a used 60 last week, not Temptation II, (great timing for this little gem to come out !!), and there are some 2006/2007 brochures left on the boat, the back page shows a team of people outside a factory in Turkey so something was being done there back in those days.

It's a real shame to see what has transpired about this case this week. I really hope Pearl do OK once this is over and settled down, we've loved the 60 since we first saw one, and we thought the 75 was fab when we saw the launch boat at SBS a while back.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
Based on the facts available I would have thought 'damage limitation' would be a managerial priority, obviously not the case here.

Some very strange decision making, imho.
Click to expand...

My guess would be that someone inexperienced in legal matter in Pearl uttered the 6 word Incantation of Legal Doom without realising what he/she was doing. The lawyers would have run from the room, but unless someone thought to immediately counter the it with the Spell of the Cynical Pragmatist, all would be lost.

The Incantation of Legal Doom is: "It is a matter of principle"
The Spell of the Cynical Pragmatist counters by wrapping it a defensive spell: "Really?" "It is a matter of principle" "You cannot be serious!"
 
I am a bit surprised that they got the full amount of the damage.

Should the hull have been thicker? We assume yes.

The cost of reinforcing the hull would (wild guess depending on what you had to remove to get to it) say £20-£30k.

There was however a heap of contributory negligence - he ran it onto the rocks! Now if the hull had just failed then fine Pearl pay the lot.

However in this case running a boat onto the rocks is going to cost regardless. Lift, shafts, props, hull repair, loss of use etc. Running the boat onto the rocks caused the problem, so I am surprised that the owner (a) did not have to pay for the normal repairs - £30k???) and then (b) get hit with some form of contribution as had he not run it on the rocks the boat would not have sunk in the first place.

I am sure that in practice this was a spat between the insurers, and Pearl probably will not foot the bill.

I looked at their new 65 the other day on line ( I also saw it in Mallorca but did not go inside). It looks like a very nice design. 3 x 600 engines is unusual and it only does 28kts so it is probably underpowered, but it benefits from heaps of space.
 
To add controversy to this incident;
We were moored on the starboard going into the bay,the rocks are marked with post
and if i remember correctly there is a cardinal on the post.
We saw the boat run onto the rocks at planing speed and then went to help the people on board.
From my perspective interesting result.
 
Andrew M said:
It's a real shame to see what has transpired about this case this week. I really hope Pearl do OK once this is over and settled down, we've loved the 60 since we first saw one, and we thought the 75 was fab when we saw the launch boat at SBS a while back.
Click to expand...
We liked the 60 too; in fact we got close to buying one once. The only thing that lets it down, like all aft cabin boats, is lack of lazarette storage but otherwise we found it to be an excellent design with great attention to detail. I wish the people at Pearl well too, in particular Ian Smallridge who has been there since the beginning, but I still think it was a stupid decision to allow this matter to end up in court. I do wonder whether it was his decision to do this or whether he was being pushed by the owners of the company
 
if that is the case I would pass your details to Pearl and they can appeal.

Knowing the bay well I would think that entering at planning speed would be pretty anti social as to get to the rocks you would have to pass many anchored boats who would not take kindly to that.

But he is Russian I suppose!

Entering at Planning speed would however make more sense as the rocks are well marked on the chart and with markers ( says I who one ran aground on Bramble Bank !)
 
Deleted User said:
We liked the 60 too; in fact we got close to buying one once. The only thing that lets it down, like all aft cabin boats, is lack of lazarette storage but otherwise we found it to be an excellent design with great attention to detail.
Click to expand...

Same for us - we too thought it a bit small
AFAIK, the 60 was a 55 with a huge hi/lo bathing platform
As you say, the storage on the boat was hopeless but looked very well finished.
We actually had a sea trial of one and Ian was the skipper on that occasion.
I found him a really helpful guy - willing to give me some useful handling tips - I believe he used to be a professional skipper based in the Balearics.
 
Yep, that sounds about right, as far as we could tell a 60 is indeed a 55 with the Hi-Lo and slightly different mouldings in the cockpit aft 1/4's giving the 60 a decent locker each side with a really good extra bit for sitting on, it was those two things that made it a 60 for us over a 55. we thought the 60 platform area was necessary if you have any tender on there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top