Bad Experience with Sea Tow; Sag Harbor

There's a thread about Sea Tow on Offshoreonly.com. Not one post said anything good about their business practices.

Thankfully that hasn't been my experience although I've only had to call on them twice, and both times it was only to deliver fuel (you'd think I'd learn not to believe an owner ). The first time was nothing, but the 2nd time they came out in 6' seas and 25kt winds and were there pretty quick. That was about 15 miles north/east of Atlantic CIty. That's why this situation surprised me so much and I had hoped to hear an explanation.

Edited by Moderator: Marmot, there's no need to resort to personal attacks and childish name calling.

"personal attacks and childish name calling."

Must have missed something in the translation since there was no ad hominum attack or other personal reference. I suggest a reread. The post was a professional observation of the lack of competence of a boater making serious and repetitive errors of judgment.

Let me rephrase this in a "lessons learned" type of reference.

"I've only had to call on them twice, and both times it was only to deliver fuel (you'd think I'd learn not to believe an owner).

In the aviation industry a pilot who runs out of fuel because he didn't check it is usually loses his license. The second time (if he survives the first) may lead to fines or even incarceration.

"The first time was nothing, but the 2nd time they came out in 6' seas and 25kt winds and were there pretty quick."

As a professional mariner I find it absolutely unbelievable that a licensed "captain" would leave the dock without knowing how much fuel is onboard, not just once but twice and dismiss the events so lightly. This is a valid foundation for a license action and in the event of a serious casualty in the future will become part of the evidentiary record of poor judgment and reckless operation.

That is neither personal nor childish name calling, it is a professional observation from one who has spent a career making such judgments and observations.

Must be quite a burden being so perfect.

Unlike some all-knowing individuals that we all love and respect with all our hearts, some of us actually defer to the knowledge of others who are in a more knowledgable position on occassion. When the owner of a boat that you've never run tells you that it will make Newport to Atlantic City since he has run several times from Newport to Cape May with fuel left over, and the figures are within the rhelm of reason one tends to believe him since exact figures are not available. When he overstates the fuel capacity by 40 gals. that also doesn't help. Of course afterwards he say "maybe it was Montauk to Atlantic City". Next time may I please call you to save me from these horrendous lapses in judgement?

"Must be quite a burden being so perfect."

Far less a burden than explaining runnng out of fuel to the CG MSO or insurance company. And far far less than defending it in a wrongful death suit.

Try as anyone might, there simply is no excuse for leaving port with insufficient fuel to complete a planned voyage. That is not rocket science or superior character, it is basic seamanship.

I apologize to you Marmot and will humbly deliver my license to you personally in the near future. Please don't have me arrested for murder though. I ignorantly just wasn't aware that the other master I was traveling with (Who happened to be the one who contracted for the job) had died. "defending it in a wrongful death suit". Foolish me, I thought we had dinner at Hooters that night.
Will you please now stop wasting every one's time with your inane ramblings.
I promise that I will endeavor to be as perfect as you when I grow up.

On our first boat when I was a kid, we had an engine we always ran out of fuel with. We had to, since the tank was too small for one trip. It was terrible to restart when hot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GraCwhYPO8&feature=related

" ...We had to, since the tank was too small for one trip."

Ah, but you carried enough fuel to refill and complete the trip and didn't have to call for assistance. Even as a "kid" you recognized that was good seamanship.

I think Lars was trying to diffuse the thread with a little humor. Let's all try to keep in mind... we're humans. Humans make mistakes. And we're all obligated to laugh at each other.

Returning to the original post, this presents some interesting facets. If we are to assume the information presented is factual, after removing the editiorial comments we have:

There crew was rescued and in no danger
The vessel was abandoned and awash
The owner of the Hinckley is a member of Sea Tow
The first boat on the scene was Towboat US
A third party ordered Towboat US to stand off
Sea Tow arrived
A third party ordered Sea Tow to standoff
The third party then permitted Towboat US to salvage the boat
Towboat US lacked an oil boom
Sea Tow had a boom
Sea Tow denied the use of the boom
Towboat US successfully salvaged the boat

This looks like a good one for the courts. What is interesting is that a good samaritan or third party apparently contracted with a towing company for salvage of the boat.

The owner had a prior arrangement with Sea Tow which would have limited the costs to the contract rate. Towboat US could claim to have acted as a salvor since the boat was obviously in peril, the owner or captain was not aboard, and no prior business arrangement seems to have been in effect.

Did the good samaritan/third party or other representative of the owner verbally agree on the cost of services before allowing Towboat US to salvage the boat?

Could the owner's insurers come back on the third party for recovery of salvage costs if Towboat US made such a claim?

Who made the decisions on behalf of the owner?

Do "good samaritan" laws apply after crew has been rescued and no threat to life exists? Do good samaritan laws cover business decisions unrelated to threats to life and the environment?

Sea Tow seems to have really dropped the ball. If oil was leaking from the boat and they had a boom they could have, and probably should have, immediately placed it regardless of what any bystander had to say. Their efforts to minimize pollution risk would have been repaid and if I am not mistaken, there is provision for additional payment in such cases. Prevention of pollution is an over-riding concern after the immediate threat to life is eliminated.

SeaTow's Membership Guide is available online (at least, their 2007 edition is)

http://seatow.com/membership/memberguide.pdf

"your post has one BIG flaw. Sea Tow (or BoatUS or any other such tow insurance) NEVER covers salvage situations... "

If you mean to say that tow insurance does not cover salvage claims,then that is of course the entire purpose of tow insurance, to establish a prior business agreement that precludes a salvage claim. The point I made was that since no prior business agreeement existed between the owner and Towboat US, the salvor, Towboat US, may have a valid claim if they choose to file it rather than accept a tow fee.

It appears to me that in this case the owner's underwriters may reasonably ask why Sea Tow, whose fees were limited to towing, was ordered to standoff while another salvor with whom the owner had no preexisting contract was authorized by a third party to salvage the vessel.

That "window" is wide open.

The following is a quote by Sea Tow captain Les Hall in an article titles "The Business of Salvage" copyrighted by Sea Tow Services International in 1997:

"Did the salvors of your two million dollar yacht meet these requirements? Was your vessel in peril? Yes. Was there a preexisting contract? No. Were the salvors successful? Yes. We therefore have a valid salvage claim. You may say, "I didn't authorize them to salvage my boat." By virtue of the fact that you allowed them on board, you authorized them to proceed. In fact, had you not permitted them on board, your insurance company might say that you did not attempt to mitigate the damages and refuse to pay a sizable portion of your claim."

From: http://www.floridalawyer.com/news/news-practical.html

"The good news is that LOCs were recently held unenforceable when the salvor and boat owner are both U.S. citizens, and the salvage incident took place in U.S. waters. That was the rule imposed after Sea Tow of Freeport, NY asked a boat owner to sign a LOC in the dark of night, without his reading glasses and when Sea Tow assured him that his insurance company, Boat/U.S. “was familiar” with the contract. To sweeten the deal, Sea Tow wouldn’t let him call his lawyer and said that if he didn’t sign, the company would strand him on the beach. See, Jones v. Sea Tow Servs. Freeport NY, 30 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 1994)."

Also see PHILLIPS v. SEA TOW (7/25/2003) in the link below
http://www.wcslaw.com/publications.asp?artID=106

There are probably many more examples but that should be enough to establish that Sea Tow does indeed make and defend salvage claims.

Good to be back on point, and good point Marmot. I believe that the tow/salvage would be operating at their own peril (although under the laws of salvage since the boat was sunk) if they took orders from anybody not authorized by the owner unless they could show that that person had in fact convinced them that he was the authorized representative (signed contract or at least a verbal statement the he was the owner's captain or representative. I'd prefer the signature.). Otherwise I think Ken may have been acting only as the owners advisor which is more likely.

Salvors always operate at their own peril, they become responsible for their actions in attempting a salvage. That is above and beyond the "no cure no pay" aspect. If they cause damage they are responsible for it and those costs are deducted from any award. If they fail in a good effort they are not liable, they just don't get paid.

Based on the minimal facts available, it looks like a real mess for everyone involved.

The first guy to show up was told by a bystander to standoff.

He could have put a line on the boat and been within rights to do so as the first to arrive at an abandoned vessel in peril.

He obeyed the directives of a bystander who may or may not have had any legal standing in the affair.

If no one else had a line on the boat when Sea Tow showed up he should have deployed his boom in an effort to minimize environmental damage. He would have been well rewarded and had every right to put a line on an abandoned vessel in peril and attempt to salvage it. At the time he arrived there was apparently nothing going on other than a bystander telling potential salvors to standoff.

I bet the lawyers from the insurance company and the salvor are rubbing their hands with glee over this one.

Does anyone know if the salvor used flotation bags to get the boat to the beach? Or did they just tow it semisubmerged? The picture shows what might be bags. If they did use bags it could effect the outcome of any court finding if it makes it that far.

Stay tuned to this one, it might be interesting and could provide some good "lessons learned" content in a ship's management class.

I really feel that the salvage laws need some revisioning for situations like this. It is one thing if a vessel goes down in 150 feet of water and they salvage it. By all means they should get a percentage of the vessels value. BUT, in a situation where the vessel has run aground, or sunk in shallow water, I don't really think it is ethical to how they can claim a percentage of the vessel's value and this and that. It should be more a time and materials basis when the entire salvage is done in 1/2 a day and the vessel could sit where it's at for a few days with no further damage. I have seen a few tow companies claim a salvage on a vessel when it was nothing more then throwing a portable pump in the boat and towing it to a yard to be hauled out, which is not fair to the owner IMO.

I think whats great about this thread is that as captains we really need to brush up on the implications of salvage and towing. This is a very important aspect of being a captain if the unmentionable happens. We all make mistakes but it's how you deal with the mistakes that separates the pros from everyone else.

Roger