Bertram 630 Sportfish Sinks?

There are instances of Admiralty Law where the law of salvage permits the owner of a vessel in marine peril to decline the assistance of others so long as only the owner's interests are at stake...and it is the right of the owner of any vessel to refuse unwanted salvage.
When an owner comes forward to assert ownership, the onus is on the (potential) salvor to prove abandonment.

One might believe that there is some serious boilerplate in that classified ad that Capt Tom found.

Unless they have been awarded the wreck by a court they are in no better position than Joe diver. If the insurance company paid off it is none of the owner's or his lawyer's concern, so why has this guy paid to publish a hollow threat?

To make a claim you have to have a presence on the wreck ... that is why a salvor makes sure he is always on the site to guard it, certainly until the courts have awarded the wreck in any event. Considering the time involved, it is unlikely any court has moved so quickly, especially if an insurance company is involved since they are very unlikely to just give up all their interest.

Like I said, unless the owner or his lawyer has a diver on the site or a manned boat attached to it by a line it is abandoned and he is just blowing smoke. I bet there is a good story behind the why of it.

The thing is a piece of junk, it can hardly be worth salvaging by the insurance company ... except in cases where fraud or other suspicious circumstances are involved when has an insurance company bothered to salvage a plastic boat from water much deeper than you can see through?

As long as the owner or his representative is onboard the vessel he can certainly refuse whatever help is offered. Once the owner or representative leaves the vessel, even temporarily, it is abandoned and up for grabs by any salvor regardless of the owner's wishes. A salvor does not need the owner's consent to salvage an abandoned vessel, afloat or sunk. That does not convey ownership to the salvor nor does it relieve the salvor of responsibility for further damage if the vessel is recovered.

There is a difference between ownership and salvage. Abandonment does not mean the owner has lost all rights of ownership. Abandonment means that anyone can salvage the vessel. If there no one is around and the vessel is on the bottom, it is abandoned. If a salvor recovers the wreck he has a legal claim, a lien, on which a court will decide the value. Ownership is never in question as long a the owner shows up to defend his interest.

Simply publishing a threat in a newspaper does not consititute physical presence on a wreck and it does not bar the efforts of a weekend salvor to recover the wreck. It is interesting that the lawyer is entertaining proposals for a salvage contract, that tells us he has no salvor onsite yet. Even if he hired one today, if a weekender gets there first and stands his ground, it is his salvage until he delivers it to the owner or leaves the site.

Lots of speculation in this thread, plus some FACTS:

Thank you for providing a citation to support every point I have been trying to make.

The owner and his blustering mouthpiece can't keep anyone from salvaging an abandoned vessel, and few would deny that a sunken boat 20 miles offshore is not abandoned.

Salvage does not equate to ownership. The owner retains his rights of ownership regardless of who is in possession of the wreck.

It is up to the court to decide how much the salvor will receive for his efforts.

Just because something sinks does not make it abandoned and posting that notice in a local paper does lay the foundation for claim and is that "affirmative step". Doubt you'd find any salvor willing to jump into that hornets nest of legal fees for what's there. It's a safe bet that anybody taking anything from that boat will find themselves facing trespass if not grand larceny charges (sustainable or not). Because this happened before November 15th there also may be questions about insurance coverage as I've seen policies that don't let you south of Wilmington. Certainly, in this economic climate the insurance company won't be fast writing checks. Hauling it to find the cause is a real possibility if they think they might shift liability to the captain, the yard that last serviced the boat or the owner. It's not that deep. BTW, any word about the fuel on board?

I love arguing on the internet.

As a good friend of mines notes in his sig. elsewhere:
"If you don't like it or agree, just go on the internet and complain to people that don't give a sh*t about you, your opinion or your problem"

We got a lotta Captains here--anybody have a chart showing depth 20 NM off Myrtle Beach?

I need to go unpack a different laptop to get a nav. / chart in front of me, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's bordering the reach from standard SCUBA gear.

*edit*
50 to 80 feet.
well within reach.

"
South Carolina's Marine Artificial Reefs

Artificial reef development in South Carolina's coastal and offshore waters is managed through the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division (MRD). The state's Marine Artificial Reef Program, first established in 1973, is a part of the MRD's Office of Fisheries Management (OFM). As of January 1996, the OFM held permits for the continued development of 38 artificial reef construction sites along the South Carolina coast. These sites are located in waters from 9 to 110 feet deep, ranging from inshore locations to areas as far as 35 miles offshore. "
---SC Dept. Natural Resources

One of these, the 'Bill Perry Reef', is 100deg. & 25NM off Murrells Inlet---slightly south of Myrtle Beach---notes a 65 ft. depth.

PropBet wins the cookie.

I hope someone in the area or familiar with the incident will keep us posted on what happens. It sure looks like there is more to this than a simple delivery gone bad ending with a boat sinking and my bet is it has something to do with insurance.

Insurance? The crew would not have been overly encumbered by the thinking process to put their boat down in <100ft of water.

Does anyone know if a track line can be extracted from a GPS that has been submerged in salt water? The reason I ask is that 20 miles off Myrtle Beach looks a bit inside the line from 2FP to the entrance to Port Royal Sound which leaves me to wonder if the short cut across Frying Pan Shoal might have been taken and possibly missed leaving it the item struck.

I was not implying that it was sunk intentionally as "an insurance job." The fact that a lawyer acting on behalf of the owner published that notice just seems peculiar. Besides, the depth doesn't matter much if an underwriter suspects fraud. A few years ago an insurance company sent a submersible down around 2000 feet to look at a sailboat with a fat policy that "took on water" and sank somewhere around Vancouver Island. They found enough evidence to nail the owner.

One would think that when the boat was abandoned it became the underwriter's problem. If no claim has been made to the underwriters you really have to wonder why, or even if there is an underwriter.

The only reason I can see to maintain a claim on a piece of junk plastic is because there is no way to get an insurance check.

We ran down just a few days prior and a friend of mine was headed down the day that the Bert sunk. I spoke with him that night. He said he passed right through the debris field of the wreckage. He was on a course from the Cape Fear River to Charleston. I would think that if the Bert tried to make it through the crack in frying pan shoals and hit bottom they would have put in at Southport. More than likely they were on the same course as my friend leaving Southport and headed to Charleston. Mostly deep water along the course. I would venture a guess that they hit something submerged rather than bottomed out. I would suspect that the insurance co is just doing their investigation as a routine.

One more factor to consider on the diving/salvage angle, is the NTSB going to get involved? Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. If it's a new boat, there may also be the product liability insurer as well as the insurer for the vessel itself wanting to investigate the cause of the sinking. Since the insured party is tasked to make best efforts to secure the property from further damage, the advertisement posted above was most likely a CYA in regards to that duty listed in their policy.

Considering that the notice was published by "...attorneys for owners, John Hughes Cooper, Esquire, John Hughes Cooper, P.C...." and not the underwriters may mean there is no insurance coverage. If a claim was filed the undewriter would assume the role of protecting its interest, not trust it to the insured.

If the boat was insured and no claim was filed before that notice was published maybe the underwriter would be in a position to deny coverage because it was not notified in a timely manner so that it could reduce its risk of damages, or at least place themselves in a position to decide their actions if any.

The NTSB could care less if a sport fishing boat sank with no loss of life. Even if the crew was drowned they would be very unlikely to take notice since it has no impact on the general public. I would be very very surprised if the CG even mentions it beyond their comm logs, much less cares to investigate it.

Actually, the owner is the owner until the insurance company 'buys' the boat. Even then the owner has somewhere between $10,000 and 10% of the boats value (deductable), maybe more, tied up in that boat. It was his call to secure the property until the insurance business is settled.

Isn't that legal notice essentially stating intent to return and recover?

If the boat has been left with the intent to return to it and recover it, is it actually abandoned?

Word around here is the boat hit a container as they came off a wave and the Captain watched a mattress float out from the bow of the boat, the had very little time apparently.