Bertram 630 Sportfish Sinks?

We are now going back over material we've already covered- the buoy and why it is relatively intact. This thread is no longer on topic really. Those that have joined recently will stay if they want good information about "our" core (no pun intended) subjects here as this is a great resource.
I learned it was also Perhaps Another Diving Idiot. I've seen at least a dozen people bent on a single 80, and taken over 10K people diving as a guide or instructor, most of them on STT where we took average tourists (not certified) diving off the cruise ships, up to 200 a day. Resort course are safe, usually, but as someone said- it's the individual taking you, not the company that backs them.

That's what I thought, that is an incorrect assumption.

It's not the issue that replaces the boat though. The issue that replaces the boat is Marine Max arranging the delivery and not making sure it was insured. Since they supplied the captain, they hold liability for his negligence as well (Respondeat Superior). The primary failure here was that the vessel was not insured for the trip it took.

I could not recommend to any of my clients a Ferretti or Bertram boat or anything sold by Marine Max or any of their services at this point. Boats are complex structures and there will be things that go wrong. It's how one handles the things that go wrong that is the issue. Marine Max is handling this all wrong as is the corporate body at Ferretti-Bertram who should be backing the buyer against the dealer.

As I've stated many times, I still think it's possible that the buoy chain was involved in the incident? A picture of the chain, would lay this theory to rest?

Also, not to have insurance is the owners fault and really dumb. I just bought my boat and hired a captain to run it for me and there was NO way, I would have bought it without binding insurance first.

This was a major mistake on the owners part, this was not Marine Max's responsibility. I just can't believe anybody wouldn't get insurance. The only thong that might save the owner, is that it is told that the captain was from Marine Max. If the captain was an employee of Marine Max, I bet ya, the loss will ultimately be covered under Marine Max's insurance?

If Marine Max handled the delivery and supplied the captain, then it is their liability unless waived by the owner. From earlier posts of information, there was insurance in place, it just didn't cover the correct geographic boundaries because the Dockwise schedule was changed and the vessel was no longer going to Newport, the trip the insurance was bound for, and instead had to go to So Fla, a trip it was not bound for (the insurance probably expired at Cape Hatteras) and no one thought about checking the insurance. The Captain is liable for making sure ALL the paperwork is correct on the prevoyage check. The captain is the professional here (as is the Broker), so the question is who provided the captain? The captain has an extensive relationship with Marine Max, so it will be hard for them to argue to a jury convincingly that they did not supply the captain. The captain is on the hook at this point for $1.8MM, if Marine Max supplied the captain, Respondeat Superior says they are responsible for him. For those that argue that the captain isn't responsible to make sure the paperwork was correct have not seen many court findings. The captain is responsible for everything concerning the operation of the vessel. Unless he has a waiver signed by the owner that says "take the vessel uninsured", he's on the hook for it.

A captains primary duty is to shield the owner from liability and loss. Everything we do is to meet those ends. As I always tell people, as captain the easiest and least important thing I do is drive the boat.

may be Bertram would, but seeing how this event was badly publicized since the beginning as the fault being that of the boat, why should they.
In my experience with Ferretti Group (never with Bertram) they handle it quite well, and actually they step above dealers normally, something most of the builders would not...
with Certifiable Bertram handled it very well, but the owner I think never went guns blazing against Bertram. Something which happened in this case. And may be the insurance issue has something to do with it too...
The owner seeing what happened and what was reported had all the rights in the world to do this, but don't accept it to be easy then

what is with this constant terminology ''captain''..... he was just a man paid to deliver a boat....there are not any laws against just about any body getting paid to run a boat that size that is not carrying freight or passengers for hire..

rc, pardon me for saying but there seems to be a fly in your ointment.

A boat traveling at 25kts is moving around 40'/second. A 63' boat at that speed would have traveled its entire length in about 1.5 seconds.

For the sake of this discussion if one were to assume that the buoy struck the boat right at the bow (not likely) the buoy would only have had around .75 seconds to be pushed down then another .75 seconds for it to rise up and get entangled in the boat's running gear. Any times longer than those and the boat would have passed completely over the buoy and gone on its way before the buoy could rise up to get entangled.

Aside from the fact that the photos do not show any damage to the rudder, the speed and times involved make your suggestion doubtful.

Financial situation

What I originally did not understand was Bertram/Ferritti/Marine Max's attitude and handling of this case. Assuming, as you say, there is some sort of dispute with whether or who is "insured" it still comes down to a MAJOR boat conglomerate (how many brands have Ferritti swallowed up in the last 10 years?) ducking for cover when they would HAVE to know in this internet age, the massive negative publicity=loss of sales/revenue it will cause. A loss far higher than one 630, yet they will SELL a replacement!
Seems to me that, just maybe Ferritti is already looking for the EXIT and was doing so way before this incident. What is one dissatified client count when the red ink is blotting the balance sheet? I would not want to be one of their creditors!

With what a wonderful thing this forums are, the same question of mine was somewhat enforced by this thread:
http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/ferretti-yacht/10620-ferretti-financial-difficulty.html
Seems like their actual creditors would not want to be their creditors about a year ago already.

The funny thing is the whole "bashing" story. What other public reaction F/B/MM expected handling it all in this manner? A used display boat at full price as a replacement for the new one? O RLY??? It's not about who would want to be their investor, it's about who would want to be their customer.

Marine Max is not anymore the Bertram dealer, since they took over Allied Marine
actually Norberto and his partners bought back all the Group last Summer from that bank and financial company mess and he is now the major share holder.

I read in an interview on magazine Nautica where he stated Bertram is not for sale, this was a direct question to a rumour. Norberto said that they want to sell the facility where Bertram is because it is too large, and is not conveniant to build bigger boats. He said they have been trynig to move in the last two years. The brand name molds etc are not for sale. I think Shazam said this on this post but according to Mr. Ferretti it is not.
The interview also asked about Riva, where he said over my dead body.
Itama also rumoured for sale, is not. Again as stated in this interview.

The only Ferretti Group brand for sale is Apreamare.

you can read the interview here: http://www.ebook.nautica.eu/nautica-international-2009-4.htm

On the second thought, there are some things in owner's statement that subtly bug me too. It is very detailed on things that hardly really matter, and very vague on those that do. Just out of the top of my mind:
- What was in "pre-purchase survey"? (people in video thread talk about wiring inside the core, clearly that's something that can be picked up in survey)
- Was the delivery arranged by Marine Max? Who was responsible for the ship at the time of delivery?
- Was the boat insured? (I know we're almost sure it wasnt, but still) Who was responsible for arranging insurance?
- What is the distance between mayday coordinates and those of a reef?
- Given their warranty claim, was reasons Bertram cited for refusing it outside court?

And probably some others I miss. What I mean is, while I do not see obvious BS here (unlike in you-know-what), it's still a little... little strange.

Because people understand product quality issues and can forgive them if they see an effort to correct them. It is much less easy to forgive a corporate culture that screws the customer.

I went back and reviewed the pictures. I stand corrected about the rudder post. Thank you.

Any man that is getting paid or compensated in anyway to run a vessel is required to be a licensed Captain.

A licensed Captain is solely responsible for the safety of the vessel, crew, and cargo (or people).

From the video, that looks like hard landing damage. I would think that a 25 KT hooking on the chain would have removed it entirely rather than just bending it and dislodging the post from the transom.

Product quality issues occur from time to time with any assembled piece of machinery. How the manufacturer handles potential product quality issues publicly and privately is what builds or breaks reputations, and managed public perception can salvage far more business value than the dollars and cents of taking a hard line in the face of questions.

The immediate refuting of any possibility of product failure before full investigation gives the appearance of impropriety (guilty conscience). Image is everything in public relations, and Bertram screwed the pooch on this one - even if they are found entirely blameless.

It would be a crying shame to see such a reputable and storied builder go down in flames. Sadly, they are only fueling that exact fire.

I agree and feel the vessel first rested on the rudder and the weight and speed of the vessel bent it.