part 2: Northern Marine 90' Yacht Capsizes Upon Launch...!

Supposedly back to New World's / Northern property. Back to whence it came. But doesn't mean any work being done or any issues resolved.

I agree...I can't even fathom how any work will ever be done until all of the legal issues surrounding this, as well as financial issues, are put to bed. I am curious as to why they moved the boat....will update when I get a report back.

Why move it? Perhaps because the owners of the property didn't want it left there. Perhaps because they didn't want to incur additional costs and perhaps the insurer wanted it moved. Also could have been lawyer advised.

But obviously no work when they sent all their employees home and basically said they couldn't do anymore work until they got paid more by someone.

This will drag on for a long time.

Insurance

Just for information, while I haven't seen a contract on the 90' build, I have seen one on another of their recent builds and here is a summary of the insurance clause from that.

The responsibility for insurance is with the builder who must insure for "full replacement failure to the date of any loss or damage" with an insurer acceptable to the owner (buyer) and showing them also as a co insured. In the event of repairable damage all proceeds are applied to making those repairs. In the event of a "constructive total loss", the boat shall not be repaired.

Also another point is that this was not the only boat sold at what would appear to be an absurdly low price. I don't see how they could possibly afford to build a fully equipped 78' for $1.9 million and still make a profit on it. Now that becomes relevant to this boat, one for wonder of why a buyer wouldn't have hesitancy, but also because determinating full replacement failure could be very difficult.

"Why move it? Perhaps because the owners of the property didn't want it left there ( You want a large hazard waste pile abandoned on your property? ,rc ). Perhaps because they didn't want to incur additional costs and perhaps the insurer wanted it moved. Also could have been lawyer advised."

Perhaps it belongs to New World/Northern. Where else would you put your only asset, to be divided up by the courts later.

No I don't want it abandoned on my property and, if it is, I'm going to charge dearly.

Well, if it's like the other contracts both New World then what happens is dictated first by the extent to which the loss is claimed. If total, then insurance payout should go to buyer, at least to the extent of their payments. If partial, however, appears the money is to be used to rebuild. Would New World bring crew on to do so? Would the money go to another builder or to the buyer to get that done?

Another big question if I'm the insurer is why no one took any steps to reduce any loss. There are also clauses in the contract regarding not just bankruptcy but also the builder ceasing to do business. I'm sure most would say they've done so while they might claim they're still doing business, just don't have any.

Determining value of the loss for the insurer would be extremely difficult as it appears the cost of replacing it is more than the contract.

Often in a case of co-insured there is a fight over who is due what and if the parties can't agree the insurer sits back until the courts decide.

Then there is always the issue of whether there was any negligence, if so was it gross to a legal definition, and if so how does it impact the insurer's responsibility.

Plus you have other possibilities such as New World saying they can repair it and the buyer saying no way in heck do they want it. And just to toss one more issue. There is often a clause of law involving attempting to mitigate damages. In this case had something been done immediately perhaps there would have been some salvage value of the equipment but I'd not think there is any now.

And what about the contract between New World and Northern? Are all payments being made or is Northern perhaps going to get re-involved in this nightmare on Anacortes at some point?

I posted photos of the move here: Trawler Forum - View Single Post - Northern Marine Incident

Incidentally, Naval Architect Tad Roberts had a review of the Roddan engineering report and makes some interesting discoveries about he sees as a few glaring errors. You can see his opinion posted on the above thread as well.

Loose thought

Some questions. Not sure where I'm going with it either.

The supposed ballast already in the hull, What kind, shape, where placed and how secured?

If it was loose blocks, unsecured (knowing more would be added) then quickly shifted to port by a bad ramp launch, then a real bad roll to port; cause this event?

Maybe they had it on a rolling dolly in the full beam master suite. Even unsecured you'd expect it to be low enough that its movement would be hindered by longitudinal stiffeners, bulkheads, tank walls, anything really. I had the same thought when I first saw it going over, but if it were easily shifted/unsecured ballast you would think that the CG would let them shift it back while it was in the straps before running their stability test.

That was what I thought as well. When they loosened the straps, she wanted to turn turtle again, so if the ballast she had was that movable, one would have thought somebody would have moved it before seeing if she would float upright. What struck me in the stability report is that vanishing stability would occur, even if ballasted with the addition tonnage, at 65 degrees. I realize it is unlikely for a vessel of that size to be in a situation where that much heel is induced, but it sure isn't impossible, nor hard to imagine. Personally, that would not be sufficient for me, and I gather that it is on the extreme end of minimum, but perhaps other's opinions will differ.

That isn't what I would chose in a boat, but it's not completely unreasonable either. Honestly how often do you get a 65 degree heel? It's not like they will be going out into the bering sea in december or rounding the cape of good hope in it. If you pay attention to the weather and stick to common yachting grounds it's not going to be a likely occurrence, and there are a ton of motor boats out there that wouldn't be able to handle that kind of heel. As I understand it the deck house is rarely considered as anything but dead weight in the stability calculations, which are done just on the hull. If the windows don't bust out when you go over that's a lot of reserve buoyancy to help set her upright again. At that point it becomes a matter of securing all the loose material in the interior. When you are out in foul conditions getting banged up inside of the boat is a serious concern regardless of ultimate stability. Given her limitations I wouldn't call her the ultimate go anywhere boat, but it's not like she would be markedly unsafe in heavy conditions compared to a production sport boat in her size range.

This is of course all based on her hypothetical characteristics, rather than her actual characteristics. Her actual point of vanishing stability seems to be somewhere less than 30 degrees of heel. If a production sport yacht turned turtle on launch that would be a real shock.

Has anyone been back to the ramp to mark the "hole"
I think that would be a nice gesture to help prevent another $ 1.9 million catastrophe.

I don't think that was reasonably the problem, although that is what NM said. The port fin, which supposedly she tripped over when it fell into the "hole" was undamaged, or least appeared so from 50 yards away through binocs.

You do realize that you're talking about an Expedition yacht designed or intended to travel around the world on it's own bottom, including doing things like going around the Cape of Good Hope.

As a point of reference, Tad Roberts says he did a stability model for the Diesel Duck and a Nordhavn 55. Both had vanishing stability at around 95 degrees, so I doubt that there are many boats designed for blue water with less stability. If there are, count me out as crew.

Capt J is referring to Opcn's comment, "It's not like they will be going out into the bering sea in december or rounding the cape of good hope in it." The issue being that the builder did promote this model as an expedition capable ocean cruiser.

Hi,

Was this same HOS promoted as being to accomplish these voyages in winter and or storm force conditions?

I have been around the world several times on a variety of vessels in a variet of conditions, I am yet to experience a 65 deg roll.

The closest would be a 26m Sailboat given a really good knock North of Cap Corse in a Mistral

I think this was billed as a go anywhere do anything expedition yacht, but I doubt that it was designed or intended for that purpose. Narrow beam, tall superstructure, waterline windows, a storm chaser she is not . A blue water crossing on its own bottom? Sure. A few days transiting a canal and then another crossing? Absolutely, I'm sure she will be up to the task if she ever stops doing barrel rolls.

1.9 Million??

Where did you find a 78' Northern Marine/New World for $1.9 Million? I spoke with them last year, about a new boat, and the price was way higher!!!! Was yours a typo? I also looked to buy Blood Baron. Price was too high so LUCKILY I passed.

That was the actual price of the one that is in litigation and hasn't been completed, per the contract that is part of the court records. Now it was supposed to be finished long ago. So, no, mine wasn't a typo. I think there was a good bit of "Let's Make a Deal." Builders struggling to survive or with no business do some pretty drastic things sometimes. But a buyer should think that "When it seems too good to be true, it probably is." I'm more fearful of buying when the price is too low than when it's too high.