VIDEO - Sunk Bertram Discussion

As, IMO, it should. With several years and 500 hrs of operation, the boat is no longer under warranty, and again, it was operated in the care and custody of Marine Max for that time sustaining unknown damages. It will not be hard to get credible expert witness testimony stating that there was pre-existing damage. I do believe there were issues with the build of the hull, but since Bertram is under different ownership and management now, it will depend on how the transfer of the ownership happened and the laws pertaining to continued liability as to whether Bertram as it exists now can even be held liable for that hull, though since I didn't see that listed in their arguments, I'm assuming so, but that will require a separate suit between MM and Bertram if the buyers suit goes against MM.

If only the captain had done his job correctly and checked the paper work on pre-sail as he should have, this whole step of the mess could have been avoided.

I think you hit the nail on the head except that not only MM is getting that same advice (Bertram & the captain as well), and you don't do what your insurance company and lawyer tell you not to. Period. BTW, it's a safe bet that the insurance companies and lawyers were involved from day one which is why things were handled as they were by all parties.
Beau also nailed it. Post's actions (if as stated) borders on fraud.

So this hull was not built while Bertram was under the ownership of Ferretti?
I missed that part along the way...
That changes a lot if so and would put the ball in MM's court in my mind too.
Interesting point about the companies only being able to say/do what the insurance lawyers say they can. That would be frustrating as a company owner while all this is going on.

on the Post thing... In my 20+ years in this business I have seen that scenario several times. "you are the only one having this problem" is the standard first answer. While the dealer is trying to fix an engineering problem the builder denies all, then later comes up with a fix campaign for a problem that "only you" had. I was involved in several of these from a company that starts with B as in bowling ball.. ;-) (not Bertram)

What kills me about this whole thing is that I always felt that Bertram was the model for all boat companies to follow. I would love to find out that this was not their fault.

The problem is that the scenarios so far are not plausible enough to explain what happened.
NYCap seems to know a thing or two about the captain and the MM situation.
The boat was 4yrs old and could have had major substandard repairs done to it. Captain error? I can't imagine how you u can do that to a boat without hitting something huge at speed.

From what I was reading earlier in the other thread, Ferretti has changed hands back to old man Ferretti since the construction of that boat. As I said, I'm not aware as to the auspices of that deal and the implications toward continued liability, but since they didn't use that in their defense, I'm doubting that that avenue of denial exists. Typically, in order for that separation to exist, the exchange has to happen under some form of bankruptcy reorganization, but I don't know Italian law well enough to do more than speculate on it.

Yeah, that's just it, the business was built by Dick Bertram and people assumed that the reputation that he and his boats garnered would carry on after him. Well, as often happens when a family business with a sterling reputation gets absorbed into an international conglomerate, that company trades on that reputation without the commitment and ethics that earned it, and I fear that is what has happenned to Bertram. Hopefully the Bertram marque will be retired before the Bertram name becomes synonymous with Mudd.

It's not a quality not quantity thing. Viking had boats effected with the same gelcoat from that era. The one I ran had cracking issues in a lot more places then the cockpit and Post paid to have the whole boat Awlgripped. There is a well respected sportfish manufacturer that has a lot of 2006 and newer sportfishes running around with blister problems on the bottom because they changed gelcoat, and well sometimes it takes a few years for issues to pop up.

As for the Bertram, Dealer demo boats usually retain full warranty when they are sold to the customer. Viking transferred full warranty and also Cabo to the boats Galati used as tournament boats and demo's for a few years because it's good advertising for the companies and it's still an untitled boat.......as do most engine manufacturers.......Some "new" boats acrue that many hours just on the delivery to the US from where they're made.

Ferretti Group aquired Bertram in 1998. This is the current situation of the Ferretti Group as quoted from the website:

You can read some of the Group's history here:
http://www.*****************/Lazienda/Lastoria/tabid/63/idItem/44/language/en-US/Default.aspx

This change happened when the previous major share holders defaulted a payment a year ago. Previous to this buyout Norberto Ferretti and management had a 10% share in the company.

It will be good for someone to go to the Ferretti Group press release next Thursday in Miami Boat Show and ask some questions about this mess with the Bertram brand.

CaptJ: Let me be clear, I think my Post is a solid boat and well made, and I would never expect any boat to be error/defect free! My issue, and the only reason I intruded on this thread when the discussion was about PR, is with management's mismangement of my problem. In my opinion, the top guy at Post and his production manager outright lied about an existing problem. From a marketing point of view that was short sighted and bad management. That's conduct I would expect of the "C" manufacurers. One of the reasons we all pay for "quality" is that we expect some customer assistance after the money is exchanged. Russell Post knew that and it was part of his brand. Trust is the commodity this management team has lost with me, and I would not buy another Post because of that. All I was looking for was genuine assistance; instead they sent me to their lawyer! My boat is located right in the prime of their marketing area, why would they work so hard to create a PR monster like me?

So, if I have this right, FEB has been making the boats from 1998 onwards. I thought it was 2008 onwards? Can someone clear up that they had full control of the company from a certain date (unless that’s it)? If so, they drop the ball twice in 2006 - Certifiable and Absolutely.

Also, they say the boat wasn’t built for the tournaments/chartering. But it should still be able to take on 3-4’ any day of the week regardless of the strength?

I’m pretty sure they will not answer any questions in relation to the…. Sinking.

Far

As far as I heard it was 2003 or 2004 that Feretti took over Bertram, but I'm not sure. I've also heard that all of the Bertrams where the fuel tank makes up the foward engine room bulkhead are Ferretti designs.....

Back in the late 90's I was hired to go to Jamaica to oversee the repair and then delivery of a 61 Hatt CPMY. The owner and his captain were fishing a tournament out of Port Antonio. The owner stated that they were trolling when a 5-7' wave "slapped" the port bow area. Not thinking anything of it, they continued fishing until the highwater bilge alarm went off and they returned to port.

Here's what they found, and I supervised in repair (after the captain "bailed" on the owner). The hull to deck joint failed and the deck lifted as the port hull stoved in only to hang up on stainless fasteners for the stanchions, which lead to the injestation of water. The deck lifted 8 feet aft from the port bow and 5 feet aft from the stbd bow with glass damage to the port bow hull. Complete seperation of the tabbing away from the damage area.

These guys were trolling at what, 8-10 knots? So it was not like they were pushing the boat. I've never seen anything like this in 30 years.

Yes Ferretti did do the infront of engine room midship fuel tank design. They did not like the much bow high ride in previous aft fuel tanks format, especially full. I know an owner who owns a 570 after a 54, and according to him he prefers the way the newer model rides, and that is saying something considering the fame of the 54. He told me it is a bit wet at full fuel tanks with head quatering seas, but once you get rid of the first 20% it rides like a dream.
No Ferretti aquired Bertram in October 1998, you can read it all in the official Bertram site in the history section.
The Ferretti Zuccon designed Bertrams production started the following year:
1999 390 - based on the 37 hull
1999 510 - 50 hull
2000 450 - 43 hull
2001 670 - I think it is a new design
2002 570 - 54 hull
2003 630 - I think it is a new design too but based a lot on the old 60
2005 360 - based on the 33 in some parts, mostly forward sections
2007 410 - new hull
2007 700 - based on 670
2008 540 - new hull
2009 511 - is the 50/510 hull
510 is the most sold so far with over ninety deliveries.

I also heard a rumour that FG also produced a couple of the old designs in the first period of the ownershup like a couple of 54s and 60s.

The question here is not if Ferretti Group owned Bertram, but who had major share holding in FG. Ferretti always owned Bertram since 1998 there is no question for this.
Ferretti Group but did change major ownership four times since 1998 with Norberto Ferretti always chairman but having his shareholding reduced in the period 2002 up to 2009.
2002 Permira becomes the major share holder, in 2006 Candover becomes the majore SH. January 2009 Candover defaults, and NF with Mediobanca buys the Group back the past Summer.

Was that damage as similar to the Bertram's as it sounds?

Interesting that after hundreds of 'guesses' at what happened to the 63, this group came up with a scenario almost identical to your story about this Hatt.
They were and still are just "guesses" but from an educated and experienced group. Maybe some day we will find out if we were right or not.

4yrs is a lot of time for things to have happened to that boat. Hard docking, improper storage, freezing of wet core... I wonder how throughly that boat was surveyed before it sold. Up high on the bow is not an area most surveyors I know pay much attention to. I could see how a problem up there could easily be missed.
I do understand Bertram's point on this issue. That boat had been out of their hands and control for quite some time.
If something had happened to the hull to deck joint during that time, i guess you could still have this same scenario but the root cause was not faulty construction.
We had a call from a Bluewater 52 out here that was taking on water fast after "slapping a wave". he drove it straight to us and we hauled it out.
What we found was a closet wall sticking out through the bottom of the boat.
This was a fully cored hull (bottom too) (balsa), and the core had rotted away. The bottom had no strength. The wave pushed the bottom up and into the corner of a closet wall that poked right through it. Later, we found out that this boat had previously had a leak in the forward a/c unit water line that had gone unfixed for some time and the boat spent lots of time with high water in the fwd bilge. I think that water got into the core from inside and was never addressed and was actually the root cause of the hull failure on that boat. If the water leak had been fixed quickly, the hull failure would likely have never occurred.
We repaired the boat by removing a large area of outer skin, removing all the wet core and replacing with new, then re-laminating the bottom.
Service history and the survey could change this story a lot.

Maybe Betram / Ferretti think they are right or will prevail by throwing everything to see what might stick. But its a mistake even if it is owner operator error. It's obvious to me that I don't want to deal with a company like that. 500 hours in four years is not excessive use. It's not even a lot. The discussion around my yacht club this year will be stay away from their boats and if you have one hope you don't have a problem because they won't stand behind it and will seek to blame you first. You can argue all you want about buoys or poor construction but it doesn't matter. Bottom line is stay away from their boats and you won't have the problems.

Their response stands alone from the incident. "We didn't do anything wrong and even if we did and you prove it we'll figure out some thing you did wrong so we can get out of it."

Who would advise their friend to deal with a company like that?

maybe i'm playing amateur detective here, but why don't you see any personal gear anywhere? you would think on a 60' sportfish you would find a hat, or a jacket, or even a fishing pole amongst the wreckage.

The yacht was "new" on tour to it´s new owner. So, not much of personal gear to be found.

You're friend has been doing A LOT of DREAMING. I've run a 54' Bertram and it was great, you can ALWAYS get the bow down with trim tabs, but cannot get it up. I ran a 2005 57' Bertram SF and put around 1500 NM on her over the course of 4 months. It was wetter then a submarine. If the holding tank was full, it was even worse. Full fuel it would throw a 5 gallon bucket of water on the bridge strataglass in 3-5ft seas (or less) every 5 minutes. It started running better when it had 50% fuel, but even then would throw a 5 gallon bucket on the strataglass every 20 minutes at cruise. It rode so flat that even in moderate seas......every once in a while it would just nose dive into a wave. Mine only had 1 generator and not the optional 2nd one in the rear of the ER. With the owner on board I purposefully ran the boat with 700 gallons of fuel on board or less. The center of gravity was just too far foward. The boat was fast 31 knots at 1950 with 1300hp MAN's......

The boat then spent 6 months at Allied Marine and then the Bertram Factory having all of the stringer to bulkhead tabbing fixed throughout the boat 4 months after the owner taking delivery. This was early 2006.

Really, interesting, that kind of ends a question of mine.

Also, I’ve heard two things that might be of interests and up for comments, 1 – The engineer got ask to leave in 2008, which I think I’ve already mentioned. And 2 – The construction specs of the 630 were based on smaller model? So basically the smaller model has been lengthened without more support….?

jhall767, I don’t think that would be the right way to go about it. We don’t know what cards Bertram have. All we have is the boat sank. We don’t know how the boat was treated when with M/M, and what condition the boat was in when the customer purchased the vessel.

And I think the days of ‘the customer is always right’ are long gone, especially in today’s economic climate. Cheers

Far