FL Bill to Regulate TowboatUS and SeaTow

PSN:
Derogatory and descriptive are not mutually exclusive. If I were to call someone an overly negtive complaining blowhard troll on a forum...for example, I think that would be considered both descriptive and derogatory.

I did look up a few points before my post, as I wanted to make sure my recollections were correct. I had a business law class a number of years ago, and the professor had a thing for maritime law, so again...2 concepts that are not mutually exclusive....I wasn't clueless, but did look a few things up first. Forgive me, I like to be accurate.

I think a time and materials approach to billing makes sense. You'd be entitled to a higher pay for the riskier stuff, and if it was dark, rainy late at night, etc. But I stand by my comment that the work required is the same whether I have a fancy boat with expensive things, or a stinky old tub. I would also hate to think that a rescuer passed up me in my sinking tub who was in real danger because a brand new Kady Krogen got stuck in the sand when the tide went out, because the KK is more expensive and he stands to profit more.

If 95% of your jobs were time and materials, why not make that the standard with an allowance for exceptional situations. If you do something extraordinary, your compensations should be extraordinary. Have a provision that in rare cases you can charge a kings ransom but it has to be approved by someone other than the salvor, like a court. I have a real problem with the salvor being able to define a situation as salvage, then make up an unreasonably large number to charge the owner, and places a lien on the boat and its all legal. Now, the owner has to go to court for justice, because the salvor is just greedy. The decision to label something as salvage and the amount of the award should not be decided by the person who benefits from those decisions.

SaltyD:
Another faulty argument. Where does it say the only 2 options are that $200/year cover everything, OR Salvage law is fair and equitable ??? No I don't think $200/year should cover raising a sunken vessel or, in fact, have any objection to a salvor being paid very well for the services they provide. But I also think its wrong to apply a law that was created so long ago for commercial vessels to recreational boats. The law was made because it was impossible to get in touch with the owner of a commercial vessel in a timely manner back in the day, and it was important that the owners interests were taken care of. It was to benefit the ship owner. In a recreational boat, the owner is right there.....and if the owner ends up going to court to fight an exhorbitant bill for tens of thousands of dollars, then his interests weren't really served, were they ? If the intent of the law was to protect owners, but owners ( orf recreational boats ) are protesting the solution, the law is either not doing what it was intended to do, or being mis-applied.

Or people think services should be free. If you're not in distress, I mean actual distress, then you should make sure before he hooks a line to your vessel, what his intentions are. It would appear this salvage issues doesn't happen too often, so the law must be doing ok.

Lol I love my arguments are "faulty" because they don't agree with your feelings.

OK, Ill eat crow...unless it was a change after I read it.

After another read, it does allow for salvage in urgent situations without written agreements...but thats the only BBQ crow I will swallow.

It pretty much what I have been doing anyhow... but still there will be "those cases" and the not so arcane courts and law are just fine by me.

And please dont discuss greed. Theres plenty to go around.

Salty: Your argument wasn't faulty because I didn't like it.....you implied that Salvage Laws are OK because a $200/year membership shouldn't be expected to cover everything. Those two concepts are unrelated, and are not either/or choices. Just because membership doesn't cover a rescue, does not mean Salvage Laws are applicable to recreational boating.

PSN..you could ask the opposite as well....does the legislation protect the owner from a twit that wasted his time in court with an outrageous bill and lien ?

yes it does and often does, the new law assigns punative damages in only one direction I see.

did you actually read it?....I think not and its just a rant against windfall profits in a business you dont understand, but can be affected by it. Windfalls are seen in most businesses....most of which take no physical risk.

You dont think I have had this discussion a thousand times over the last 15 years in Assistance towing and some in the USCG?

Then what law should be applied to recreational vessels? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Everyone wants to be a captain until it's time to do captain stuff!

I'm sure you've discussed it plenty, and know more about it than most, but we just see it differently. Lots of laws are controversial ( legalized pot, capital punishment, gun controls, etc ) I'm not sure there is a right and wrong side of the issue, there are just opinions, and everyone's is different, because everyone has a different perspective. The great thing about a forum like this is the exposure to different viewpoints and perspectives.

Salty:
For recreational vessels, you provide a bill for your services. It should not be based on the value of the vessel or contents, but on the work provided....just like every other service provider. I don't see anything wrong with someone being paid for their skillset, equipment, knowledge etc. Lebron James has a unique and specialized skill set...he gets paid well for it. Doctors and Lawyers get paid well for what they do. A salvor should be no different.

So as you're sinking or smashing up against rocks, you want the salvor to draw up a contract?

You're getting mad at a law you've known about, maybe get a new hobby?

I fail to see your logic. Should we make a new ColRegs for recreational boaters? You think everything is so separate, but a vessel is a vessel and a law is a law. And it works. It's also been updated and not as watered down as you make it.

How often are people ACTUALLY taken advantage of? Smashing up against the rocks is a salvage operation, like it or not.

Why would we make a new set of ColRegs ?!?! Avoiding a collision is a factor for all boats, commercial and recreational, and I don't think any states are pushing bills to do that. This thread is about the proposed Florida law regulating salvage claims.

The proposed law is aimed at unscrupulous salvors, who take advantage of the current law. The guys who do a routine service, classify it as salvage, charge an outrageous fee, and slap a lien on a boat. I don't know how anyone can justify that behavior, or object to a law to prevent it.

I was just reading about a guy who lost some hatch covers during a hurricane and took on some water. (The boat was slightly down in the bow...the boot stripe was still above water ) 5 weeks after the storm he calls a guy who shows up in a pick up truck with a small pump. Lets the pump run for 2 hours and leaves. Then sends a bill for $13k dollars. There is no special skill involved here......no risk to life or property....no risk by the salvor. The boat owner should have discussed fees up front so maybe he wasn't so bright...but this law would prevent situations like this. How can anyone object to that ?

So a moron takes 5 weeks to pump his boat out, doesn't talk terms and gets hit with a salvage bill and all of a sudden everything needs to be changed!

You going to disagree that was salvage, or no? Was: 1) the assisted vessel is subject to a reasonable apprehension of marine peril- does not have to be in immediate danger; 2) the assistance is voluntary; and 3) the assistance is successful in whole or part.

Why not rent a trash pump for a couple of bucks? Since he waited 5 weeks, and was in no rush to use his boat, I'm sure he could have battled it out in court.

I would not consider that salvage......the boat was tied up at a dock and was not in danger of sinking, leaking oil, or obstructing a navigable waterway. He certainly could have been smarter about things.....but there's no way that should be a $13k service.

and no...not everything has to be changed....just the protections put in place so dirtbag salvors don't get to legally screw people. I don't think a true professional person would do that....that's why I don't think this law will impact anyone but the dirtbags.

This has devolved into a personal disagreement between us and I don't think either of us is about to change their mind. Its no longer contributing to the content of the forum, so we should probably just declare a cease fire.

Just read through this string. There are two people giving their opinion on this subject, which is also based on their experiences as professional Mariners. Reading about a subject is important-but living it can put things in a different context. Anyway, it was a good discussion. Every time this subject comes up I learn something.

Imagine the absurdity if land tow truck drivers based their charges on car value. You're broken down on the side of the interstate highway, gee, dangerous situation, you could get killed by passing traffic any second. Tow a 1982 Chevy, charge $1,000. Tow a 2017 Cadillac Escalade, charge $60,000. After all, the tow truck driver is using specialized equipment to save life and property from immediate disaster, potentially risking his own life, he could get whacked by passing traffic too, gee, only fair...

That maritime legal concept is a ridiculous relic from the days when Shakespeare was writing about the shipwreck in The Tempest.

so simple..... even a caveman can do it....

kthoennes said:

Huh. We stayed at Ganges last summer for one night on a charter. Unlike every other Canadian marina on the trip, Ganges was not helpful or friendly. They seemed annoyed by our presence and acted like they were doing us a huge favor to let us stay there. They also watched us go to a slip on the wrong end from the marina office windows and didn't say a word. And it was kind of a gross marina too, some of the shoreside slips were filled with floating garbage. The town was great and we happened on a fantastic restaurant, but the marina staff, not so much. Sorry, thread drift.

Click to expand...

Which marina? There are several, "Ganges Marina", "Kanaka", "Saltspring Marina at Harbour's End", "Centennial Wharf".
I regularly visit most of these, and would like to know which you are referring to, as I am sure, would its owners.

Nothing like knowing that a contracted tow is going to cost somewher between nothing and half the value of your vessel for budgeting and planning.

I feel like I'm missing part of the discussion here. I've heard why salvage is entitled to considerable compensation, and I agree, but I haven't heard why it's reasonable to base that on the value of the vessel. In fact I believe that true salvage would be worth more than the value of my boat if I were in peril. Why base it on that? Just because we always have? I'm seriously trying to understand this issue.

I have used Towboat US twice now and both times they provided excellent service. I was crewing in a race on a sailboat when we hit a rock and cracked the keel, the bilge pumps could not keep up. The owner/skipper called towboat US and they came with a generator and two large electric pumps which kept the boat afloat until it could be towed and pulled out of the water. Even though the boat was sinking, they never even mentioned "salvage" and took us some 30 miles to the only place open that would pull the boat. I think they do an excellent job for the small yearly fee it costs. Do we need regulations to protect us from Boat US captains and SeaTow? I think not, however there are some less scrupulous "rescuers" out there that this legislation might help with.

There is every reason a rescue operator should be adequately rewarded for time skill effort,including as part of standing overhead expenses the value of special equipment owned maintained and kept at the ready. And there should be an element of charge related to the particular circumstances of the work, which might range from mundane to heroic.
But, the salvor fee should not be whatever the salvor nominates. There should be a fair method of calculation, it can`t just be whatever the salvor thinks he can charge. There needs to be a reviewing authority, or a formula,or both, to ensure the salvor is adequately remunerated and the owner is not ripped off, and his boat not unfairly made the subject of a lien with what sounds from comments above to have elements of threat and blackmail.
If the owner has a towing service contract that should regulate what is/is not covered by the premium. Anything beyond that should be subject to regulation as above.
I don`t envy the task of reducing that to a legal framework but I`m sure it can be done with fairness to both parties.

Having boating nearly three decades off and on over the last six decades in the San Francisco Estuary/ Bay/ Delta, have never needed assistance. Knock on (wooden) skull!

Benthic2 said:

I would not consider that salvage......the boat was tied up at a dock and was not in danger of sinking, leaking oil, or obstructing a navigable waterway. He certainly could have been smarter about things.....but there's no way that should be a $13k service.

and no...not everything has to be changed....just the protections put in place so dirtbag salvors don't get to legally screw people. I don't think a true professional person would do that....that's why I don't think this law will impact anyone but the dirtbags.

This has devolved into a personal disagreement between us and I don't think either of us is about to change their mind. Its no longer contributing to the content of the forum, so we should probably just declare a cease fire.

Click to expand...

the case you present is a clear example of an unscrupulous salvor. There is no peril,it has passed. This should have been a case of a negotiated salvage rate. IF it was executed under a LOF 200 (Lloyds open for of Salvage 2000) the parties would be "encouraged" to settle it. IF it went to arbitration, the greedy salvor would have been punished if the situation was a quick pump. Thats the thing of LOF, it provides for third party arbitration at very reasonable costs. The two parties negotiate based on circumstances,weather,amount of peril,equipment involved,and yes, the salved value of the casualty. To say its antique laws that don't apply to todays situation is naive at best The value of equipment and potential pollution to be prevented is much more than years ago. Why would anyone risk their equipment or harm to personnel if they were only to recieve time and material compensation? The Insurance companies WANT salvors to be out there. The essence of the agreement is "NO CURE, NO PAY", the salvors are required to use their BEST ENDEAVORS (resources) to remedy the situation. I have been involved in several LOF salvages, 2 were in Boston, 1 settled quickly, 1 went to arbitration and we were awarded almost 3 times our initial claim amount..Why? Because the insurance company was trying to bully a small operator. Arbitration frowns upon either side not doing what is expected. The company I work for now lost over 10 million dollars on 1 salvage job under "No Cure,No Pay". Its a double edge sword.

The car by the side of the road scenario is ridiculous. Try walking away from a marine casualty while its happening. Cars by the side of the road are hardly in peril....

And usually a tow, without ungrounding, is never more than the hourly rate or included in membership. That is because the towing company knows that what is covered.....and the hourly rates established, so a trip to court for gouuging would not be a smart move.

In the membership agreement, it says that outside of a few simple services, if you request work, it is not covered and therefore paid differently.

kthoennes said:

Imagine the absurdity if land tow truck drivers based their charges on car value.

Click to expand...

Good analogy.

denverd0n said:

Good analogy.

Click to expand...

Or if doctors checked your family wealth before they treated you.

And, to me, the biggest problem with salvage rates when you have a contract, is that you have a contract. I agree that mischaracterizing a tow operation as a salvage operation probably doesn't happen often, but it's pretty obvious from lots of reported accounts that it does happen occasionally.

It's like the old joke about what will a drowning man agree to pay for you to toss him a life jacket. The fact that he agreed to pay you a hundred thousand dollars for it, doesn't make it right, just legal.

And, the law can be changed, as per the subject of this article.

As I noted earlier, I know the owner of ST in my area well. I can tell you that no one at his company is getting rich. They have saved a lot of people’s rear end from some potentially very bad situations, and received a hand shake in return. The few times they did claim salvage it was warranted, and terms were agreed upon. There are a few bad Apples in any industry, so recalling a few anecdotes of unfair practices is not a fair comparison in relation to the hundreds of calls these guys handle every month.

Not many people get shot at either, but that doesn't mean laws to prohibit it, aren't necessary. A rare problem, is still a problem, when it's your problem.

several points people bring up...I am not sure anyone is against tightening the noose on rediculous billing, but a few pros who have actually done salvage and rescue do dispute that the concept of salvage and the laws are unjust or archane.

There ARE current laws on salvage and courts to deal with it. They have changed with the times and now arbitrators are usually used. But if Florida wants the simple knot tightened, I agree with it.

Not revamping all of salvage and its international implications too.

And the reference to the Colregs was twisted, and the towtruck comparison is ludicrous to salvage. Simple boat towing yes, and I agree there should be and 90 or better percent it usually is just covered or a going rate.

Warning, thread drift again...

koliver said:

Which marina? There are several, "Ganges Marina", "Kanaka", "Saltspring Marina at Harbour's End", "Centennial Wharf". I regularly visit most of these, and would like to know which you are referring to, as I am sure, would its owners.

Click to expand...

At the risk of annoying TiltRider1, it was Ganges. I remember it clearly because at one point checking in we asked whether our BoatUS or MarinaLife memberships or YCA reciprocity gave us any discounts. The guy checking us in asked "What country are you in?" Canada. "Well there's your answer." He was so abrupt it made me laugh. We also chartered a 50 footer that year so accidentally entering the wrong end in a relatively tight slipway as they watched was not much fun, but we spun around okay and went to the other side (north end). But overall we still had a blast, just love BC. Great supermarket and coffee in Ganges. Had dinner at Oystercatcher, one of the best meals of the trip. Cuban cigars. It was a beautiful couple days.