Southport Marina Sham

I had my boat in Southport marina when the "small tropical storm" was to come thru. It spawned a tornado and wrecked the marina.
Now the Marina want us (slip renters) to foot the bill to repair the marina.

I'm not going back there when its rebuilt, hope no one does.
p/s I have pics of my boat still tied to the finger dock.

https://www.wect.com/2021/03/25/sou...-asked-cover-millions-hurricane-damage-docks/

Interesting scenario. Did you read your contract when you signed it each year?

Under the terms of their contract with Southport Marina, boat owners are required to “Make arrangements for the safe mooring or removal of the Vessel on the approach of a storm and be responsible for the costs to repair of any damage caused by the Vessel to the Marina docks, piling and/or other boats.”

I would think that if you could prove an honest effort to “safely moore” your boat in advance of the storm they can not hold you responsible. Ie extra / larger lines, removing anything that could cause damage, etc.

I would only foot the cost of repair or upgrading if I was to become an owner (as in condo). or there was a repayment clause such as free dockage until my $10,000 was depreciated.

Otherwise, see you later..

pete

mmmm I see an uphill battle here. The marina has stated that an engineering firm believes the docks were sound. It was the boats tied to the dock that caused the dock system to fail.

Insurance hunting? Does not the marina have insurance? I smell fish.......

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

mmmm I see an uphill battle here. The marina has stated that an engineering firm believes the docks were sound. It was the boats tied to the dock that caused the dock system to fail.

Insurance hunting? Does not the marina have insurance? I smell fish.......

Click to expand...

In the report was every piling and cleat checked?...if not, I have seen more than one dock and videos of docks letting go from a domino effect.

Engineers said the marina piers failed because there were boats there which the marina was supposedly designed to hold? Where does the contract state the marina could or would be inadequate to hold together in storm conditions? Seems to me if you take precautions to properly secure the vessel to the mooring system provided as a storm approaches, you have done due diligence.

If this thing happens as the marina wishes, I can see every boat insurance contract issue henceforth will specify that the contract does not include marina liabilities like this.

I think the combined owners can afford a LOT more laywers than the marina. If they can get their act together that is.

One important factor is what legal precedents have been set?

psneeld said:

One important factor is what legal precedents have been set?

Click to expand...

This could be a big one all by itself.

Other marinas like Harbortown on Hilton Head have had issues with storms and slip holders clubs and carrying separate insurance...this may be the start of a whole new ballgame or get swallowed up in other instances that have already come to pass.


It may be a pretty big blow to slipholders US wide.


Think of places that have had severe fire damage too.

Perhaps I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but I do not understand the marina's legal claim, as the linked article notes:

- "Under the terms of their contract with Southport Marina, boat owners are required to “Make arrangements for the safe mooring or removal of the Vessel on the approach of a storm and be responsible for the costs to repair of any damage caused by the Vessel to the Marina docks, piling and/or other boats.” The vast majority of boat owners left their boats at the marina as Hurricane Isaias approached, although many took time to secure their boats for the anticipated conditions."

- "Southport Marina hired Andrew Consulting Engineers to assess the cause of the mooring system failure that left boats and docks piled on top of one another at the marina in the wake of the storm. “If the vessels had vacated the marina, the pilings would not have been overstressed with the storm conditions, and the marina mooring system would not have failed,” Engineer Neal Andrew concluded. “In our professional opinion, the mooring system met industry standards.”"

I believe they are saying if you safely moored your vessel in preparation for the storm, per the contract, you are still responsible because the mooring system failed? No negligence required?

Seems like a quagmire to me, as I'm sure the boat owners and insurance companies will get experts to testify otherwise.

Jim

I think it is pretty clear in the marina contracts I have signed for years that if you or boat damages the marina, they can collect.


The multi-million dollar question here is which came first....destructive boats or failed docks/facilities?

This such BS! It’s like saying that the stadium would not have collapsed if the patrons with tickets did not come to the big game. That if the drivers were not on the bridge with their heavy cars it wouldn’t have fallen down. Utterly absurd.

Thinking outside maritime court thinking as almost always iffy....


https://iyba.org/news-detail/liabil...by-breakaway-vessels-during-the-recent-storms



"When a court finds that a vessel broke free from her moorings and allied with a stationary object, the breakaway vessel is presumably at fault and the vessel’s owner is presumably liable. An owner can rebut that presumption by showing one of three things: that the stationary object was at fault, that the owner used reasonable care, or that the allision was an inevitable accident. See Fischer v. S/Y NERAIDA, 508 F.3d 586, 593–94 (11th Cir. 2007)...... edited....


The Louisiana Rule means that the owner of a breakaway vessel faces an uphill battle to avoid liability for damage caused by his vessel. The law imposes on him the burden to show that the other object was at fault, that he used reasonable care to secure his vessel, or that the accident was inevitable. The best way for owners to protect themselves from liability for breakaway vessels is to take all reasonable precautions to secure their vessels before the storm and document those precautions thoroughly."


So until both sides are heard from and a detailed report is done on how the whole marina failed...it could be a long and costly case.

The premise by the engineering firm is unsupportable and clearly shows prejudice toward who was paying them. The entire theory of "Our docks are ok if we don't put any boats in them" is ridiculous, whether in calm or storm. Some engineering generalization is total BS. The only way there would be a case against any boat owner would be if they could show damage directly resulting from a specific boat breaking free due to poor preparation on that boat. Such cases as this require direct cause and effect, not some general "We'll go after all boats because an engineer thinks if none had been here we wouldn't have had damage."

Thanks for advising as this will help us decide what marina never to use in the area.

It`s sounding like the new hospital portrayed in an episode of "Yes Minister". Magnificent hospital,fully equipped,spotlessly clean and sterile, shiny new equipment, like new,but had never ever admitted a patient.

I wonder if the marina notified the boat owners to move their boats in preparation for the storm in question.

I think post#2 had part of the marina policy discussing storm/boat.... mooring/removal.



Is the question did the marina call individuals about the storm?


I would think not, but most marinas also have the clause there can tie up your boat or have it moved from the marina at your cost if they are not satisfied.


So yes...something like this is going to be a legal quagmire as the can't really blame everyone. So group applying the "Louisiana" rule I doubt will fly.

Comodave said:

I wonder if the marina notified the boat owners to move their boats in preparation for the storm in question.

Click to expand...

No the marina did not tell us to move our boats, in fact they were telling slip renters (that had bottom work done) to come back because this was not going to be anything more than 30 some mph winds.

Guys,


I think that a point that is missing in this conversation is that there is a difference between docking and mooring. It is common for marinas to require the removal of boats from their docks before a storm. Those boats should be moved to moorings and then the discussion of breaking from a mooring becomes appropriate.

AnsleyS said:

Guys,


I think that a point that is missing in this conversation is that there is a difference between docking and mooring. It is common for marinas to require the removal of boats from their docks before a storm. Those boats should be moved to moorings and then the discussion of breaking from a mooring becomes appropriate.

Click to expand...

And in the case of a well constructed floating dock, the marina is more protective than the moorings. As to requiring removal, I know that's true in many places. It's not legal in FL. What they do require is good preparation for each boat and if your lines are inadequate they add and bill.

A dock breaking free is a problem with dock construction and preparation for the storm. It clearly wasn't properly secured in place.

B and B,

I disagree with the assertion that marinas are safer than moorings in a storm. The damage caused by boats jumping around in their slips far exceeds that of a boat on a well maintained mooring. I have seen our harbor with five or six foot chop in a 50k SE blow. A boat in a dock that is leaping 5-6 feet has a tough time staying in her slip.

AnsleyS said:

B and B,

I disagree with the assertion that marinas are safer than moorings in a storm. The damage caused by boats jumping around in their slips far exceeds that of a boat on a well maintained mooring. I have seen our harbor with five or six foot chop in a 50k SE blow. A boat in a dock that is leaping 5-6 feet has a tough time staying in her slip.

Click to expand...

A well built and well protected marina will be safer. Of course, that doesn't mean all marinas are suitable. If it's exposed to significant wave action, it's not a good place to be in a storm. Personally, unless it's very oversized, I don't like moorings in a storm, especially if a lot of surge is a possibility. I'd rather be on an anchor with lots of scope, lots of swing room, good protection and good gear.

AnsleyS said:

Guys,


I think that a point that is missing in this conversation is that there is a difference between docking and mooring. It is common for marinas to require the removal of boats from their docks before a storm. Those boats should be moved to moorings and then the discussion of breaking from a mooring becomes appropriate.

Click to expand...

I think you are not grasping the general term of the word mooring and relating it to just a "mooring ball".


Mooring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search For other uses, see Mooring (disambiguation).





A dockworker places a mooring line on a bollard.


A mooring is any permanent structure to which a vessel may be secured. Examples include quays, wharfs, jetties, piers, anchor buoys, and mooring buoys.

So I have a friend in Mississippi with a 40ft motor sailer. When a storm blows in, he takes his boat up a river as far as he can. Then he ties it up to trees, a bridge. He has about 10 lines out. He has survived the last several storms. The last storm he had company, other boats.

He is lucky if he ties to a bridge and hasn't been fined.

psneeld said:

He is lucky if he ties to a bridge and hasn't been fined.

Click to expand...

Didn't know that. You guys on the east coast are brave and a little insane with hurricanes. We folks on the west coast look east and are in awe.

I'm trying to follow the logic here: The marina contract says (in effect) "you are responsible for the damage to our marina that your boat causes". (i.e., you are not responsible for any damage that someone else's boat causes, nor the damage that everyone else's boat causes. Just the damage that only your boat causes).

Looking at the tangled aftermath of boats and debris -- I cannot see how anyone could honestly say just whose boat caused what damage to what dock.

I don't know if maritime law is different from civil law as to who has what is called the "burden of proof". If it's the same as non-maritime civil law, then the plaintiff (i.e. the marina) has the burden of proving the specific damage that each boat (not someone else's boat, and not all the boats in aggregate) specifically caused to marina property during the storm.

Those engineers would have to be the world's greatest accident reconstruction specialists to be able to determine what role each and every boat, individually, played in the damage caused, and exactly how much damage each and every boat actually caused. And then they would have to convincingly prove that in court. Instead, what they are claiming is that, coincidentally, each and every boat in the marina did exactly $20,000 worth of damage. No more, no less. That is not a credible claim right from the start.

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Didn't know that. You guys on the east coast are brave and a little insane with hurricanes. We folks on the west coast look east and are in awe.

Click to expand...

After a few williwas on Kodiak and been on the waters all around the western hemisphere.....I think it's safe to say, no matter where you boat, there's good and bad. Pick your poison.

From the Britannica website...maybe the principle being thought to use to argue an equal share of the loss......the bit below may not explain it completely, but it is the kind of thing argued that might apply.

"Average, in maritime law, loss or damage, less than total, to maritime property (a ship or its cargo), caused by the perils of the sea. An average may be particular or general. A particular average is one that is borne by the owner of the lost or damaged property (unless he was insured against the risk). A general average is one that is borne in common by the owners of all the property engaged in the venture."