Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

[stromborg]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

"The vessel is sold for scrap, restoration, salvage, or another use that will remove the vessel from state waters to a person displaying a business license issued under RCW 19.02.070"

This is the part that bothers me the most. Unless they have license for "Amateur Boatbuilder" it seems to rule out a big project like Tally Ho but also any number of people with the skills to restore and old boat.

[cstevens]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

"The vessel is sold for scrap, restoration, salvage, or another use that will remove the vessel from state waters to a person displaying a business license issued under RCW 19.02.070"

This is the part that bothers me the most. Unless they have license for "Amateur Boatbuilder" it seems to rule out a big project like Tally Ho but also any number of people with the skills to restore and old boat.

Except that a Washington business license costs less than $100 and maybe 30 minutes for the online application. You can get a business license for anything you want. If that's the thing stopping someone from restoring a boat then I think they aren't up for the real work and should find another hobby. Seriously, the real burden here is trivial in comparison to the work needed to keep up an old boat.

[cstevens]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

Out of curiosity I did some more poking around the derelict vessel regulations and there is more. I expect that Garret is going to add a few more Os after this one.

RCW 79.100.170 Transfer of ownership of certain vessels—Marine insurance policy.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=79.100.170

The transferor of a vessel greater than thirty-five feet in length and more than forty years old has an affirmative duty to ensure that any potential transferee has secured a marine insurance policy consistent with this section prior to or concurrent with the finalization of any sale or transfer. Nothing in this section prohibits the sale or other transfer of a vessel greater than thirty-five feet in length and more than forty years old to a transferee that fails to secure a marine insurance policy. However, a transferor that chooses to finalize a sale or other transfer with a transferee not in possession of a marine insurance policy assumes secondary liability for the vessel consistent with RCW 79.100.060 if the vessel is later abandoned by the transferee or becomes derelict prior to a subsequent ownership transfer.

TL;DR: The seller has an obligation to confirm that the buyer has obtained insurance coverage on the boat. If they do not they will have a secondary liability for costs if the vessel becomes derelict.

and...

A person required to secure marine insurance or show proof of marine insurance under this section who either: (a) Fails to secure a marine insurance policy consistent with this section prior to or concurrent with the transfer of ownership, unless the vessel was sold consistent with RCW 79.100.150(2)(b); or (b) cancels a marine insurance policy consistent with this section prior to the end of the twelfth month of vessel ownership or to a subsequent transfer of ownership, whichever occurs first, without securing another marine insurance policy consistent with this section in its place, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The department may contact any vessel owner required by this section to have a marine insurance policy to ensure compliance with this section.

Failing to acquire a suitable insurance policy or canceling it within the first 12 months of vessel ownership is a criminal offense in Washington.

Also here's an article about the Lakebay Marina cleanup that has some context as well.

https://keypennews.org/stories/legislature-funds-increased-derelict-boat-removal-on-puget-sound,5333

[Andrew2]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

It seems absurd to me. Boat owners are forced to pay for a survey before selling the boat? Imagine if this was the case for houses.
.

Here in France we have mandatory inspections when we sell a house, ordered and paid for by the seller. Electricity, sanitation, insulation, lead (paint, pipes or roofing/paneling) Quite strict too. Also time limited to six months, then do again if not sold.

There are a couple of wreck restorations going on in UK on u-tube. Most of the experienced commentators think they will end up being abandoned due to the people having no idea of the real time and money involved. Look at 'Ship Happens' and see.

[Garret]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

Out of curiosity I did some more poking around the derelict vessel regulations and there is more. I expect that Garret is going to add a few more Os after this one.

RCW 79.100.170 Transfer of ownership of certain vessels—Marine insurance policy.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=79.100.170

TL;DR: The seller has an obligation to confirm that the buyer has obtained insurance coverage on the boat. If they do not they will have a secondary liability for costs if the vessel becomes derelict.

and...



Failing to acquire a suitable insurance policy or canceling it within the first 12 months of vessel ownership is a criminal offense in Washington.

Also here's an article about the Lakebay Marina cleanup that has some context as well.

https://keypennews.org/stories/legis...get-sound,5333

Yep - a bunch more. Especially when you try to actually get insurance for the boat. Because Neoga is 52 ft, no one I've found will insure her for anything other than general liability. Seems the likely suspects (Haggerty, etc.) won't insure over 50 ft.

How do they handle that?

I fully understand the need to protect our waters & am as careful as I can be. However, I cannot control what someone does with something I've sold.

[cstevens]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

I get your point Garret but I still think that the regulation does not make the seller responsible for the buyer’s actions after the sale, which I agree would be idiotic with as many Os as you like. The secondary liability only applies if the seller fails to a) get a third party verification of seaworthy condition and b) get proof that the buyer has obtained insurance.

That’s it. If you or the buyer obtains a survey - something that we always urge people to do when buying a boat anyway - and the buyer provides proof of insurance then you are off the hook. Neoga can go to the bottom with whatever impact on the environment and subsequent cleanup cost and you can tut tut about it whilst drinking your iced tea and feeling thankful that you took up a less taxing hobby. The new owner is entirely responsible for the mess.

But what if the buyer can’t get insurance you ask? Too bad. You can’t sell the boat if it can’t be insured. It’s a hard world out there but them's the breaks. But the only requirement is for liability insurance and so far that still seems available for boats in good condition.

Ah ha! You say. But what if the survey on Neoga comes back with recommendations? What if the surveyor says she is not seaworthy until such and such work is done? What then? Well if the work needed would cost less than the value of the boat the seller is still off the hook. Say you don’t have double clamps on your exhaust hose. First, shame on you. Put some clamps on that hose! But regardless, you get away with it because even with the depressed values of wooden boats Neoga is still worth more than the price of a hose clamp. If the buyer fails to add a clamp and Neoga sinks, etc, etc. there you are with your iced tea and your macrame again.

Ok, so what if the cost to fix the boat is more than the boat is worth? Well that’s the entire point isn’t it. The goal of the law is to preemptively remove high risk vessels from the water before they become derelict. And there ain’t much in this world that is more high risk than an old boat needing major work. We can pretty much see the end of that movie already. As the seller you are sc****d. You got caught with the hot potato and you can’t just hand it off to some chump. No, you need to deal with your own mess. As God and Ayn Rand intended.

You do have a couple of options. You can scrap the boat. Which would be a shame but the market doesn’t lie. If the boat isn’t worth anything that’s because nobody wants it badly enough to pay you for it. Time for the chainsaw. Or you can find someone who is willing to restore the boat and can demonstrate that they have the ability to do so. Good luck with that, but it’s allowed.

In all this I really don’t see a problem. As far as I can tell the law just prevents you from selling Neoga with bad garboards, corroded through hulls and failing fastenings to some punter with big dreams and no money, resources or skills, who will find themselves, ahem, “under water” on the boat within the next few months, forcing the tax paying public - that’s me here - to clean up the mess. Again, too bad. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a seller who wants to foist their problems off on someone who is not capable of restoring the boat. That path doesn’t help save the boat and it doesn’t help the rest of us either.

And that’s really my point. As wooden boat owners we WANT legislation like this. You point out that insurance is becoming hard to find. Well why is that? Because insurance companies are tired of paying out on claims for rotten old wood boats so they just stopped insuring them entirely. How long is it before even liability insurance is impossible to get? And what do we do when that happens? Here in Washington, and I think in most other places as well, you can’t get moorage if you can’t get insurance. And if your boat sinks without liability coverage you are going to lose your house along with your boat when they come after you for the cleanup costs. So when we lose the ability to get insurance ALL the wooden boats get cut up.

I would like that not to happen. So I am in favor of laws that force boat owners to be responsible for keeping their boats from becoming a public burden.

[AJBTC]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

Since folks mentioned houses and house inspections. We have an analogous situation in Michigan with sand dunes (yes, we have them, lots of them actually and they are very pretty to sail past). If you build a house in a high erosion area within a certain setback line you have to build a house that is capable of being moved (ie, physically dragged away from the dune crest) and also an estimate for the cost of the moving, to make sure that cost is less than the value of the structure. As I understand it, this law came about when several houses fell down dunes, or became unsafe on the crest, and the cost of fixing the problem was more than the cost of just building a new house, so the owners just abandoned the structures.

[AJBTC]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

Two things about thsi statute. It does allow for USCG certificates of inspection to replace the marine survey. I'm not sure if that is easier or not.

Second, this sentence is crying out for a comma fight: "The vessel is sold for scrap, restoration, salvage, or another use that will remove the vessel from state waters to a person displaying a business license .... that a reasonable person in the seller's position would believe has the capability and intent to do based on factors that may include the buyer's facilities, resources, documented intent, and relevant history". Is the requirement about the business license and capability/intent only modifying the "another use" category. Arguably it does, and in that case if you mark on the bill of sale "scrap, restoration, or salvage only" then you would comply with the statute. This is not specific legal advice--you should check with the licensing agency to make sure.

[wizbang 13]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

Would that be the USCG Auxiliary courtesy inspection stickers type of inspection? That’s pretty simple and low key. A bona fide uscg inspection I imagine would be ten times more fraught with red tape and bs than a “surveyor” approval.
I suppose Woodwind may never return to the USA anyhow.

[cstevens]

Re: Washington State Derelict Vessel Post-Sale Liability

Would that be the USCG Auxiliary courtesy inspection stickers type of inspection? That’s pretty simple and low key. A bona fide uscg inspection I imagine would be ten times more fraught with red tape and bs than a “surveyor” approval.
I suppose Woodwind may never return to the USA anyhow.

I don't think so Bruce. I expect they mean a USCG Certificate as would be issued to a passenger carrying vessel. Much harder to get than a survey. I'm not sure it's possible to get one for a recreational vessel.