Based on a Dec. 15 survey by a SAMS surveyor of a 1990 34', which reported 9 new blisters on hull and several small on rudder and 9 previous blister repairs, with recommendations to grind out active and previous blisters and make necessary repairs as required (and a verbal recommendation that all we needed to do repair the new blisters, regelcoat/barrier and paint to the tune of maybe $1600, we bought the boat. A month later, after problems with the bottom were discoverd at Torresen's Marine in Muskegon, MI, the first surveyor hired another SAMS surveyor to resurvey the bottom. The second survey found the previous repairs were done with a polyester filling compound (improper repair material)with no gelcoat or barrier coat, extensive wet and very wet readings in the laminate, delamination and apparent separation in places. Recommendation to peel down to first layer of laminate, and further for severe delamination areas to the tune of $10000 or more. The first surveyor who is concerned, respectable, but I believe feels there is nothing he can or should do. He does not have E and O insurance, only liability. Does liability cover accidental misreading of problems. This is a costly miss on the surveyor's part and we feel he should shoulder some of the the additional cost. How could he do this? Any ideas?
Kerk : I'll leave the liability to the lawyers.
It's hard to believe that after a "9 blister" survey that you have to resort to a $10000 peal job! What I'd try is to "blast" the bottom down to the gelcoat and into the blisters. Of course the best time to do this is ASAP so the hull can dry out.
When the hull is dry enough the blister holes need to be filled with an epoxy filler and faired. Then you need to apply 2 coats (roller ed on) or 4 coats (sprayed on) of epoxy barrier protection. That should cost you MUCH less than $10k - around the Chesapeake the cost might be about $3to4k.
Your there and can see the problem and we are not, a thought. :wink:
Thanks, Ron.l the problem is that the second survey agreed with the yard that the moisture is much more extensive and it's not just 9 blisters. If we'd known the extent of the damage we would have gotten a better price for the boat. Sounds to me as if the first surveyor didn't do his job. Anyone ever sued, or found a better way to deal with this? Kerk
As a surveyor , my job is to point out the detectable deficiencies and also to bring up the possibilities ,if any ,of a greater problem such as in this case . Obvious blisters and previous repaired blisters. There seem to be a history of blistering. He should have recommended to further investigate the hull by a specialist in fiberglass and in the proper conditions that is letting the hull dry out r come back himself in a couple of weeks. This way you could have had a second opinion before finalizing the transaction and saving you the headache or having the price reduced accordingly.
Its a problem with rushed surveys, that is surveys done in less than good conditions. How the hell am I to make a proper assessment about moisture content in a hull that's just out of the water.
I've even had to grind the paint because of a high moisture reading after the boat had been out of the water for 2 weeks.
Paul Bousquet SA
Marine Surveyor
Paul
FYI, this thread started some time earlier and can be found at:
:arrow: http://www.c34.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1896