New member from Wi.

[buster53]

Yes, there is a big difference between an insurance survey and a pre-purchase survey. Pre-purchase is much more intensive and more costly.
Any offer to buy should include contingencies for both a survey and sea-trial and your surveyor should be going on the sea trial as that is part of the survey.
Between the survey and short haul, be prepared as this could easily cost you a boat dollar...for land lubbers, that is $1000. If you are serious about buying a larger boat, don't cheap out on this. A good surveyor can potentially save you a lot more than a boat dollar.

[Viper]

Really depends on the surveyor. There are two types IMO; the more experienced professionals that give the same attention to detail no matter what the survey is for, and the less experienced, or lazy surveyor that compromises his quality of work. For that reason, there are some surveyors here that you want to hire as a purchaser but wouldn't hire them for insurance reasons as they will record everything which isn't always desirable for presenting to the insurer. A surveyor issuing a less encompassing/intensive survey for insurance purposes only is leaving themselves open for lawsuits by the very people that hired them IMO. Don't know why any credible professional surveyor would intentionally put themselves in that position.

[buster53]

Source of the post Really depends on the surveyor. There are two types IMO; the more experienced professionals that give the same attention to detail no matter what the survey is for, and the less experienced, or lazy surveyor that compromises his quality of work. For that reason, there are some surveyors here that you want to hire as a purchaser but wouldn't hire them for insurance reasons as they will record everything which isn't always desirable for presenting to the insurer. A surveyor issuing a less encompassing/intensive survey for insurance purposes only is leaving themselves open for lawsuits by the very people that hired them IMO. Don't know why any credible professional surveyor would intentionally put themselves in that position.

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, surveyors' reports these days spell out exactly what they do cover and what they don't cover for the specific survey they were hired for and there's enough legal verbage that absolves them from just about any, but the grossest oversights. SAMS and NAMS have enough lawyers to make sure their surveyors are well protected regarding the legal documents involved in a survey.

With that being said, while there are always a few bad apples, the vast majority of marine surveyors take their jobs seriously and try to do a good job for the person that hired them.

[Viper]

I can tell you that from my experience, and I deal with many surveyors of both "types" regularly, they spend a hell of a lot of time in litigation courts, even the best ones. That's why they have errors and omissions insurance (at least up here). The verbiage on the survey doesn't get them out of much at all. In the end, the way the courts see it is regardless of the fine print, they are the professional and there is an implied expectation even if limitations are clearly spelled out in the report. It happens so much that at one time I was seriously considering taking the training but was turned off after learning just how much time even the best surveyors spend in court for this sort of thing. That's why I can't understand why anybody would do anything less than a complete/thorough survey to limit liability regardless of what it's for.

There's nothing stopping an owner who had a limited survey done for insurance using that survey in court as evidence to show something was omitted when it gets caught later by someone else like a technician, or months later when the owner tries to sell the boat and the deal falls through because the purchaser's surveyor catches an issue by doing a thorough "purchasing" survey. Lawyers just love that sort of thing, and the surveyor wouldn't get much sympathy from a judge. It's like a typical marina contract full of clauses that just make me laugh, like they aren't responsible for damages to your boat if they crash while they're moving it. The clause might be in the contract and you've signed it but that doesn't mean it'll hold up in court, the judge would just laugh, but a provider can try and throw everything against the wall in a contract in hopes something will stick.

[bud37]

I don't know.....IMO... it just seems to me that if people are competent....good at their job and do all parts of it the way they know how, chances of winding up in court should be slim. There seems to be way too many of these clauses inserted to try and protect the lazy and incompetent.

[buster53]

Source of the post Good morning, new member, 1st post. A few years into retirement and along w/my son, looking for a boat to share. My other son got into boating a couple of years ago and loves it, this will be a first for me. Going this Saturday to look at a Carver 3207 aft cabin. Got a copy of the 45 page survey that was done in August for the insurance company. It is an '82 and the survey did not suggest any major issues, I am a tinkerer... We will see what Saturday brings. Looking forward to the forum and all the knowledge that it contains.

So how did it go today?

[RGrew176]

Welcome Aboard. Good luck with your search. Once you do find a boat that you plan to make an offer on you will want to hire your own surveyor to look over the boat.

[JohnS]

Welcome

[buster53]

I guess the OP decided not to pursue this boat.