1993 37' Lagoon TPI Damage Claim Sample Survey

8/10/2019 1993 37' Lagoon TPI Damage Claim Sample Survey

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1993-37-lagoon-tpi-damage-claim-sample-survey 1/19

Suenos Azules Marine Surveying and Consulting

Surveyed for : Peter Jackson and Carly Jackson - 1993 Lagoon 37 TPI Report f il e #: 11-000121.

Surveyed by: Suenos Azules Marine Surveying and Consulting, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Page no: 1 of 19

REPORT OF MARINE SURVEYVessel Damage Inspection

of the sailing vessel

"Cat Man Do"

1993 Lagoon 37 TPI

PREPARED EXCLUSIVELY FOR:

Peter Jackson and Carly Jackson

106 Pinewood Court

Jupiter, Florida 33458

CONDUCTED BY:

Capt. John Banister, SA

on

June 3, 2011

Suenos Azules Marine Surveying and Consulting

9910 Alternate A1A, Suite 702-214

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

(561) 255-4139





SURVEY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Major Systems Surveyed Page No.

INTRODUCTION 3

DEFINITION OF TERMS 4

GENERAL INFORMATION (SHORT FORM) 5

GENERAL DAMAGE INFORMATION 6

HULL INSPECTION 10

LOSS CONCLUSION 13

REPAIR ESTIMATE 14

WITNESS STATEMENT 17

APPRAISAL VALUE / DAMAGE CLAIM CERTIFICATION 19





INTRODUCTION

REPORT INTRODUCTION COMMENTS:

At the request of Mr. Peter Jackson, the owner of the vessel "Cat Man Do," a 1993 37 foot Lagoon 37 TPI

Sailing Catamaran, I agreed to conduct a damage claim hull inspection. I arrived at the vessel's location onJune 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM and met with the current owner of the vessel, Mr. Peter Jackson (who in this

survey will be referred to as "the vessel's owner") and his wife, Carly Jackson. The vessel was first sighted

in the water at the Gold Coast Boat Yard located at 101 Bay Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida 33480. The

survey was conducted from 11:07 AM - 2:55 PM.

The weather on the day of the survey was sunny, warm, and dry with partly cloudy skies. Moisture

readings were taken of the vessel with a calibrated Model GRP 33 Marine Moisture Meter. Hull thickness

readings were taken of the hull and keels with a calibrated Positector UTG Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge.

The scope of this survey pertained to stress damage to the hull and keels only. The vessel was hauled out o

the water while I was present on the day of the survey and hung in the travel lift sling for approximately

one hour before being placed on blocks and stands in the boat yard. Vessel documentation revealed that

Mr. Jackson and his wife were the current owners of the vessel. Mr. Jackson and his wife were on board

the vessel and available on the day of the survey. Also present in the first hour of the survey was Michael

Franklin from "The Yacht Keeper" who was there to inspect and photograph the vessel for the purposes of

making an estimate for repairs on the stressed areas of the hull that are mentioned in this report.

During a vessel's survey the mandatory standards promulgated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG),

under the authority of title 46 United States Code (USC), Title 33, and Title 46, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), and the voluntary standards and recommended practices developed by the American

Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have been used asguidelines in the conduct of this survey. Findings in this report reflect conditions observed at the time of

survey.





DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following terms and words have the following meanings as used in this report of survey:

APPEARS - Indicates that a very close inspection of the particular system, component, or item was not

possible due to constraints imposed upon the surveyor (e.g. no power available, inability to remove panels,

or requirements not to conduct destructive tests).

FIT FOR INTENDED SERVICE - Service for which is intended by Survey Purchaser (present or

prospective owner).

ADEQUATE - Sufficient for a specific requirement.

POWERS UP - Power was applied only. This does not refer to the operation of any system or component

unless specifically indicated.

EXCELLENT CONDITION - New or like new.

GOOD CONDITION - Nearly new, with only minor cosmetic or structural discrepancies noted.

AVERAGE CONDITION - Denotes that the system, component, or item is functional as is with minor

repairs.

POOR CONDITION - Unusable as is. Requires the replacement of a system for the component or item to

be considered functional.

USE OF *- Use of * in the body of this report will indicate that a footnote may be listed at the bottom of

the page or a finding will be listed in the "Findings and Recommendations" section pertaining to the *items or the use of the text colors red, green, and blue.





GENERAL INFORMATION

(Short Form)

FILE NUMBER: 11-000121

SURVEY PREPARED FOR: Mr. Peter Jackson

_________________________________________________________________________________

NAME OF VESSEL: "Cat Man Do"TYPE OF SURVEY: Damage Claim Survey (hull inspection)

OVERALL VESSEL RATING: AVERAGE

ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE: $122,345.00

ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST: $246,147.00

YEAR/MAKE/MODEL OF VESSEL: 1993 Lagoon 37 TPI

BUILDER: Tillotson-Pearson Incorporated, Rhode Island

YEAR BUILT: 1993

MAKE OF VESSEL: TPI

MODEL OF VESSEL: Lagoon 37

HULL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: TSPL3728B893

OFFICIAL NUMBER: 1167707HAILING PORT: Jupiter, Florida

STATE VALIDATION STICKER: N/A

STATE REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A

OWNER NAME: Peter Jackson and Carly Jackson

OWNER'S ADDRESS: 106 Pinewood Court, Jupiter, Florida 33458

PLACE OF SURVEY: 101 Bay Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida 33480

DATE/TIME OF SURVEY: June 3, 2011 11:07 am to 2:55 pm

HULL MATERIAL: Fiberglass

HULL TYPE: Displacement

LENGTH OVER ALL: 36'9"

BEAM: 20'2"DEPTH: 6'6"

DRAFT: 4'0"

DISPLACEMENT: 11,883 lbs.

PROPULSION SYSTEM: Two Perkins Perama-M20, 18 horsepower engines

FUEL TYPE: Diesel

FUEL CAPACITY: 52 Gallons

AC POWER: 120 Volts

DC POWER: 12 Volts

FRESH WATER CAPACITY: 100 Gallons

HOLDING TANK: 20 Gallons

INTENDED USE: Recreational

INTENDED CRUISING AREA: Atlantic waters





GENERAL DAMAGE INFORMATION

SCOPE OF SURVEY

Purpose of survey: To identify stress related damage on the vessel's hull and keel at the vessel owner's

request.

Survey attended by: Capt. John Banister, SA, Mike Franklin, Peter Jackson, and Carly Jackson.

Vessel surveyed at: Gold Coast Boat Yard, 101 Bay Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida 33480.

How survey conducted: The vessel was surveyed both while afloat and while hauled out of the water.Other comments: The attending surveyor is a member of SAMS (Society of Accredited Marine

Surveyors), ABYC (American Boat and Yacht Council), IAMI (International

Association of Marine Investigators), and the NFPA (National Fire and Protection

Association). The surveyor is also ABYC Standards Accredited and is a U.S. Coast

Guard Licensed Master Captain with towing and sailing endorsements.

VESSEL INFORMATION

Vessel Yr/Make/Model: 1993 Lagoon 37 TPI.

Vessel description: The 1993 Lagoon 37 TPI is a fractional sloop rigged sailing catamaran. The

catamaran was designed by Marc Van Peteghem and Vincent Lauriot-Prevost and

was built by Tillotson-Person in Rhode Island on a joint venture with Jeanneau

Yachts of France. The 1994 Lagoon 37 TPI was a catamaran that was designed as adownsized version of the original 1991 Lagoon 42 TPI catamaran and was intended

for extended cruising by private owners and charters. The vessel was constructed

of baltek end-grain balsa wood coring sandwiched between triaxial layered FRP

(fiber reinforced plastic). The glass fiber was hand laid with vinylester resin and

protected by a thin outer layer of gelcoat.

The vessel was put together by a series of three molds. One mold for the keels,

another for the lower hull and bridge deck, and another for the cabin top and decks.

The vessel's hull to deck joint was an internal (or inward) flanged joint near the

gunnel of the vessel and was held together by a chemical bonding agent.

Reinforcement was provided by stainless steel fasteners at the hull to deck joint at

stanchion bases, horn cleat bases, and other main deck hardware. The main mast of the vessel was deck stepped at the cabin top onto a stainless steel compression post

and was held in place by the vessel's standing rigging. The forward head stay was

held in place by an aluminum cross member that was secured in place by fasteners

at the inboard sections of the port and starboard bows. The vessel was powered by

two inboard Perkins model Perama-M20, 18 horsepower, three cylinder diesel

engines and turned on a twin rudder steering system powered by a chain and cable

pulley system. The vessel's interior was a contemporary designed accommodation

space with teak decks and adequate overhead spacing. This vessel was a "galley

down" design where the galley was built into the port side hull. The owner's suite

was on the port side of the vessel with two other berthing compartments in the fore

and aft sections of the starboard side hull. The vessel was well lit and well

ventilated throughout the accommodation spaces and included two escape hatcheson the inboard sides of the two hulls with underside stainless steel grab rails.

Vessel name: "Cat Man Do"

Hailing port: Jupiter, Florida.





Hull ID number:

TSPL3728B893.Registered owner: Peter Jackson and Carly Jackson.

Manufacturer/Builder: Tillotson-Pearson Incorporated, Rhode Island.

Year built: 1993.

U.S.C.G. Official

Documentation No:

1167707.

Propulsion System: Two inboard engines sighted in the port and starboard aft hulls.

Engine Make / Model: Two "Perkins" brand "Perama-M20" model, 18 horsepower, three cylinder diesel

engines.

Engine(s) hours: Approximately 7000 hours.

Hull Material: FRP over a balsa wood core.

L.O.A. 36'9"

Beam: 20'2"Draft: 4'0"

Displacement: 11,883 lbs.

VESSEL PRE-DAMAGE CONDITION & VALUE

Condition rating: Average condition.

Estimated fair market

value:

$122,345.00.

Estimated replacement

cost:

$246,147.00.

NOTE: Estimated fair market value was determined by cross referencing data from

Soldboats.com, BUC, NADA, Yachtworld.com, and other brokerage listings or

local dealers. Adjustments are then made for condition or equipment as necessary.The fair market value is for the vessel in its pre-damage condition prior to anyother repairs or maintenance.

Estimated replacement cost was determined using information obtained from BUC,

NADA, ABOS or local dealer prices using the same or similar make and model

with similar equipment options.

The overall vessel condition and value was further based on a general inspection of





the vessel and installed components during the damage inspection.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF LOSS

Incident Report:

NOTE: The scope of this survey report pertains only to the stress related damage

on the port and starboard hull bottom and keels of this vessel. All other unrelated

findings of the vessel, past or present are not a part of this survey and will not be

mentioned here.

On June 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, I met with the owner of the vessel, Mr. Peter

Jackson at the Gold Coast Boat Yard in Palm Beach, Florida pertaining to the port

keel and bottom damage on his vessel. Mr. Jackson stated that on April 19, 2011his vessel, "Cat Man Do," (a 37 foot Lagoon TPI Sailing Catamaran) arrived at the

Gold Coast Boat Yard in Palm Beach, Florida for a haul out for routine

maintenance.

Mr. Jackson said during this haul out he witnessed and personally supervised the

vessel being blocked. Mr. Jackson said he wanted to be sure the vessel was even

and flat on the keels with supporting stands on the fore and aft sections of the

vessel on both hulls to ensure the weight of the vessel was distributed evenly. Mr.Jackson said that on April 25, 2011 he received a call from Mr. Reggie Lopez, the

General Manager at the Gold Coast Boat yard who told Mr. Jackson that his vessel

had excess movement in the rudder bearings and that they would have to be

removed from the vessel and checked. Mr. Jackson said on April 26, 2011 he

arrived early at the Gold Coast Boat Yard. Mr. Jackson said on this date the vessel

was lifted up by the travel lift and moved to another section of the boat yard. Mr.

Jackson said the same men that moved the vessel on April 19, 2011 were the same

men that moved the vessel on April 26, 2011.

Mr. Jackson said when he returned to the vessel after it was re-blocked on April 26,

2011 he noticed the vessel was not flat, but angled upwards at the bow. Mr.

Jackson said the vessel appeared to be resting on the aft end of the keels, but still

supported by the fore and aft jack stands on both hulls. Mr. Jackson said Mr. Lopez

noticed the port keel was cracked in the aft section of the keel and pointed it out to

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson told Mr. Lopez to have their fiberglass technician look atthe damage and to get back to him. Mr. Jackson said that photographs were taken

by the staff at the Gold Coast Boat Yard and sent to him by Mr. Lopez via email on

April 29, 2011 of some of the work being done to the aft end of the keel and the

hull areas just above the keel. Mr. Jackson said he was told by Mr. Lopez on April

26, 2011 that he would make the vessel level again after it was noticed by Mr.

Jackson that the vessel was at an upwards angle at the bow. Mr. Jackson stated the

next day (April 27, 2011) he received an email from Mr. Lopez that said the vessel

was lifted up so the fiberglass technician could work on the keel and hull and that





the vessel was once again leveled on blocks. Mr. Jackson said Mr. Lopez also

explained in this email that it was policy at the Gold Coast Boat Yard to block all

vessels at an upwards angle at the bow to allow for rain water drainage to the stern.

Mr. Jackson explained to me that on his vessel the drains are in the forward section

of the vessel and having the vessel on a upward angle would just collect hundreds

of extra pounds of rain water into the stern of the vessel.

Mr. Jackson stated the vessel was launched back into the water on May 6, 2011,

but prior to launch he noticed the bend in the port keel and circular marks in the bottom paint on the fore and aft sections of the hull where the jack stands

supported the vessel. Mr. Jackson said the fiberglass technician (identified as Chris

Smith, an employee of the Gold Coast Boat Yard) said he noticed the inboard bend

in the port keel and said that this area would need to be replaced by the next haulout or it could snap off of the boat if an underwater impact were to occur in the

weakened section of the bend in the keel. Mr. Jackson said on May 25, 2011 he

made contact with Mr. Lopez via email and he agreed that the vessel would be

hauled out free of charge to assess the damage to the keel and hull.

On June 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM I made contact with Mr. Chris Smith at the Gold Coast

Boat Yard. Mr. Smith said he conducted the fiberglass work on Mr. Jackson's 37

foot Lagoon Sailing Catamaran in April, 2011. Mr. Smith said the wetted surfacesof the hull were made of paneled balsa wood coring based on what he saw when

the hull was ground down past the fiberglass. Mr. Smith said the port keel where it

was cracked was simply two sheets of uncored 1/8 inch fiberglass joined together

to make the keel. Mr. Smith said he repaired the port side keel but noticed it was

slightly bent inboard. Mr. Smith said he did not know the cause as to how it

happened, he was just assigned to conduct the repair by his employer. Mr. Smith

said he did see the circular marks on the bottom of the hull (fore and aft of the

keel), but did not do any intrusive inspections on the circular marks. Mr. Smith said

he thought the marks may be superficial from the vessel's weight on the jack stands.

On June 3, 2011 at 12:38 PM, after the vessel was moved to the west side of the

boat yard, I witnessed two yard workers (named Ben O'Leary and Cameron Miller)

have trouble locating areas on the hull (fore and aft of the keel) of Mr. Jackson's

catamaran to set the jack stands. Mr. O'Leary said to me that he could not find solid

areas on the port and starboard hulls he felt comfortable to set the jack stands. Mr.

O'Leary and Mr. Miller decided to call over a yard manager for advice (identifiedas Wes Weinstein). After Mr. Weinstein took some soundings with a small hammer

for a few minutes, the three of them decided it would be best to bear the weight of

the vessel on the fore and aft ends of the bridge deck. This is where I witnessed the

jack stands being placed and the weight of the vessel was finally rested at those

points. Mr. Jackson arrived a short time later and asked that the vessel be laid flat

again, as the vessel was first set in an upwards angle with the weight on the stern of

both keels, and four jack stands on the bridge deck. The vessel was re-positioned

level again within a few minutes by Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Miller.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS

DAMAGE SIGHTED: The following major sections describe damages sighted in detail and is

organized by vessel system, component or location.





HULL INSPECTION

HULL EXTERIOR

Condition summary:

Average condition. The vessel had recent bottom paint below the wetted surfaces

of the hull. The boot top appeared to be in good condition with minor cosmetic

nicks and chips in the paint. The exterior of the hull appeared to be sound with no

significant signs of stress damage on the topsides of the vessel on both hulls.

HULL BOTTOM





Condition summary:

Average condition. The hull bottom was overall sound with the exception of the

port side keel having a slight inboard bend and a total of four circular pattern marks

(sighted at the fore and aft sections of both hulls) the vessel's owner stated was

from stress marks from the jack stands set on these areas from the Gold Coast Boat

Yard from April 26, 2011 - May 6, 2011.

The circular marks ranged in diameter from five and a half inches to seven inches.

The circular marks were sighted approximately four feet forward of both keels on

the underside of the hull and approximately five feet aft of both keels on the

underside of the hulls. The top coatings of bottom paint showed crazing like

patterns moving around and outward of these circular marks. After the vessel waslifted out of the water these crazing cracks retained water for over an hour after the

rest of the hull had long since dried suggesting water had found its way somewhere

beyond the outer layer of bottom paint. Ultrasonic readings were taken of these

markings and were compared to the other comparable readings on the hull. The

ultrasonic readings were consistent to 1/8 of an inch thick of FRP within

reasonable differences to account for resins and imperfections in the fiber cloth. On

the port bow section six inches forward of the sounding transducer there was also a

four inch crazing like crack that had a rift in the exterior that may be consistent

with crazing from stress related damage. This mark was just aft of the port side

forward circular mark of the bottom of the hull. Interior inspection of the bottom of

hull at the bilge showed no signs of damage in the fiberglass where those areas

could be sighted.

The port side keel had a slight inboard bend that could be clearly seen from the aft

section of the keel. The keel's dimensions were 10 feet, six inches in length at the

head of the keel, four feet at the base of the keel, and two feet, four inches in

height. the keel's thickness was 1/2 of an inch at the aft end of the keel and angled

outwards to six inches in thickness at the fore end of the keel. The keel was glassed

into the hull with no keel bolts or backing hardware sighted from inside of the hull.

The interior of the port keel had three voids (consistent with the starboard keel)





that were separated by two thin stronger points spaced evenly in sections that ran

perpendicular from the base to the head of the keel. These stronger points in the

keel were approximately six inches in width and ran the height of the keel near the

middle sections of the keels. It was unknown what the material consisted of that

made up these two stronger points in the keels. Ultrasonic readings could not be

taken of these thicker areas which suggested the thickness of these strong points

were thicker than two inches. The port keel had no obvious stress marks on the

interior or exterior sides of the hull or keel. Moisture readings taken from the

interior of the hull where the keel was glassed were relatively dry (14% or less). Nointerior damage in the fiberglass was seen along the bilge where the keel was

glassed in. Ultrasonic readings were taken of both keels (for comparison purposes).

Ultrasonic readings on the keels were consistent to 1/8 of an inch in thickness of

the fiberglass with the exception to readings taken on the bend of the keel on the

inboard side of the vessel. Readings there were almost as low as 1/16th of an inch

indicating a thinner, weakened area of the inboard side of the port keel. The keel

was mostly hollow (with exception to the two thicker perpendicular sections

between the voids in the keel) with no coring or ballast detected when sounding the

keels. The starboard side keel appeared normal with no signs of damage found

there.

Keel pictures:

Findings: Recommendations:

The port side keel was slightly bent to the inboard side

of the hull longitudinally half way up the keel. Four circular marks were sighted on the hull bottoms on both

hulls (two on each side; fore and aft of the keel) that

was consistent with excess stress placed on these areas.

Water was sighted being retained in these circular areas

on the bottom of the hull.

Have a qualified technician remove the bottom paint

and gelcoat in these areas to further inspect the extent ofgelcoat or fiberglass damage that may exist under the

bottom paint where the circular crazing exists. The port

side keel appears to have suffered from some kind of

weight related damage. Have a qualified marine

technician take down the outer layers of paint and

gelcoat to inspect the fiberglass of the keel for damage,

delamination or weak areas. This inspection should

include the head of the keel and surrounding hull areas





where the keel was glassed into the hull. Repair,replace, or renew as necessary to restore the original

integrity and strength of the hull bottom and keel.

HULL INTERIOR & STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Condition summary:

Good condition. No damage or moisture was sighted on the interior of the hull in

the areas of the port and starboard areas of the circular crazing or at the port side

keel. Moisture readings were relatively dry (at 14% or less) in these areas. NOTE:

These areas had some limited visibility due to bulkheads and permanent decks.

Moisture meter readings can not be taken of the hull on the exterior due to metals

in the anti-fouling bottom paint will read as "wet" on a moisture meter.Ultrasonic test diagram:

LOSS CONCLUSION





LOSS CONCLUSION

CAUSE OF DAMAGES

SIGHTED:

The cause of damages that were sighted on this vessel are divided into two

sections, the hull bottom and the port keel. The port and starboard hull bottom

circular stress marks (both fore and aft) appeared to be created from pressure from

boat yard jack stands when the boat was hauled out on land. No abrasion marks

were present to suggest the marks were created as the jack stands were turned into

place. The port side keel damage was caused by obvious excess pressure applied to

the keel by the weight of the vessel. Since the keel was thinnest at the stern (1/2inch in total thickness at the aft end of the port keel), it would be more vulnerable

to bending or breaking from pressure if the vessel was tilted with the bow up and

the center of gravity was transferred to the weaker aft side of the keel versus the

much thicker mid and fore end of the keel if placed level on the ground. Because of

the absence of ballast, coring, or structural support in the aft section of the keel, the

keel could not sustain the weight of the vessel with the majority of pressure placed

on the aft keels. FRP is plyable and will bend before breaking. Once this occurs it

is not possible to restore the original fiberglass back to its original shape and the

integrity of the fiberglass is weakened at the area of deformation.

Based on my findings, testing, statements from Mr. Jackson and Mr. Smith, it is my

conclusion that the above mentioned stress damage was caused by excess weightfrom the vessel that was transferred onto the weak weight bearing sections of the

hull and aft section of the port keel (most likely when the vessel was angled up at

the bow) causing the deformations in the fiberglass and bottom paint that wasmentioned above in this survey report.

REPAIR ESTIMATE

DAMAGE REPAIR ESTIMATE

Repair Estimate: Repair estimate was written by "The Yacht Keeper" on June 6, 2011 and can be

read on the following page.

Estimated Reserve: Based on full review of the previous defined damages sighted and the below

written estimated cost of repairs, the undersigned surveyor recommends thefollowing reserve allocation if this claim is paid:

Estimated cost of repairs: $ 13,136.58

Plus 10% cost contingency: $ 1,313.68

Surveyor services: $ 693.75

LESS deductible: $ 0

_____________________________________________

ESTIMATED RESERVE $15,144.01




















Surveyed by: Suenos Azules Marine Surveying and Consulting Palm Beach Gardens Florida Page no: 19 of 19

APPRAISAL VALUE / DAMAGE CLAIM CERTIFICATION

CLOSING STATEMENT & SIGNATURE:

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the request for a damage claim survey of the vessel “Cat Man Do,” for the purpose of

evaluating its present condition and estimating its fair market value and replacement cost on the date of the

survey. I herewith submit my assessment based on the preceding report. The vessel's hull, keel, and basic

observations of equipment was personally inspected by me (the undersigned) on June 3, 2011. Subject to

the correction of the deficiencies listed in the red and green print in this report, the vessel will be

considered to be suitable for its intended use. Other deficiencies listed in the blue findings should be

attended to in a timely fashion.

SURVEYOR’S CERTIFICATION

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

The statements contained in this report are true and correct.

The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported findings, but may also

extend to the statements of the owner, contractor, captain, or representative of the vessel. My report may

also be limited based upon the conditions that the survey may bring. My findings and conclusions are from

my best efforts from professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions which are based upon my experience

and training.

I have no present or prospective interest in the vessel that is the subject of this report, and I have no

personal interest or bias to the parties involved.

My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value from any party, nor the

direction in value or direction in a value assessment that favors the cause of the client. My compensation is

not contingent upon the amount of the value estimate, repair estimate, the attainment of a desired result, or

the occurrence of a subsequent event.

I have made a personal inspection of the vessel that is the subject of this report.

This appraisal is submitted in confidence for the exclusive use of Mr. Peter Jackson without prejudice to

the rights and / or interests of any other concerned parties and may not be used for any other purpose or relied upon by any other person.

ATTENDING SURVEYOR __________________________________

Capt. John Banister, SA, Marine Surveyor

Documents

1993 37' Lagoon TPI Damage Claim Sample Survey