Proprietarul de iaht Nakoa dat în judecată pentru mai mult de 2 milioane de dolari după epava Maui | SY News Ep194

32 thoughts on “Proprietarul de iaht Nakoa dat în judecată pentru mai mult de 2 milioane de dolari după epava Maui | SY News Ep194”

1. Mr Jones must be mad as hell for having his boat dragged out to deep waters and sunk!

2. He’s a bit of a lad isn’t he, a lot of 🦈 sharks involved in that mess. 🇬🇧

3. The recovery work was definitely not worth 500.000$!
   And the recovery was done very incompetent! I'm sure, the sinking of the yacht could have been prevented.
   I would not pay 1$ for this work!

4. This is all
   Such a mess

   Leaving aside the initial grounding, the salvors totally messed up what should be a relatively simple operation to remove the vessel using appropriate equipment (eg airbags) and ensuring the hull was at least temporarily patched and able to withstand the tow.

   Salvors normally get rewarded with a share of the value of the property saved (and risks averted). If you destroy that property through negligence and/or failing to take proper procedures and precautions, you as salvor get nothing.

   So what needs to be looked at is who and how were the salvors engaged and what the terms were and whether they were properly selected

5. The so called salvage attempt was pretty much a perfect play by play ,of how not to do it , surprised local EPA are not sueing for environmental impact, fuel and oil may of been removed ,but no effort to keep her afloat was made ,I'd guess a total loss insurance claim was the goal ,but on who's behalf ,I hope insurance knock back the claim, every Muppet like this costs every boat owner in the long term

6. It's strange to me that people here expect rationality in the legal sense. Sadly, it's all about oblique positioning and exaggerating your victimhood.

7. Having watched all the episodes on this incident, firstly your coverage has been exemplary and where things seem misleading you have done your best to clarify the legal/maritime situation. On the actual salvage operation, depending upon the wording of the salvage contract, the salvors may not be entitled to any compensation since the vessel is now sunk Lloyds No Cure No Pay springs to mind. Furthermore was it intentional for the vessel to sink or was it blatant incompetence on the salvors behalf? Since the area is supposed to be so special surely they wouldn't want a wreck laying on their seabed. The more that is exposed about this Mr. Jones the more he seems to be a very shady character. Those speculating that he will declared bankruptcy and disappear are probably not far short of the truth.

8. GREEDY GOVERNMENT

9. As for who is responsible to keep watch: if the 'captain' on board is not qualified on that yacht then it would seem that the owner would be equally responsible for keeping watch. After all the captain cannot be considered in charge on that yacht. (I'm an attorney but not a maritime attorney and I know that is a very unique area of law)

10. That boat still shouldn't be on the bottom. Dumb recovery op.

11. In my view it is the responsibility of the recovery company to pay for the total loss of the yacht as the failed dramatically to actually recover the vessel. Therefor the owner should sue the recovery company for negating their responsibility to ensure the boat would not sink. Totally inadequate recovery methods and why would anyway one who accidentally found themselves in a similar position, rely on that company for what turned out to be a total recovery failure.

12. Anybody suing the salvage outfit for making such a mess of the job and sinking the boat ?

13. Hmmmmn for me I feel that there are a bunch of people here trying to get the first shot to make sure they cannot be found responsible. The first were the officials from Hawaii. I would love to know why the boat started drifting, could it be the mooring was not well maintained and actually they hold a whole bunch of liability. Secondly we see Mr Jones claiming they couldn’t start the engine, which actually makes sense because if on our yacht the alarm went of, I am certain once verified we would be trying to start the engines. This would correspond with what I would see as the deliberate sinking of the vessel. It cannot be proved there was engine troubles. I could imagine Mr Jones who excuse for being on the mooring so long was engine issues, it could also excuse there being no one on the bridge because they needed someone to help fix the engines. Now if at the same time the mooring failed due to poor maintenance from the local government then there could well be complete liability with the government. It will be interesting find out if they had reported engine issue previously and also their mayday calls.
    Then there are the lenders who just don’t want anything coming back on them.
    I certainly think Mr Jones is likely to be found completely liable because these things are corrupt, but I suspect there should be a whole bunch of love that should be shared out

14. Why why why the seller is asking for ….. ??? 'Mercans don't read. (You actually wonder how some have made it so far in life !)
    When they Sue, they don't just sue. They sue the world and it's affiliates JUST IN CASE there is an extra dollar to be had AND to cover their a ss as they would say.
    Up to the Lawyers to work out who is doing what and who is responsible for what…
    The smell of money makes these people more stupid than they are.

15. The lien holder made the owner buy a liability policy to cover any losses on the boat. As well the charter company(business) had to have a policy covering damages caused by human error whether that’s caused by the captain or one of the customers or renters. It sounds like the insurance company lawyers will come to an agreement. This is exactly the reason you carry insurance on a boat. Especially a charter boat. This is worst case scenario. Complete disaster!

16. In the end all they did was DRAG the 1.4 million pound yacht off the reef knowing that it would sink quickly after. Someone else should be liable for this. The damage to the reef had already been done and not deliberately. I.4 million And nothing to keep it afloat for a very reasonable charge to recover the yacht 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 i just don’t get it 🤷🏻‍♂️ someone else just let this happen clearly

17. Sounds like the folks that financed this guy failed to complete their due diligence and while they may win the lawsuit, bet they never see much return. If the State follows with there own lawsuit, wonder who gets first rights to pick over the remains of this guys assets? Any lawyers out there might comment on who will be first in line. Great reporting.

18. Thank you Gaveston guy, that boardwalk makes me want to move there!

19. maybe get away from the legalese, it means nothing.

20. Bankruptcy is really the only way forward, the fact that his charter company has ceased trading, points this way

21. Great channel, my question, How do they class it as recover/ salvage when they let the vessel sink?

22. The owner will simply file BK.

23. Ah good old Lucky Larry Silverstein

24. Hopefully, the Noelani is a separate corporation. Ask your accountant if you need to find a good lawyer.

25. Jim Jones is 61 years old and he took a 15 year loan on 1.45 million dollars, that's not a good Idea, he's far from wealthy, renting a modest 2 bed town house, sueing him for 2.5 mill will be very difficult, ..or impossible

26. Just money is not the problem, lock him up and take every penny he has got. That will stop any other numpty trying to get away with damaging any protected area. Does anyone agree.

27. Jones had a Limited liability company LLB. And a Captain 👩‍✈️. So he’s off the hook. Everyone reading this would register a company the same way. And by law the Captain is responsible, and the insurance pays. If there’s no insurance than the government eats the cleanup cost.

28. Thank you fir sharing this yacht information.

29. The suit was filed because the State of Hawaii could care less what the purchase agreement states – the investor who loaned the money has the deepest pocket and clearly the damaged party(ies) will sue him anyway. Geoff Rohde

30. I found it very interesting that the eventual attempts to tow the yacht by the salvage company back to a port seemed to make no effort whatsoever to operate and maintain an array of high pressure water pumps that were obviously a necessity to keep the yacht afloat.

31. I think they are asking for the extra money but because of all the crooked lawyers these days they will find some way to come back on the original people who loaned the money to begin with and sue them because they cannot get out of the money out of the person actually guilty of all of this destruction.. they will become as you say low-hanging fruit for the money hunting lawyers.

32. If the Sate of Hawaii organised the salvage, could he sue them as the boat was lost?

Comments are closed.