Nautical Blues – No Place to Hide –  Investigating Fraud Below the Surface

Copyright held by The John Cooke Fraud Report. Reprint rights are granted with attribution to The John Cooke Fraud Report with a link to this website.

By Eric Tackett

The claimant (we’ll call him Bob) was a 35-year-old journeyman carpenter.  His hobbies were boating, water skiing and drinking beer, not necessarily in that order.  Bob spent most of his weekends on Lake Merwin, a popular summer spot in southwest Washington state, situated off state route 500, a two lane roadway leading to the backside of Mt. St. Helens.

On the date of the loss, Bob had taken several friends out on his 18-foot Bayliner and they had spent the first half of the day skiing, boating and generally having a whale of a good time.

 Then, suddenly and without warning, the dayrunner was struck on the port side, near the bow, by another vessel which had violated Bob’s right of way.  He described the scene as a “crossing situation,” with his own vessel clearly in the starboard “danger zone” of the other craft.  The other craft pilot (we’ll call him Dan) failed to signal properly, change course, or yield the right of way.  By the time Bob realized Dan was not going to yield, it was too late.

Bob stated that he attempted to avoid the collision at the last minute, but he was unable to do so.  His Bayliner was struck by Dan’s craft on the port side, just forward of the port beam.  The impact was so severe that both vessels sank almost immediately.

Dan told a different story to his carrier, Nautical Insurance Company.  He stated that he and his son had gone fishing out on the lake early that morning.  They had changed locations several times, trying to find a spot where “they were biting.”  They had been at anchor for about an hour and a half and were taking a short nap after consuming a lunch of bologna sandwiches and Dr.  Pepper.  They intended to resume their day’s activities after the na

They had left their lines baited and in the water, in hopes that they might get a bite while napping.  Bells had been attached to the top of the poles to alert the anglers to movement that would indicate activity on the other end of the line.

“The next thing we knew,” said Dan, “we didn’t know nothin’.” Dan described being suddenly thrown out of his boat into the water and seeing Bob’s boat on his port bow.  Half of the port side of his boat was missing from the port beam forward.  Dan’s son (we’ll call him Junior) fully supported his father’s version of their status, pre-impact.  Junior more or less supported his dad’s after-the-fact observations, but he had no idea how the accident happened.

Bob had five passengers in his boat at the time of the accident.  Each of them fully supported Bob’s version of the accident facts.  Each of them, too, filed personal injury claims against Dan’s insurance policy.

Based upon the statements of the claimants, investigators expected to find the point of primary impact on Bob’s vessel on the port side, forward of the port beam and on the port bow.  Anticipated damage to Dan’s craft, based on Bob’s story, was to the starboard side, forward of the starboard beam.

If such damage were found on the involved crafts, it would support Bob’s version and tend to prove liability on the part of Dan for violating Bob’s right of way.  The stories of the claimants, Bob and his passengers, were fairly tight, whereas Dan and Junior presented rather poorly with regard to the mechanics of the accident.

The adjuster initially assigned to the file wasn’t totally comfortable with the facts as presented by the claimants.  With six liability reserves and a hefty property damage claim, she trusted her gut instincts and hired an investigator well versed in underwater investigation.

Upon obtaining as much information as possible on the location of the sunken craft, the investigator established search boundaries and decided upon a search pattern appropriate for the water and bottom conditions, the visibility, and the size of the vessel to be located.

Two divers initiated adjacent patterns from a central starting point, expanding in opposite directions, across the chosen search area.  In less than fifteen minutes, the two crafts were found in 55 feet of water, several hundred yards off shore.  A marker buoy broke the surface, providing a signal to the surface support team that the craft had been located.

Upon finding the site and marking the location, the lead diver utilized the back of his navigational console as a drawing table and sketched the relative positions of the two craft where they rested on the bottom.

Staying far enough off the bottom to avoid stirring up the silty sediment, they remained close enough to see clearly as they covered the area sketching the scene from above.  The visibility at this depth and in this part of the lake was between six and ten feet.  The water temperature was 48 degrees.

After completing a sketch of the craft in their relative positions, the two divers ran a careful grid pattern over a rectangular area surrounding the involved vessel, documenting the positions of smaller items found lying on the bottom that appeared to be connected to the vessels:  fishing tackle, ice chest, and other personal items of various descriptions.

After covering the surrounding area and recording the items found in the adjacent area in the sketch, the divers surfaced and briefed the surface support team and the second dive team.  By now, the surface support team had moved the team dive boat to the area of the marker buoy, which had been set in the bottom an appropriate distance from the wreck site.  The first dive team had expended their maximum allowable bottom time and were forced to surface, avoiding the risk of decompression sickness or “the bends.”

Having been thoroughly briefed on what they would find and what was remaining for them to do, the second dive team entered the water with video and 35 mm cameras in hand.  They moved directly to the sunken craft.  In turn, the outside of each vessel was examined and recorded on film.  Just as thoroughly, the interiors of both boats were examined inch by inch and everything was recorded on video and 35 mm film.

Once the examination was complete and the site had been thoroughly filmed, the divers began to collect removable evidence.  Using separate containers for each item collected, the new protected evidence was placed inside mesh bags in which it would be carried to the surface.

When the underwater investigation was complete, the sketch, photos, video and other evidence were reviewed and evaluated and the investigative report was submitted to the carrier.  The following information was contained within that report:

Dan’s craft was sitting upright on the bottom, facing in a southeasterly direction.  Major damage was noted to the port side, including an area from just forward of the port beam to a point approximately 1 point on the port bow.  Vertical damage in the area described included the entire freeboard, all the way to the “chine.”

The anchor line of Dan’s vessel was out and the anchor was firmly set in the bottom.  The ignition key was in the off position.  The throttle was in the neutral position.  Fishing poles, matching the description provided by Dan and Junior were on the lake bottom in close proximity to their boat.  The monofilament lines on both poles were found to be extended ten yards or more, although no bait was found to be on the hooks.

Bob’s craft was sitting nearly upright on the bottom, resting partially on the port side, facing in a southerly direction.  It was lying to the port side of Dan’s craft, and at a slight angle to it – approximately three to six feet away.

A skier’s tow line was extended from Bob’s vessel, extending more or less its full length from the transom, where it was attached at the stern, running back in a northerly direction.  The ignition switch was in the “on” position and the throttle was full ahead.

A large number of cans of a well known beer were observed strewn about the bottom, nearer to Bob’s craft, and the presence of additional cans of the same brand were noted within the cockpit and cabin.  Still more cans of the beverage were observed within the bait tank of Bob’s vessel.  These additional cans were observed after opening the still closed lid of the built-in bait tank in his craft.

The conclusion reached, and the facts supported by the evidence, was that Dan was – as stated – at anchor at the moment of impact.  Bob, on the other hand, was towing a skier at a fairly high rate of speed and numerous alcoholic beverages had been consumed by persons on board his boat.

The location of the damage clearly indicated that Dan did not violate Bob’s right of way.  The damage further demonstrated that, even if Dan had been moving – which he was not – the right of way would have belonged to him, not Bob.

Bob’s claim for damages and injury, as well as the injury claims presented by his passengers, were denied by the Nautical Insurance Company.  Beyond a doubt, the investigation had proven that Bob was totally at fault for the accident.

The preceding story is a composite of several incidents, with creative license taken to illustrate the potential for underwater investigative technique.

From the late 1970’s through the early 1980’s, techniques, equipment and procedures were developed that made it possible for law enforcement investigators to conduct a complete and thorough crime scene investigation, even if that scene, or evidence taken from a topside crime scene, were now underwater.

Using the proper search patterns, items as small as shell casings can be located.  Weapons can be retrieved without significant damage, even when the weapon has been submerged for days, weeks and sometimes even months.  Even fingerprints can be retrieved from objects that have been underwater for long periods – if processed properly.

This prompted significant changes in the way police divers were utilized.  Prior to the advent of standardized underwater crime scene investigation techniques and procedures, police divers were rarely used for much more than tying a winch to a submerged car so it could be pulled out, or for recovering bodies.

The techniques and procedures were refined, standards were established, courses of training were developed and now there is hardly a law enforcement agency in the country without a highly trained team of underwater investigators (at least no agency near a body of water too deep to stand up in).

In recent years, the technology has finally begun to catch up with the advancement of underwater investigators.  We now have boat-towed and hand-held, side-scanning sonar to assist us in the location of just about anything.  Space age dive helmets, air supply systems, underwater communications equipment and video equipment can now be operated by unencumbered divers using scuba, or by surface supplied air systems that will fit into a suitcase and go anywhere.

The state of the art, however, is represented by submersible, remotely operated vehicles (ROV), equipped with video and lighting systems.  These miniature, remote controlled submarines can go anywhere a diver can go and a great many places a diver can’t go.  These devices can see everything a diver can see, and it can all be viewed from the comfort of the dive boat cabin.  Divers can now complete their assignments without getting wet and without putting themselves at risk.

Like much that was first used by law enforcement, the techniques and procedures developed for police investigators are easily transferable to private investigators.

The application in marine insurance is nearly endless:  settle liability issues or suspected fraud; survey craft in the water; inspect sea walls, the underside of floating docks, pilings, or anything else that previously required one to get wet:  or do that which simply was not done because all efforts stopped at the water’s edge.

The future of marine survey and investigations lies below the surface; and the future is now.

A LANDLUBBER’S GUIDE TO NAUTICAL TERMS

Eric Tackett is the manager of the Fountain Valley office of Specialized Investigations.  A diving instructor for 16 years, he developed courses of training in Underwater Crime Scene Investigation and Rapid Deployment Underwater Search and Rescue.  He is also the author of The Investigative Medical Audit Manual (reviewed in the November/December issue of The John Cooke Fraud Report).

© Copyright 1995 Alikim Media