NEW SONG · NOW ON SPOTIFY

The Maif FilesNoir Sur Blanc (Sankara)

Our new song gives the case a voice — about SANKARA, loss and the effort to make the facts visible in black and white.

OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO

EXPRESS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON 24 JULY · CONTRARY POSITION ON 14 AUGUST

MAIF expressly acknowledged in writing that its insured’s liability was engaged. On 14 August it questioned the same basis of liability again.

I am Stefan. SANKARA was my home, my freedom to move and the foundation of my daily life. After the collision, I had to keep pumping it out; I say this cost me my contracts and my income. Yet it was valued at just EUR 1,000–2,000, using a purchase record the assessor describes as truncated and material created after the collision.

Read the overview Redacted original evidence

This photograph shows SANKARA after the collision. It must not obscure what the vessel looked like immediately beforehand.

ACKNOWLEDGEDexpressly in writing on 24 July

EUR 13,600documented purchase price 19 months before collision

≈ EUR 23,000post-collision repair estimate

EUR 1,000–2,000alleged pre-loss value based on a record the assessor describes as truncated and on post-loss material

EUR 2,000MAIF offer

AT A GLANCE

What one collision has done to my daily life — and what MAIF has offered me.

On the left, I describe what has happened to my home, work and health since the collision. On the right is MAIF's documented offer. My account is not a court finding; the offer is supported by the published correspondence.

What has shaped my life since

My home
SANKARA was more than my boat. It was my only home and the centre of my life. Since the collision, I have not been able to rely on it as a home or cruising vessel, and I have no equivalent alternative accommodation.
Vessel, use and way of life
The repair estimate is approximately EUR 23,000. For me, that has put not only a boat but also my mobility and the life I had built aboard on indefinite hold.
Months of safeguarding
For months, I have had to pump SANKARA out roughly every two days and keep watching it. Instead of being able to move on from the damage, I have had to prevent the condition from worsening or the vessel from sinking.
Work and income
Before the collision, I worked as a sailing instructor and professional skipper. Delivery work took me to my clients' vessels elsewhere. I could no longer take those assignments while SANKARA needed constant monitoring and pumping. I say my contracts were therefore terminated and my income disappeared. E14 records my statement that I had no independent income; it does not independently prove the cause or amount of the loss.
Consequential costs and daily burden
Haul-out, berthing, safeguarding, possible removal or disposal, expert and legal help, emails and calls: all of this has become part of the aftermath for me. My settlement proposal allocated EUR 3,500 to removal and consequential costs.
Health and psychological impact
The medical records I supplied identify malnutrition and kidney problems. I am also living with severe psychological and existential strain. I attribute this deterioration to the housing crisis, the loss of my work and the prolonged dispute. The records establish the medical findings, not automatically their cause.

MAIF's documented positions

January/April: liability handling and reservation
MAIF handled the claim under its insured’s liability cover. In April the appointed assessor also stated that he had been instructed subject to the most express reservations as to liability. Those early steps did not by themselves amount to an express acknowledgement of liability.
May: no contradiction
In my settlement letter of 19 May I expressly stated that liability in principle had already been established. On 27 May MAIF did not contradict that statement and justified maintaining EUR 2,000 only by reference to the vessel’s supposed “real value”.
24 July: express acknowledgement
MAIF wrote: “Nous reconnaissons que la responsabilité de [name redacted] est engagée.” In the next sentence MAIF stated that this was why a settlement offer had been sent. This is an express written acknowledgement of liability in its documented claims position.
14 August: contrary position
MAIF subsequently wrote that a Greek court could decide whether its insured was at fault. It now justified its final amicable offer of EUR 2,000 by saying that I had not proved that NAUSICAA’s mooring lines broke.
Photographs of the lines
Three published photographs show several visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends in NAUSICAA’s mooring area. They document the visible condition, but by themselves do not establish capture time, the precise function of each line or the failure mechanism.
Valuation method
Separately from the liability contradiction, the valuation remains disputed: the assessor stated a pre-loss value of EUR 1,000–2,000 using a purchase document described as truncated and material reviewed after the collision.
Payment offer
MAIF maintains an amicable offer of EUR 2,000. My settlement proposal of EUR 15,500 was rejected. The possible binding procedural effect of the express 24 July statement is a separate legal question.

Important: the left-hand column is my account, not a court outcome. If disputed, each consequence would still have to be evidenced, legally attributed and valued.

THE CORE ISSUE

An express acknowledgement, a later contrary position — and a separate valuation dispute.

On 24 July MAIF expressly wrote that its insured’s liability was engaged and that this was why a settlement offer had been sent. On 14 August MAIF instead said that the breaking of the mooring lines had not been proved and that a Greek court could decide fault. Those positions are materially inconsistent; SANKARA’s valuation remains a separate dispute.

EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED · LATER QUESTIONED

24 July: express acknowledgement. 14 August: contrary reasoning.

The assessor had initially been appointed under reservations as to liability in April. On 24 July MAIF then wrote expressly: “Nous reconnaissons que la responsabilité de [name redacted] est engagée. C’est la raison pour laquelle une offre de règlement vous a été adressée.” MAIF thereby expressly acknowledged liability in its claims position and identified it as the reason for its offer. On 14 August it instead relied on an alleged lack of proof that the mooring lines broke. Whether and to what extent the 24 July statement has binding procedural effect is a separate legal question.

Open exhibit E17

THE DISPUTE

Market value immediately before impact.

The assessor labels EUR 1,000–2,000 a ‘pre-loss value’. The transmission email shows both contract pages as attachments. The assessor describes the version available to him as truncated. The public record does not establish where that discrepancy arose. His report says that this version lacked the buyer's and seller's names and the vessel particulars. He also states that the report is document-based and subject to verification of physical findings. No pre-loss inspection is documented, and the reduction additionally relies on photographs of the already damaged vessel.

Open evidence E06

THE VALUATION LOGIC

SANKARA had to be valued before the impact. The assessment used a purchase record described as truncated and photographs taken afterwards.

WHAT HAD TO BE VALUED

SANKARA on 8 January 2026

This dated image was created one day before the collision. It forms part of the material capable of reconstructing the vessel's actual condition immediately before the incident.

Open dated pre-incident image

Documents and photographs after the collision

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY REVIEWED

Truncated purchase record and post-collision photographs

The transmission email shows both contract pages as attachments. The assessor describes the version available to him as truncated. The public record does not establish where that discrepancy arose. He did not inspect SANKARA before the incident; instead, he evaluated the vessel's appearance in photographs of the already damaged boat and retrospectively derived an alleged pre-loss value.

Open assessor text and method

THE RESULTEUR 1,000–2,000 as an alleged pre-loss value – despite a discrepancy between the two-page email attachment and the truncated version described by the assessor, without a documented pre-loss inspection and without disclosed comparable vessels or market listings.

The transmission email shows both contract pages as attachments. The assessor describes the version available to him as truncated. The public record does not establish where that discrepancy arose. He also did not establish the vessel's condition immediately before the collision, but inferred it backwards from post-collision material.

WHAT HAPPENED

The impact lasted moments. Its consequences still shape my life.

According to the assessor text transmitted by MAIF, NAUSICAA reportedly broke all of its mooring lines during a strong gale, struck SANKARA and forced her against the quay; the described damage was said to be consistent with that sequence. On 24 July MAIF then expressly acknowledged in writing that its insured’s liability was engaged and stated that this was why a settlement offer had been sent. On 14 August MAIF instead relied on an alleged lack of proof that the mooring lines broke. Three published photographs show several visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends in NAUSICAA’s mooring area. The images are directly relevant to that later objection, but by themselves do not establish capture time, the function of each line or the failure mechanism.

SANKARA was my home, my property and the centre of my life. The impact therefore damaged more than a boat. It struck the place where I lived and the foundation of the life I had built.

Compensation should turn on the vessel's value immediately before the collision. My transmission email shows both pages of the purchase contract. Yet the assessor describes the version available to him as truncated and missing the buyer, seller and vessel details; the public record does not show where that gap arose. He also relied on documents and photographs supplied later, while physical verification remained outstanding. Images of the already damaged vessel thus became the basis for an alleged pre-loss value of EUR 1,000–2,000 — and an offer of EUR 2,000.

On 24 July MAIF expressly acknowledged in writing that its insured’s liability was engaged and identified that acknowledgement as the reason for its offer. On 14 August MAIF nevertheless relied on an alleged lack of proof that the mooring lines broke. Separately from that documented contradiction, my vessel must be valued on a complete record and as it was immediately before impact – not as it looked afterwards.Stefan · SANKARA

SANKARA on land after haul-out — July haul-out · 28 Jul 2026

WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS

Liability was expressly acknowledged — then inconsistently questioned. Valuation remains unresolved.

24 July: express written acknowledgement

MAIF states: “Nous reconnaissons que la responsabilité de [name redacted] est engagée.” The immediately following sentence says that this is why a settlement offer was sent. This is an express acknowledgement of liability in MAIF’s documented claims position.

14 August: contrary reasoning

Three weeks later MAIF says that the breaking of NAUSICAA’s mooring lines has not been proved and refers to a Greek court deciding whether its insured was at fault. That later position is in clear tension with the letter of 24 July.

Binding legal effect is a separate question

The wording of 24 July is express. Whether it operates procedurally as a final or irrevocable admission is distinct and may require legal determination. The website does not claim a court-level binding effect; it documents the clear wording and the later contradiction.

Photographs show damaged lines

Photographs IMG_6630 to IMG_6632 show several visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends in NAUSICAA's mooring area. They are relevant evidence, but without a verified capture time and expert attribution they do not conclusively establish when, how or which mooring lines failed.

The valuation remains separately disputed

The assessor described the purchase document available to him as truncated, although the transmission email shows both contract pages attached. He also relied on photographs of the already damaged vessel. The origin of the document discrepancy and the proper pre-loss value remain unresolved.

A EUR 13,600 purchase price is not automatically the legally recoverable replacement value. But a genuine pre-loss valuation must address the full two-page contract shown in the transmission email and reconstruct condition immediately before 9 January 2026 using dated pre-incident material, maintenance records, equipment and transparent comparable vessels. It cannot leave the documented discrepancy unresolved or treat post-collision appearance as evidence of condition before impact.

THE CONDITION BEFORE

This is what SANKARA looked like before the collision.

These images do not show a wreck or a vessel after the damaging event. They show SANKARA as an inhabited, sailing vessel: under sail, at the berth, in the cockpit and below deck.

The following nine images were supplied by me as photographs from before the collision. Their precise capture dates are not verified in the publicly supplied files. They therefore document the vessel’s general pre-collision condition and actual use, but do not by themselves establish its legally relevant market value on 9 January 2026. The dated image from 8 January 2026 at 13:07 remains the strongest public image of the immediate pre-collision condition.

08.01.2026 · 13:07 · E13

The strongest dated pre-collision evidence

According to its displayed timestamp, this photograph was taken one day before the collision. It is published as exhibit E13.

Open the dated image in the case file

I added the nine new pre-collision images to the public file for this case documentation. This does not create a general licence for reuse. Media outlets and other third parties must confirm image rights and attribution before external use.

THE PERSON BEFORE THE LOSS

This was my life before the collision changed everything.

I worked as a sailing instructor and professional skipper and travelled for vessel deliveries. I lived on and around the water. These photographs show the person behind the case file – in my former daily life, aboard and at sea.

I identify these photographs as images from before the collision. Their precise capture dates are not verified in the publicly supplied files. They do not establish a particular state of health or prove that any later change was caused by the collision or the unresolved claim.

They do show something a case file can easily obscure: before 9 January 2026, I had an active life centred on boats and the sea. My current medical findings are described elsewhere with care and by reference to the medical records I supplied – not inferred from a comparison of my appearance in photographs.

I released these eleven personal photographs for this case documentation. This does not create a general licence for reuse. Media outlets and other third parties must confirm image rights and attribution before external use.

CHRONOLOGY

The chronology shows an express acknowledgement — and the contrary position three weeks later.

The sequence below is reconstructed from 93 redacted document pages, 64 vessel photographs and further records. Central are the assessor’s reservation in April, MAIF’s express acknowledgement on 24 July and its contradictory letter of 14 August.

1 June 2024documented

I buy SANKARA for EUR 13,600

The purchase is documented in the private archive. Full ownership and identity documents are not published.

8 January 2026documented

A dated image shows SANKARA one day before the collision

The image is timestamped 8 January 2026 at 13:07. It records the vessel's actual external condition immediately before the loss and is therefore central to any pre-loss valuation.

The Maif FilesNoir Sur Blanc (Sankara)

MAIF expressly acknowledged in writing that its insured’s liability was engaged. On 14 August it questioned the same basis of liability again.

24 July: express acknowledgement. 14 August: contrary reasoning.

Market value immediately before impact.

SANKARA on 8 January 2026

Truncated purchase record and post-collision photographs

24 July: express written acknowledgement

14 August: contrary reasoning

Binding legal effect is a separate question

Photographs show damaged lines

The valuation remains separately disputed

The strongest dated pre-collision evidence

I buy SANKARA for EUR 13,600

A dated image shows SANKARA one day before the collision

Documented collision sequence: NAUSICAA forces SANKARA against the quay

MAIF handles the claim under its insured's liability cover

First major media transfer: eight files, about 300 MB

MAIF confirms receipt of the videos

Second transfer: 41 files, about 90 MB

The email shows the repair quotation and both contract pages

MAIF identifies the assessor — subject to an express liability reservation

The assessor asks me to send the videos again

Forty-seven files, about 200 MB, are transferred again

MAIF says it is still waiting for the report

Delta Solutions issues its expert report

Assessor finds the collision sequence consistent — no formal admission of liability

I propose EUR 15,500 and state that liability is established

I challenge the document discrepancy and backward inference from post-collision material

MAIF does not contradict my liability statement and argues only about value

I have my personal and financial situation officially recorded

Documents are sent to Greek authorities

A marine expert network reports no response from the insurer

MAIF announces a more detailed review

I submit a complaint to the French supervisory authority

MAIF expressly acknowledges its insured’s liability

I restate the documentary record and valuation errors

SANKARA is hauled out for further documentation

I publish my appeal and send it to the participants

MAIF questions the liability basis it had expressly acknowledged

The valuation, in the expert’s own words.

MAIF handles the liability claim

Assessor appointed under an express liability reservation

Technical collision consistency and EUR 2,000 offer

My liability assertion and MAIF’s value-based reply

MAIF’s express acknowledgement of liability

MAIF’s later contrary position

Visibly damaged lines in the mooring area

Which vessel is which?

SANKARA

NAUSICAA

EUR 200 defended — valuation described as abnormally low

Sunken boat — complete denial rejected

Boat collision — total forfeiture not established

MAIF assessment EUR 2,800 — judicial assessment EUR 6,400

How this publication was prepared