LIABILITY NO LONGER DISPUTED · VALUATION DISPUTED

Liability is no longer in dispute.Yet my home was valued at just EUR 1,000–2,000 on a disputed documentary basis.

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.

NOT DISPUTEDliability in principle

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 proposal

Liability
MAIF does not dispute liability in principle and is handling the claim under its insured’s liability cover.
Valuation approach
The transmitted assessor’s text gives EUR 1,000–2,000 as the “pre-loss value”. It relies on a purchase record described as truncated and on material reviewed after the collision.
Payment proposal
MAIF offers EUR 2,000 subject to signature.
Response to my proposal
My EUR 15,500 settlement proposal — EUR 12,000 for the vessel and EUR 3,500 for removal or consequential costs — was rejected, and MAIF maintained EUR 2,000.
Not separately quantified
The published offer does not assign separate amounts to loss of accommodation, loss of use, the claimed income loss following termination of my vessel-delivery, sailing-instruction and professional-skipper contracts, pumping and safeguarding, health effects, removal costs or administrative burden.

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

Responsibility for the impact is settled. The dispute is about what SANKARA was worth one minute earlier.

Those are different questions: who is liable for the collision, and how my vessel should be valued before NAUSICAA forced it against the quay.

NOT IN DISPUTE

Liability is no longer in dispute.

MAIF expressly handled the matter under its insured's liability cover. The assessor text transmitted by MAIF states that the damage is consistent with NAUSICAA forcing SANKARA against the quay. MAIF then made a compensation offer. The remaining dispute concerns the amount of compensation.

Open evidence E01

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.

On 9 January 2026, in strong wind at Argostoli, NAUSICAA came free of its moorings, drifted into my much smaller SANKARA and forced it against the quay. That sequence is not disputed: the claim is being handled under liability cover, the assessor considers the damage consistent with it, and MAIF has made a payment offer.

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.

I am no longer arguing about who caused the damage. I am arguing that 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 and valuation are different questions. Liability is no longer in dispute; valuation remains disputed.

Liability is no longer in dispute

MAIF handled the claim under its insured's liability cover. The assessor text states that the damage is consistent with the documented collision sequence. MAIF then offered EUR 2,000. The remaining dispute concerns the amount of compensation.

Two pages shown in the transmission; a truncated version described by the assessor

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.

No on-site finding of pre-loss condition

The assessor states that the report is based on supplied documents and that physical findings remain to be verified. He could not have inspected SANKARA before the collision, and the file does not document a later physical inspection by him either.

Post-loss photographs become the basis of the pre-loss figure

The reduction to EUR 1,000–2,000 is expressly justified by the appearance shown in photographs. Those photographs were supplied after the collision and show the already damaged vessel. They are nevertheless used to assert retrospectively that SANKARA had been nearly worthless immediately before the incident.

A EUR 2,000 offer built on that basis

Repair costs are put at about EUR 23,000 and SANKARA is treated as economically beyond repair. MAIF nevertheless adopts the value derived from the truncated record described by the assessor and the post-event photographic review, and maintains EUR 2,000 despite the two-page attachment shown in the transmission email, a dated pre-incident image and my objections.

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.

CHRONOLOGY

The chronology shows liability handling first – and only then the dispute over valuation.

The chronology is reconstructed from 80 redacted document pages and the further records in the archive. Each documented step links to the relevant exhibit.

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.

Liability is no longer in dispute.Yet my home was valued at just EUR 1,000–2,000 on a disputed documentary basis.

Liability is no longer in dispute.

Market value immediately before impact.

SANKARA on 8 January 2026

Truncated purchase record and post-collision photographs

Liability is no longer in dispute

Two pages shown in the transmission; a truncated version described by the assessor

No on-site finding of pre-loss condition

Post-loss photographs become the basis of the pre-loss figure

A EUR 2,000 offer built on that basis

The strongest dated pre-collision evidence

I buy SANKARA for EUR 13,600

A dated image shows SANKARA one day before the collision

NAUSICAA forces SANKARA against the quay

MAIF takes up the claim under 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 appointed marine assessor

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

Collision sequence not disputed – valuation based on a truncated contract and post-loss photographs

I propose a EUR 15,500 settlement

I challenge the incomplete file and the conflation of before and after

MAIF does not dispute liability – but maintains EUR 2,000

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

I restate the core methodological errors in technical terms

SANKARA is hauled out for further documentation

I publish my appeal and send it to the participants

MAIF liability handling

Liability analysis, truncated purchase record, valuation method and EUR 2,000 offer

Dated pre-incident image from 8 January 2026

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