SANKARA · PUBLIC EVIDENCE FILE
The public case file: liability no longer disputed, valuation disputed
Fifteen exhibits, 80 redacted document pages and 64 photographs. The image record now expressly separates nine pre-collision images I added to the file, the dated immediate pre-collision evidence and all post-collision material.
Liability is no longer in dispute. The records document two separate objections to the valuation. 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 derives the stated pre-loss value from records and photographs of the already damaged vessel.
Exhibits and appendices
MAIF liability handling
MAIF tells its insured in writing that it will pursue my claim as the German injured third party under liability cover. The matter is therefore handled as a liability claim; the remaining dispute concerns the amount of compensation.
4 pagesVideos, photographs and records are transferred
Transfer confirmations and MAIF email acknowledging videos, photos and documents.
6 pagesRepair quotation, both purchase-contract pages and vessel records
The transmission email shows both contract pages as attachments. It also shows the repair estimate and a further vessel document as attachments.
1 pageAssessor contact and renewed media transfer
Appointment of the assessor; direct re-transfer of 47 files after the videos had not reached him.
13 pagesWaiting for the assessor report
MAIF states that it is still awaiting the assessor report.
2 pagesLiability analysis, truncated purchase record, valuation method and EUR 2,000 offer
The collision sequence is not disputed. 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 says the report is document-based and still subject to physical verification, yet relies on photographs of the already damaged vessel to derive a EUR 1,000–2,000 ‘pre-loss value’. MAIF offers EUR 2,000.
3 pagesObjection to the document discrepancy and valuation
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. My further objection is that a pre-loss value was worked backwards from post-loss photographs. Liability is no longer in dispute, but MAIF maintains EUR 2,000.
10 pagesTransmission to Greek authorities
Record of transmission to Greek authorities; private originals remain withheld.
2 pagesResponse from the marine expert network
Response from a marine expert network concerning the absence of an insurer instruction or response.
2 pagesMAIF announces a further review
MAIF announces a detailed review and response after renewed escalation.
7 pagesSubmission to the French insurance supervisor
My submission to the French supervisory authority and its standard receipt.
9 pagesTechnical challenge to the document basis and backward valuation
My technical statement sets out both issues. 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. No pre-loss inspection is documented, while post-loss photographs were used to derive an alleged pre-loss value of EUR 1,000–2,000.
12 pagesDated pre-incident image from 8 January 2026
An image timestamped 8 January 2026 at 13:07 shows SANKARA one day before the collision. It records actual pre-incident external condition and must be distinguished from post-loss images.
4 pagesOfficially recorded declaration on my situation
Redacted extract of an officially recorded declaration concerning housing, income and the consequences of the incident. I additionally explain that I had worked as a sailing instructor and professional skipper, undertaking delivery voyages elsewhere on vessels supplied by my clients; because pumping and monitoring SANKARA kept me from those assignments, I say my contracts were terminated. E14 records my statements about hardship; it does not independently establish those occupational details, the terminations, their cause, causation or liability.
1 pageNAUSICAA — registry and technical extracts
Redacted and cropped extracts from historic French vessel papers for NAUSICAA. The public version retains the name, dates and technical particulars such as length, beam and tonnage; document numbers, ownership data and signatures remain concealed.
4 pagesPhotographic record
TWO VESSELS · TWO ROLES
Which vessel is which?
Every photograph is assigned to the correct vessel. For SANKARA, the record also makes clear whether an image documents pre-collision condition or post-collision damage.
46 photographsDAMAGED VESSEL
SANKARA
My substantially smaller sailing vessel, my home, and the vessel that the documented sequence says was driven against the quay. It can be recognised by the red hull stripe, blue sprayhood and SANKARA name.
18 photographsVESSEL RESPONSIBLE IN THE DOCUMENTED COLLISION SEQUENCE
NAUSICAA
The much larger white sailing vessel which, according to the assessor text and correspondence, came free of its moorings and forced SANKARA against the quay. It can be recognised by its broad stern with three dark windows, the names ‘Nausicaa’ and ‘Dunkerque’, and tyre fenders.
Liability is no longer in dispute. The label ‘vessel responsible in the documented collision sequence’ follows the liability handling, assessor text and compensation offer. What remains open is the amount of compensation – particularly the correct reconstruction of SANKARA's condition immediately before the collision.
SANKARA — the damaged vessel
46 photographs record SANKARA on the incident day, during later inspections and at haul-out. The dated pre-incident image from 8 January is separately available as exhibit E13. The valuation record expressly distinguishes before from after.
Before the collision — added to the file by me
Nine images from before the collision. Their precise dates are not publicly verified; they document the general pre-collision condition and actual use. The dated immediate pre-collision image from 8 January 2026 is published separately as E13.
Incident day
1 photographJanuary documentation
9 photographsApril documentation
5 photographsJuly haul-out
8 photographsFurther details
14 photographsNAUSICAA — the vessel responsible in the documented collision sequence
18 photographs record NAUSICAA, scale, exterior condition, deck areas and moorings. Liability is no longer in dispute; the images illustrate the undisputed collision sequence.
Incident day
1 photographApril documentation
8 photographsMay documentation
6 photographsMoorings and lines
3 photographsPRIVACY BY PUBLICATION DESIGN
Redaction and source integrity
Every published document page was converted into a new raster image. Names, contact details, case references, banking information, signatures and other direct identifiers were permanently covered; two photographs were cropped so uninvolved people are no longer present. Originals and metadata are not part of the website.
Intentionally withheld
Four files remain private: three images of an identity document and one photograph of medical records. The medical image is considered only in the private source review. Health statements are expressly identified as my account, and no medically established causal link is claimed. Publishing the raw records would expose disproportionate identity and health data. The other previously withheld sources are now available as cropped photographs or permanently redacted documentary extracts.
Download source inventory Editorial and redaction log Download press kit