Back to main pageEXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED ON 24 JULYMAIF wrote that its insured’s liability was engaged and that this was why a settlement offer had been sent. On 14 August it instead relied on an alleged lack of proof that the mooring lines broke.
E17
SECOND DISPUTECompleteness of the valuation record and SANKARA’s value and condition immediately before the collisionE06
SANKARA · PUBLIC EVIDENCE FILE
The public case file: express acknowledgement, later contrary position, valuation disputed
18 evidence sets, 93 permanently redacted document pages and 64 photographs. The file separates liability-claim handling, technical collision analysis, the legal liability question, mooring-line photographs and the continuing pre-loss valuation dispute.
18 exhibits93 pages64 photographs4 private files
HOW TO READ THIS FILE
Since 24 July the correspondence contains an express written acknowledgement of liability by MAIF: “Nous reconnaissons que la responsabilité de [name redacted] est engagée.” MAIF immediately added that this was why a settlement offer had been sent. This must be distinguished from the earlier liability handling in January and the assessor’s reservation in April, neither of which by itself amounted to an acknowledgement. In May MAIF had already left my liability assertion uncorrected and argued only about vessel value. On 14 August MAIF nevertheless relied on an alleged lack of proof that the mooring lines broke and referred the fault question, if necessary, to the Greek courts. Photographs IMG_6630 to IMG_6632 show several visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends in NAUSICAA’s mooring area and are directly relevant to that later objection. Their precise temporal and technical attribution, and any binding procedural effect of the 24 July statement, remain separate questions.
Exhibits and appendices
E01
MAIF liability handling
MAIF says it will follow the German injured party's claim under its insured's liability cover. This proves handling as a liability claim, not an express admission.
4 pagesE02
Videos, photographs and records are transferred
Transfer confirmations and MAIF email acknowledging videos, photos and documents.
6 pagesE03
Repair 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 pageE04
Assessor contact and renewed media transfer
The assessor states that he was instructed subject to express reservations as to liability. This sentence is central to the legal characterization of the later assessment.
13 pagesE05
Waiting for the assessor report
MAIF states that it is still awaiting the assessor report.
2 pagesE06
Liability analysis, truncated purchase record, valuation method and EUR 2,000 offer
The assessor says the damage is consistent with the described collision sequence. He also values SANKARA at EUR 1,000–2,000 on a documentary basis, after which MAIF transmits an offer of EUR 2,000.
3 pagesE07
Objection to the document discrepancy and valuation
I state in writing that liability is already established. MAIF does not contradict that statement in its reply and instead maintains EUR 2,000 by reference to the vessel’s supposed real value.
10 pagesE08
Transmission to Greek authorities
Record of transmission to Greek authorities; private originals remain withheld.
2 pagesE09
Response from the marine expert network
Response from a marine expert network concerning the absence of an insurer instruction or response.
2 pagesE10
MAIF announces a further review
MAIF announces a detailed review and response after renewed escalation.
7 pagesE11
Submission to the French insurance supervisor
My submission to the French supervisory authority and its standard receipt.
9 pagesE12
Technical 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 pagesE13
Dated pre-incident image and separately identified post-collision comparisons
Only pages 1 and 2 form the dated pre-incident evidence: the image and its metadata show 8 January 2026 at 13:07. Pages 3 and 4 instead show SANKARA after the collision, with visible damage to the stern area and stern rail. They are included solely as post-collision comparisons and do not evidence the vessel's pre-collision condition.
4 pages · 2 before / 2 afterE14
Officially 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 pageE15
NAUSICAA — 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 pagesE17
MAIF’s express written acknowledgement of liability
On 24 July MAIF expressly states: “Nous reconnaissons que la responsabilité de [name redacted] est engagée. C’est la raison pour laquelle une offre de règlement vous a été adressée.” Liability is therefore expressly acknowledged in MAIF’s claims position and identified as the reason for the offer. Whether and to what extent the statement has binding procedural effect is a separate legal question.
5 pagesE16
Later contrary position: mooring-line breaks allegedly not proved
On 14 August MAIF says that a Greek court may have to decide whether its insured was at fault and justifies its final amicable offer of EUR 2,000 by saying that the breaking of NAUSICAA’s mooring lines has not been proved. That position is in clear tension with the express acknowledgement of 24 July. Photographs IMG_6630 to IMG_6632 show visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends; their exact temporal and technical attribution remains for expert assessment.
1 pageE18
Rapport d’expertise IRD
Seven pages of the report prepared by Delta Solutions for MAIF, dated 9 May 2026. It assesses the supplied documents, the damage and SANKARA’s assumed pre-loss value. Its conclusions represent the expert’s position.
French · 7 pages · PDF, 2.8 MBPublic version · personal details redacted
Photographic 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 photographsOTHER VESSEL IN THE DOCUMENTED COLLISION SEQUENCE
NAUSICAA
The substantially larger white sailing vessel described in the assessor text transmitted by MAIF as the vessel that forced SANKARA against the quay. MAIF now disputes that the breaking of its mooring lines has been proved. Three published photographs show several visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends in the mooring area. NAUSICAA is identifiable by the broad stern with three dark windows, the names “Nausicaa” and “Dunkerque”, and tyre fenders.
The label “other vessel in the documented collision sequence” describes NAUSICAA’s factual role as documented by photographs, correspondence and the assessor text. In addition, on 24 July MAIF expressly acknowledged in writing that its insured’s liability was engaged and identified this as the reason for its offer. On 14 August MAIF instead relied on an alleged lack of proof that the mooring lines broke. Photographs IMG_6630 to IMG_6632 show visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends in the mooring area and are therefore directly relevant to that later objection. Whether the 24 July statement has final binding procedural effect is a separate legal question.
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 other vessel in the documented collision sequence
18 photographs record NAUSICAA, scale, exterior condition, deck areas and moorings. MAIF expressly acknowledged liability in writing on 24 July. Since 14 August it has nevertheless relied on an alleged lack of proof that the mooring lines broke. Three photographs show visibly torn or heavily frayed line ends and are directly relevant to that new objection.
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.
Addendum to the redaction logDownload source inventory Editorial and redaction log Download press kit