[POLECAT]

Thursday, 22 January 2009 11:42

A District Court judge in southern Florida recently denied a request to dismiss a lawsuit regarding the damage that gasoline blended with ethanol does to boat engines and fuel tanks. The suit was filed last August by The Kopelowitz Ostrow law firm on behalf of clients Erick Kelesceny, John Egizi and Todd Jessup, all Florida residents. Defendants in the case are Exxon, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, BP and Shell. The suit alleges that the oil companies failed to warn boat owners that ethanol-blended gasoline may destroy fiberglass tanks and tends to absorb water and phase separate, which could cause damage to any boat, regardless of its fuel tank material. The next step following this week's ruling is pursuing certification to become a class-action lawsuit, according to a report in the Naples News. If successful, the oil companies will be forced to place a warning label on pumps at all Florida gas stations. The plaintiffs also seek compensation for Florida boat owners whose boats have been damaged by the fuel. "Denial of the motion is a significant step toward redressing the wrong perpetrated on Florida's boating population," said TKO managing partner Jeffrey Ostrow, in a statement. "Florida is the boating capital of the world, and it is reprehensible for oil companies to enjoy significant profits while knowingly paralyzing Florida's boaters." Click here for a release about the lawsuit. Click here for the report in the Naples Daily News.

 

[Muireadach]

I'm down with that

Please, keep us posted!

 

[POLECAT]

If relief is won in Florida, other states will follow.

More about this is sure to hit the news.

 

[27 sailfish]

I have a friend with a 33 Bertram that will be very interested in this.He spent over $8,000.00 to have the fiberglass tank removed from his boat.The E-10 made soft spots in the fuel tank.He bought the used boat right before E-10 came out.Since he fishes the bay- he could handle the gas bill but the repair bill ruined his season.

 

[teaser33]

Class action lawsuit to require warning stickers? Ok, now you are warned that this crappy fuel may damage your boat, but what alternative is available? A ruling to remove ethanol is highly unlikely, IMO. Class action = big money for the lawyers, and about 35 cents to each boat owner for your trouble. While I would prefer not burning food or liqour in my boat, I am too cynical to think there will be any other outcome.

 

[aafinest]

I have a friend with a 33 Bertram that will be very interested in this.He spent over $8,000.00 to have the fiberglass tank removed from his boat.The E-10 made soft spots in the fuel tank.He bought the used boat right before E-10 came out.Since he fishes the bay- he could handle the gas bill but the repair bill ruined his season.

I also have a Bertram with a fiberglass tank, 8 grand is on the low side. My fuel tank is under the cockpit deck, I would have had to cut almost the entire deck up to change it out. 10 grand + was the cheapest estimate I got and that didn't include the fiberglass work to re-finish the deck. I ended up re-powering to diesel and said the he!! with it.

 

[KenY]

Because it was a Federal mandate to add ethanol, this case isn't going anywhere.

 

[tolmaz]

I know the drill well...cost me right around 2,000.00 to fix the problem...E-10 is not a good thing for boats...if you burn it quick..fine...but there is no shelf life and VERY expensive to correct after it goes bad

 

[goose70]

Because it was a Federal mandate to add ethanol, this case isn't going anywhere.

Well, apparently it's going past the motion to dismiss phase (which isn't surprising and doesn't necessarily mean that much, but it ain't dead yet). Regarding the federal mandate part, I suspect that the motion to dismiss would have covered that. So, that legal point could now be a non-factor....at least until the appeal.

 

[iFishMD]

e10 gas has been good for one thing................. making a lot of mid west farmers rich.


remember, we subsidize the stuff with our tax dollars too.

 

[goose70]

B-Faithful, just to stoke your fires a bit about ethanol, you ought to watch this video from a Frontline report on the subject. Just lock up the firearms before hand.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/7.html

If you really want a champion in the effort, I suggest Amy Jaffe in Houston. She's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to telling it as it is about ethanol subsidies (although she's less uptight then she comes off in the video). You'll find her remarks at 13:30 of the Frontline video.

P.S.: Since I know it's coming up, I'll head-off the comment by noting that I know that Obama has supported ethanol. I disagree with Obama on much of this position, as do many of his advisors, so there's still Hope on that issue.

 

[ChrisBowers]

Ethenol is one giant scam designed as a handout to midwestern farmers, and usually not the mom and pops, more like the giant factory farms. It takes more energy to produce 1 gallon of ethenol than the gallon of ethenol holds. It's also driving food prices through the roof because all the corn is going to ethenol and farmers who used to grow things like wheat are now growing corn. :hammer: The least they could do is allow marina gas stations to get ethenol free fuel. I'd even pay extra for it knowing that I don't have a giant tank of fuel waiting to absorb water and disolve any gunk inside my tank.

 

[teaser33]

You shouldn't have to pay extra for non-ethanol gas. When E 10 was added gas prices increased.
I just love Congress, mandate a higher cost additive that decreases the efficiency of the fuel, and increases the cost of food products. They never think of the law of unintended consiquences.:52:

 

[iFishMD]

You shouldn't have to pay extra for non-ethanol gas. When E 10 was added gas prices increased.
I just love Congress, mandate a higher cost additive that decreases the efficiency of the fuel, and increases the cost of food products. They never think of the law of unintended consiquences.:52:

yup. Just look at the "community reinvestment act". Congress created the mortgage crisis too. Now they think they know how to "fix" it.

 

[27 sailfish]

Chris - you bring up a good point. Why can't there be a true marine grade gasoline ? It could only be sold at marinas for use in boats.It might end up being slightly higher due to needing designated tankers but all boaters would benefit.The trailered boats are used on the water - they would just have to fill up at a marina instead of on the road.

 

[ChrisBowers]

My thoughts exactly Skip. As they say about the Government: If you like our problems, wait til you see our solutions.

 

[iFishMD]

I bet boaters wouldnt buy a "marine fuel" if available as I would guess it would be much more expensive due to logistical reasons, lower volume and businesses needing higher profit margins, and seperate refining costs. Besides our state govt would find a way to tax it even more than hwy fuel as a "luxury fuel." They would sell it as the funds would go towards saving the bay when in reality it would go into the general fund and be lost in bureaucracy

 

[27 sailfish]

The way I understand E-10 is that the alcohol is added/blended right before it is loaded onto the tanker truck.

Seems to me there is non E-10 gasoline readily available.looks like the boating industry needs a good lobbyist.

 

[bigmouth]

yea but you cant be switching back and forth gasses

 

[one fish]

I thought I read in the boat/us mag that is sent periodically, abut 6 mths ago, that oregon or wash state did something on this. I think they got it thru their legistature.
they were either close or was getting started on having non e available at the marinas. as mentioned there were probs to be worked out. if boat is kept is slip,ok
otherwise, trailered boats aren't gonna pay the xtra $ when they can get it on land.

I guess a seach on their mailed mag would help, but I am too lazy.