Job, the biblical hero who endured various afflictions with fortitude and faith, might just have a modern-day boating counterpart in BoatUS member, Warner E. Busam, Jr., of Folsom, PA.

Busam and his family spent $50,000 on a new 30-ft. cruiser in 1996. It was their second boat and when they bought it they felt ready for the challenge of operating a larger, more powerful vessel. Their enjoyment has been all but destroyed by a combination of 58 different warranty claims, poor dealer service, mysterious corrosion of the outdrives and unexplained alteration of the boat's Hull Identification Number.

"We have a boat we are paying for but we haven't had much fun in the sun. In fact, we've hardly been able to use the boat at all," said Busam, 51, father of three teenagers. "The dealer told me we should worry about one thing at a time. But he didn't tell me how long a time frame he had in mind."

A lawsuit is out of the question because of the expense, Busam says, and no state has yet enacted a boat "lemon" law to help consumers when problems persist or when vessels are out of service for repair for substantial periods while the warranty is in effect.

Boat "lemon" laws are currently being considered in Busam's home state, Pennsylvania, as well as in Florida and New York. Proposed bills would hold manufacturers - not dealers - responsible for warranty problems on new boats and marine engines. The Pennsylvania bill is sponsored by state Rep. Harry A. Readshaw, a BoatUS member.

The marine industry has opposed "lemon" laws in part because they think that such laws may make some unreasonable boat owners even more unreasonable. But, in an effort to protect companies from frivolous attacks, existing auto "lemon" laws and the bill under consideration in Florida impose fines on consumers who file claims that are not in good faith.

In addition, most "lemon" laws would stipulate that boat builders and engine makers are not responsible for correcting problems with components like radios, galley equipment and electronic gear made by other companies. This is a major concern to builders who are unwilling to be held responsible for another company's problems.

As with auto "lemon" laws, most boat "lemon" law legislation would protect consumers when defects, conditions and nonconformities that substantially impair the use, value and safety of a vessel can not be corrected after three attempts per defect or if the boat is out of service for repairs for 45 or more days. Ultimately, a manufacturer could be required to either replace a boat or engine or refund the purchase price, less an offset for reasonable use. Such problems would have to be items normally covered by the written warranty and would have to be reported to the manufacturer within a prescribed time frame.

The most serious of the defects described by Busam, severe corrosion of the twin stern drives, became apparent in late 1997. Electrolysis from stray electrical current from either Busam's vessel or neighboring boats - the usual suspect for this type of damage - has been ruled out by the surveyor who inspected the boat.

Now, experts are examining the sacrificial zincs supplied by the engine manufacturer to see if they are somehow defective. Until the cause is determined, however, Busam won't know whether the outdrives' replacement, estimated as costing over $17,000, will be covered by the boat builder or the engine maker. In the meantime, the boat's performance is severely impacted - a criterion of the "lemon" definition.

Other problems which have likewise defied explanation include the water from an unknown source that collects in the bilge and on the galley floor. With a bilge pump that has a record of working unreliably, this could cause the boat to sink. Likewise, as-yet undiagnosed wiring problems affect the boat's navigation lights and result in console lights remaining on even after they've been switched off. Either of these problems could define the boat as a "lemon" because they have been the subject of repeated repairs.

"Lemon" laws also take into account the inconvenience of owning an auto - or boat - which spends weeks in the shop for multiple problems.

Busam's list, headed "Things That Have Gone Wrong With The Boat," contains 58 items, many that point to lack of quality control at the factory, including mis-wired bilge pump and trim tabs and ill-fitting cabinets, hatches and doors. In addition, the heater/air conditioner doesn't work despite numerous repair attempts and virtually all the hold-down snaps for carpeting and canvas tops pulled out before the boat was a year old.

Some of the issues Busam complains of have been repaired several times, to no avail. The boat has been out of service for all but a month since he took delivery. Again, this fits the "lemon" criterion for days out of service.

In terms of the boat's value, the dozens of problems will make it hard to sell, even in as-is condition. The end result is that Busam must continue to work with the builder or sell the boat at a loss. "I would lose my shirt," he says. Loss of value is another standard against which "lemons" are measured.

Throughout the Busam family's ordeal, the boat builder has authorized all warranty work to be performed locally, first by the retail dealer and later by several other dealers after Busam grew dissatisfied when the retail dealer caused more damages in the course of working on the boat.

In conversations with BoatU.S., the builder didn't comment on why the Busam boat had so many warranty problems, nor did he discuss why more than half of the boat's original 58 problems - admittedly, many of them fairly easy to fix - still haven't been corrected after two years.

As it now stands, the company will not replace the boat even though new problems arise and the old ones are not getting fixed.the The boat builder has, however, agreed to pay for repairs made by a marina of Busam's choice, provided the builder has the opportunity to approve repair estimates before work begins. Busam submitted estimates to the builder but told BoatUS several weeks later that he still hadn't received authorization to proceed.

Most boat owners, including Busam, understand that new vessels have glitches, bugs and kinks that need to be worked out. After all, building boats is still very much a hands-on process. What boating consumers don't understand is why it is so difficult to get seemingly simple problems corrected. If delays and mistakes keep boats off the water during prime summer weather, it should be no surprise to boat builders when consumers grow impatient.

Busam's story is not unique. The BoatUS Consumer Protection Bureau hears from hundreds of boat owners each year who experience similar frustrations with many different makes of boats.

Reputable boat builders constructing quality boats usually have systems in place to resolve warranty problems before they escalate. These companies make it clear to dealers that warranty work takes top priority and they reward dealers financially when customers give them high marks. Unfortunately, this is not the norm. If there is a weak link, it is usually that manufacturers do not provide adequate financial back-up to dealers to get the job done right. Good work or bad, most dealers are reimbursed for warranty work at rates substantially lower than regular hourly shop rates.

"Lemon" laws represent a definitive clarification of the responsibilities of boat manufacturers and dealers. The symbiotic relationship between auto makers and their dealers, in which dealers maintain highly skilled mechanical staffs and factories provide comprehensive back-up support, is one that coexists comfortably with car "lemon" laws in every state.

By allowing manufacturers a reasonable amount of time to correct defects, by limiting dealers' liabilities for factory defects they did not create and by recognizing the right of consumers to expect fair value for money spent, "lemon" laws provide a mechanism for resolving disputes fairly. The auto industry long ago learned that their economic survival requires a common sense approach to giving customers what they want in terms of reliability, value and service.

In Busam's case, who is at fault? Who should be responsible? Although the manufacturer has continued to authorize various dealers to make repairs as new problems arise, the fact is not all the problems are getting fixed. The manufacturer has blamed the original dealer for not being able to correct factory defects and has also implied that the boat owner is unreasonable in his expectations. On the other hand, boat dealers complain bitterly that reimbursement for warranty work is inadequate. They are often unable to correct defects that never should have left the factory.

Regardless of who is at fault, the result is that the Warner Busams of the boating community find themselves in possession of bona fide "lemons," getting bounced back and forth between the boat builder and the dealer.

"There is no doubt that this boat is a "lemon" and that a "lemon" law would have helped in this case by giving Busam a mechanism with which to resolve this situation," said BoatUS President Richard Schwartz. "Unfortunately, people like the Busams may just give up, get out of boating and tell all their friends and relatives what a bad experience they had."

"The sad thing is that the marine industry gets a black eye when manufacturers and dealers fail to do the right thing," said Schwartz.

The Missing Link

While none of the problems described by Busam constitutes a safety defect which would justify a defect recall under federal boat manufacturing laws, a marine surveyor retained to examine the boat discovered that the Hull Identification Number (HIN) on the transom had been ground out. The area was puttied over and new numbers applied.

If this was done after the boat left the factory - and neither the boat builder, nor the retail dealer in Lancaster, PA, can explain when or why this happened - it could constitute a violation of federal boat manufacturing laws which prohibit HIN changes once boats enter the stream of commerce.

Investigating further, the surveyor asked the boat manufacturer for the location of the second HIN, required by law to be hidden somewhere inside the boat to deter thieves. He was given several possible sites, none of which panned out. Then, Busam says, factory personnel admitted that they don't usually put hidden numbers in their boats.

Federal HIN standards require a so-called "hidden" or duplicate HIN. The U.S. Coast Guard, which administers recreational boat manufacturing standards, has the authority to require manufacturers to recall boats which do not comply with those standards. The Coast Guard is looking into Busam's complaint. The end result could be a recall of all boats of the same make which do not contain hidden hull numbers. They will also investigate why the transom HIN was altered.

(c) Copyright BoatUS Magazine, September 1998