Florida Yacht Owner Sued by Insurers for Declaratory Judgment Following Partial Sinking of Azimut Vessel at King Cole Marina
A group of maritime insurance companies has filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Eduardo Rosado Torres, an individual residing in Florida who doing business as Cangri Miami Yacht Rentals. The legal action, filed under Case No. 0:26-cv-61139-WPD, seeks a judicial declaration that the insurers owe no coverage for the partial sinking of a 54 foot Azimut vessel that occurred in October 2025. The plaintiffs include Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company, Hadron Specialty Insurance Company, Spinnaker Specialty Insurance Company, Texas Insurance Company, Palomar Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, and certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
Marine Insurers Deny Coverage for Yacht Sinking Citing Lack of Fortuity and Failure to Maintain Stern Thruster Zinc Anodes
The complaint stems from an incident on October 21, 2025, when the vessel partially sank at its berth at the King Cole Marina in Miami Beach. Following a post-loss investigation, the insurers allege that the sinking was not a fortuitous or accidental event covered under the hull insurance policy. Investigators determined that the source of the water ingress was a transom penetration for the stern thruster drive shaft. The shaft had apparently sheared during operation and separated, creating a hole that allowed seawater to flood the bilge. The insurers contend that the mechanical failure was the inevitable result of a lack of maintenance rather than an accident, asserting that the vessel’s bilge pumps were unable to keep pace with the resulting flooding.
Investigation Links Vessel Sinking to Heavy Corrosion and Depleted Zinc Anodes on Stern Thruster Assembly
Central to the legal dispute is the condition of the stern thruster assembly and its sacrificial zinc anodes. According to the lawsuit, the post-loss investigation revealed substantial corrosion and visible deposits on the metallic components of the thruster, suggesting a corrosive attack had taken place over an extended period. Maintenance records provided by the defendant indicated that while the stern thruster was replaced in March 2023, the zinc anode was not replaced again until March 2025. The insurers point to manufacturer guidelines from Vetus stating that zinc anodes should be inspected or replaced at least once per year to prevent electrolysis from dissolving the bronze tailpiece and propeller shaft. The complaint alleges that the warm seawater temperatures in South Florida accelerated the corrosion process, leading to a loss of structural integrity and the eventual failure of the motor assembly.
Insurers Invoke Policy Exclusions for Wear and Tear and Gradual Deterioration in Miami Maritime Lawsuit
The plaintiffs are asking the court to apply several specific exclusions found within the maritime insurance policy to deny the claim. Count II of the complaint highlights an exclusion for losses caused by wear and tear, gradual deterioration, or lack of maintenance. The insurers argue that because the primary cause of the shaft break was long term corrosion resulting from neglected anode replacement, the loss falls squarely within this exclusion. Furthermore, the insurers allege that the incident does not qualify as an accidental external event, which is required by the policy to provide coverage for damage to mechanical and electrical parts. They maintain that the sinking was an internal failure of the vessel’s own hardware due to preventable decay rather than a collision, lightning strike, or fire.
Declaratory Judgment Sought to Relieve Underwriters of Liability for Yacht Hull Damage and Mechanical Loss
The lawsuit names both Eduardo Rosado Torres and IPFS Corporation, listed as a loss payee on the policy, as defendants. The insurers are seeking a formal judgment from the court declaring that there is no coverage for the incident and that they have no obligation to pay for the hull damage or the repair of the vessel’s engines and electrical systems. By designating the case as an admiralty and maritime cause, the plaintiffs are utilizing federal maritime jurisdiction to resolve the contractual dispute over the scope of the marine insurance policy. The case will determine whether the yacht owner’s alleged failure to adhere to routine maintenance schedules for sacrificial anodes constitutes a breach of policy conditions sufficient to void coverage for a sinking event.
Contact a Maritime Insurance Lawyer if You Are Facing a Coverage Dispute or Vessel Loss Claim
Boat owners and commercial maritime operators facing insurance denials or complex coverage litigation should seek legal counsel familiar with federal admiralty law. Disputes regarding wear and tear exclusions, fortuity requirements, and maintenance warranties require a detailed analysis of maritime insurance contracts and forensic evidence. If your vessel has suffered a loss and your insurance carrier is seeking a declaratory judgment to deny your claim, it is essential to understand your rights under Florida and federal maritime law.
Contact us now to speak with a maritime attorney.
Disclaimer: Our firm does not represent the plaintiff in this case and is not involved in the litigation. The information provided is a summary of allegations based on publicly available court filings. We make no representations about the truth of these allegations, are not commenting on the merits of the case, and are not predicting any outcome.
