Insurance claim refused

[mattysupra]

My understanding of their interpretation is that the vessel had a defecthat was as a result or inferior manufacturing or bad workmanship. When in fact the probability is that it was fatigure due to wear and tear and regular use as explained in the link I posted. I think they are technically corredct in refusing to pay for repairs to the injured causal items responsible for the claim but would be liable if say "innocent items" such as upho;stery and linings etc were damaged by say smoke or heat

 

 

so if the boat had burnt and sunk would of payed then? Considering the claim would of gone from 5k to over 100K ?

[soldthehouse]

Sometimes it pays to keep the engine running in an engine bay fire,in fact rev hell out of it,the induction air intake often sucks in the flames and puts it out. A couple of times over the years on petrol engined vehicles when carburetters have overflowed or popped back because of a flat spot, i've instantly put plastic air cleaner and HT lead ect local fires out like that.

You just need to keep cool and a bit brave.

Fire extinguiser everytime

[mattysupra]

Sometimes it pays to keep the engine running in an engine bay fire,in fact rev hell out of it,the induction air intake often sucks in the flames and puts it out. A couple of times over the years on petrol engined vehicles when carburetters have overflowed or popped back because of a flat spot, i've instantly put plastic air cleaner and HT lead ect local fires out like that.

You just need to keep cool and a bit brave.

 

 

the fire was on the opposite side to the air intake. Loom runs along the bottom of the engine. No chance of sucking it out !

[soldthehouse]

so if the boat had burnt and sunk would of payed then? Considering the claim would of gone from 5k to over 100K ?

That would have been a claim, but You appear to be claiming for the source of the fire and they in effect wont pay for the items that are the cause just the consequence ie "the rest" If you had included upholstery and kitchen units I assume they would have been covered

[mattysupra]

That would have been a claim, but You appear to be claiming for the source of the fire and they in effect wont pay for the items that are the cause just the consequence ie "the rest" If you had included upholstery and kitchen units I assume they would have been covered

 

 

But the wiring loom had a short, this caused the problem and then damaged all the other bits in the fire.

 

So does this mean they should pay for every thing apart form the wiring fault that caught fire that i think is £250 quid of the claim?

[soldthehouse]

But the wiring loom had a short, this caused the problem and then damaged all the other bits in the fire.

 

So does this mean they should pay for every thing apart form the wiring fault that caught fire that i think is £250 quid of the claim?

On first impression Yes if you can prove wear and tear

 

Remember its a damage limitation exercise to them if you roll over theyve won at the first hurdle

Edited February 11, 2012 by soldthehouse

[bizzard]

the fire was on the opposite side to the air intake. Loom runs along the bottom of the engine. No chance of sucking it out !

Yes quite, you and your dad were brave to do what you did.

[mattysupra]

On first impression Yes if you can prove wear and tear

 

Remember its a damage limitation exercise to them if you roll over theyve won at the first hurdle

 

 

 

so if its wear and tear you can claim also? maybe i should say that the boat is now 20 years old?

 

Again if it was a fault waiting to happen i think 20 years waiting to happen is a long time! Most the stuff i buy electrical nowadays packs up in the first few weeks

 

i don't think we will truly know the real cause as evidence has been burnt

[Thewatchmaker]

Sometimes it pays to keep the engine running in an engine bay fire,in fact rev hell out of it,the induction air intake often sucks in the flames and puts it out. A couple of times over the years on petrol engined vehicles when carburetters have overflowed or popped back because of a flat spot, i've instantly put plastic air cleaner and HT lead ect local fires out like that.

You just need to keep cool and a bit brave.

 

Probably more likely the large cooling fan blew the fire out in older vehicles!

[bizzard]

Automatic engine bay fire extinguishing equipment can also be fitted,not to mention my own homemade sprinkler system which could easily be extended to include the engine compartment,two lavatory cisterns on the roof would be required though i think.

[blackrose]

How did the fire start? The boat, while moored, started one of the engines by itself. Stunned and looking at each other we tried to turn the engine off. But the ignition key/engine cut was not working ? The engine was sat ticking over. About 30 seconds or so later there was smoke poring out of the engine hatches, lifting the hatch filled the boat with smoke. The boat was evacuated and my dad stayed on board to try and turn the engine off, there was then flames coming up from the engine.

 

 

I'm confused. How did the engine start by itself and why would that lead to a fire?

Edited February 12, 2012 by blackrose

[PhilR]

I think it is too soon for any constructive comments. Let's wait till we get the facts. They might reveal something completely different.

[mattysupra]

I'm confused. How did the engine start by itself and why would that lead to a fire?

 

 

Imagine how confused we was then when the engine started on its own LOL

 

 

There appears to of been a fault in the wiring that shorted out. When it shorted out it activated the starter motor. The engine then started, the reason why we could not turn the engine off was because the starter motor was stuck turning the engine over, so maintained it running at starter motor speeds (approx 650rpm)

 

The wiring loom set fire as i presume it was now under load by the starter motor? im not sure as i have not personally inspected! Either way, the wiring loom was at fault and caused the issue and damaged the otehr parts around it ~( again im going of other peoples say so a s i have not inspected personally) O there has been a marine mechanic involved and a insurance inspector that originally agreed that the 5K bill was justified due to the boat having to be pulled to bits to get to the damaged parts.

 

The wiring set fire and then burnt the other parts like the starter and alternator , ecu, fuel filters etc until we managed to put the fire out and stop the engine cranking itself over.

 

I think it is too soon for any constructive comments. Let's wait till we get the facts. They might reveal something completely different.

 

 

what facts do you want ?

Edited February 12, 2012 by mattysupra

[mattysupra]

PM's replied to.

 

Im not going to name the company YET as they may decide to change there mind. If so i will simply let you all know that the claim has been settled. If not i will let you all know who the company is.

[Radiomariner]

The full text of the letter not shown, but did it not also mention "Negligence of maintainence " You got to contest that one also.

As for latent defect, you have to pin it down to the exact location and cause of failure. Electrical wiring faults can be caused by the loom being insufficiently supported, loose or damaged supporting brackets, combined with vibration. All sorts in fact, in which case I do not think that the loom would be a latent defect.

In my experience the first reaction of many insurance companies is to wriggle out of a claim, using such phraseology and frightening off claimants. with a fair degree of success saving themselves a packet. Others value their customers and settle claims fairly if not always fully knowing that their client will stay loyal to them and in addition to paying premiums for years to come may even recommend their services to others. (A recent personal experience with car insurers leads me to believe that the latter is in decline

 

 

[blackrose]

Im not going to name the company YET as they may decide to change there mind. If so i will simply let you all know that the claim has been settled. If not i will let you all know who the company is.

 

Thanks.

 

I can understand why any insurance company would want to wriggle out of paying out on a claim if there is a clause in the policy which allows them to do so. Are there any insurance companies that don't have such a caveat about latent defects?

 

However, for your sake I hope they do change their minds and settle the claim.

[PaulD]

My policy wording is "The cost of repairing, replacing or renewing any defective part in consequence of a latent defect."

 

Any views on what that would mean in English? Does defective part include a burnt our boat?

 

No paragraph or clause numbers in my policy so probably a different company.

 

Paul

[Joshua]

I have skipped quickly through this thread so forgive me if I have passed over some relevant detail.

 

My advice would be to deal with the facts and do not get misled by emotions.

 

Employing a good solicitor is often the best way to achieve this.

 

 

 

As far as I can tell, the facts are that you had a fire on your boat, which caused £5000 worth of damage.

 

 

 

The next logical question (where trying to establish who if anyone is at fault) would be, ‘how did it start’, i.e. was it started deliberately, by accident, by negligence etc etc.

 

 

 

In this case a lot has been said about ‘latent defect’ but has that actually been established.

 

 

 

Given the apparent terms of your insurance policy, it would clearly be in the interests of your insurance company to claim it was a latent defect but is there any evidence of that.

 

It is for your insurance company to prove it if they wish to use it to avoid their liability under your policy.

 

I understand all the parts are over 20 years old, if that is correct it would tend to suggest that latent defect was less likely and make it even harder for the insurance company to use it as a defence. Either way, it is your insurance company that have to prove it.

 

 

 

If they can’t, then they must either cover you or find some other reason for not honouring the policy. If they do prove that the cause was a latent defect, then that same evidence might well support a claim against the company who manufactured the defective part or incorrectly installed it.

 

 

 

Joshua

[Steilsteven]

Imagine how confused we was then when the engine started on its own LOL

 

 

There appears to of been a fault in the wiring that shorted out. When it shorted out it activated the starter motor. The engine then started, the reason why we could not turn the engine off was because the starter motor was stuck turning the engine over, so maintained it running at starter motor speeds (approx 650rpm)

 

The wiring loom set fire as i presume it was now under load by the starter motor? im not sure as i have not personally inspected! Either way, the wiring loom was at fault and caused the issue and damaged the otehr parts around it ~( again im going of other peoples say so a s i have not inspected personally) O there has been a marine mechanic involved and a insurance inspector that originally agreed that the 5K bill was justified due to the boat having to be pulled to bits to get to the damaged parts.

 

The wiring set fire and then burnt the other parts like the starter and alternator , ecu, fuel filters etc until we managed to put the fire out and stop the engine cranking itself over.

 

 

 

 

what facts do you want ?

 

The insurance assessors report would be useful, it will be he who has established that a latent defect exists.

Just saying there was a short in the wiring loom doesn't prove a latent defect, it could have happened for a number of reasons i.e. someone catching their foot on a cable and disturbing it, which would be accidental damage.

 

A lesson to be learnt from all this is always thoroughly read and understand the policy being offered before parting with your money, something few of us do.

 

Keith

[David Schweizer]

May I suggest that before you start jumping up and down posting names of Insurance Companies and contacting the Ombudsman, that you read your policy very carefully,and then get a friend or colleage who understands legalistic wording to read it, and between you, establish exactly what appears to be covered by the policy, and what is excempted. Any good Insurance policy should contain a glossary of terms explaining exactly what their obscure phrases actually mean.

 

Then write down excactly what happenedm without embelishments or exagerations, and compare that with your assessment of the cover your policy provides. If there are discrepancies, and clearly you believe there are, submit an appeal to your Insurers and detail exactly why you belive the risk is covered, and indicate that if there is not a satisfactory dialogue between yourself and them, you may seek recourse through the Insurance Ombudsman, and ask for the Insurance Ombudsman's contact details (they are required to provide this)

 

I advise this proceedure because my own experience suggests that the first thing the Ombudsman will ask you do provide is evidence of any appeal you have made, and will probably not take up the case until such an appeal has failed

 

Edited to add:- Reading through the thread again I now understand that the boat is twenty years old, and not nearly new as I first thought. You now have complictated situation as the Insurance Company is clearly suggesting an inherrent fault, presumably as a lack of maintenance. What you may have to do is demonstrate that their assumption is either untrue, or you could not have reasonably been able to detect the fault.

 

If, as you suggest, the boat has been regularly maintained by a Marine Engineer, and if that maintenace has extended to a monitoring of the electrical system with advice on work that may need to be done in the future (a bit like the advisory notes attached to an MOT cetificate) and those inspections have not revealed any possible concerns you may be able to cite that in your appeal. However, under such circumstances, they may suggest that your claim should be against the Engineer, or if they agree to settle the claim, seek compensation from the Marine Engineer for failing to identify an inherrent fault. That could make the relationship between you and your Engineer a bit frigid.

Edited February 12, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Strads]

I can understand the concern and stress that such a claim can make, but in reading the comments feel we ar eonly here a very limited picture of what has happened and been exchanged.

 

As David S advises, take your insurance document to a legal person to translate, but also would suggest that you get a survey buy a suitable person (boat surveyor) that understand the type of boat / engines / fit out so that they can comment on the qualify of the wiring installation. Back up to this would be a copy of any purchase inspection noting any comments on the engines/fuel/wiring.

 

Of concern is that a defect in the wiring - just a worrying term, can cause a short, yjay would in turn start engines that start a fire...

 

We dont have the benefit of knowing layout, number of batteries, position (accurately of switches etc, but suspect that a chonalogical report, advising status/condition use would be useful in any claim submission, it reduces the insurances companys wriggle room,

 

I can see both side of the argument and hope that a rev-visit and re-submission with expert support brings fruition, how ever, on the other hand why should the insurance company pay out on a boat the may have poor wwiring/maitenance, up dates etc that were not done to the correct /appropriate standard,, I dont wnat my premiums to increase because peopel dont do the job correctly.

 

I am not suggesting this, merely trying to excercise both views..

 

trust this does work out

[Radiomariner]

Have you got a copy of the insurers surveyors report? I recall something at one of the seminars I attended on my surveying course about being careful about using certain words in a report such as this. I.e dont use "Inherent defect" or "latent defect" when a simple "defect" will do, as it can completely alter the legal outcome. This may be what happend here. Getting your own surveyor to inspect the damage might be of help to your case. However this is going to cost, so hang on a bit to see how it goes.

 

Edited to add.

Of course you want to get your boat into working order asap. None of this helps, does it?

I suppose that you could advise the insurers that you dispute what they say and ask if it is OK to make repairs if necessary with the proviso you keep all the removed/damaged pieces for possible later inspection. (Keep all the bits anyway) Photographs will also help.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Radiomariner

[bizzard]

And get together if you keep one a maintenance log book with engine hours ect and any maintenance receipts if you've kept them from this marine engineer.

[mattysupra]

 

 

If, as you suggest, the boat has been regularly maintained by a Marine Engineer, and if that maintenace has extended to a monitoring of the electrical system with advice on work that may need to be done in the future (a bit like the advisory notes attached to an MOT cetificate) and those inspections have not revealed any possible concerns you may be able to cite that in your appeal. However, under such circumstances, they may suggest that your claim should be against the Engineer, or if they agree to settle the claim, seek compensation from the Marine Engineer for failing to identify an inherrent fault. That could make the relationship between you and your Engineer a bit frigid.

 

 

Yes the boat is highly maintained. it goes to be lifted out the water every 2 years and a full dealer service. We also have a independent chap who does servicing in between it going to a main dealer. Anything the boat has ever needed gets done straight away.

 

The engineers report we dont have copy. The insurance company have this.

 

But this is what they have quoted -

 

 

 

[blackrose]

The engineers report we dont have copy. The insurance company have this.

 

But this is what they have quoted -

 

 

How do they figure it's going to take over 85 hours to fix the engine (3000/35 quid)? That's roughly 10 - 12 days work?

 

By the way, thanks for sharing all of this with us - I realise it's a difficult and worrying situation for you, but it's raised a significant issue on the forum which I for one was hitherto unaware.

Edited February 12, 2012 by blackrose