Insurance claim refused

[fuzzyduck]

Would make a good funeral vessel for Rosie and Jim fuzzy! Lol

 

Nooo, they're celebs' a luxury cabin, is what's required.

 

[Guest]

i believe that in the first post the above said that " its a stupid place to put master switches" but almost all boats of the same build over the last 20 years use the same place. The boats obviously pass safety checks etc and this would seem to be the best position ? After all they are away from the engines and in a different compartment.

 

 

I also believe that it was said by the above that " we should not discuss this on a forum " but the amount of PM's and people asking me to name the insurance company seem to disagree with them.

 

There 2nd post is to try and pick faults with how i have typed up the info, even going the extra mile of quoting me and i believe 'wrong' so i add up a full description of where the battery switches etc are to get rid of any confusion.

 

 

3rd post is to say "whatever' like a kid in a play ground.

 

So why would i want anymore of there pointless posts trying to cause argument from the start. If they have nothing constructive to add than to go around quoting comments and trying to pick out issues in what someone has said then i would prefer them not to post at all.

 

I get the idea that we have the odd keyboard hero with high post counts trying to 'bully' the new users. Must say that everyone else has been spot on so its a shame you have the odd one who lets the forum down. Sad really.

 

Matty - I think the mud slinging started with

 

bye, thanks for your pointless input.

 

Which you aimed at Graham. So while it's all fine and dandy to play 'hurt' and the wounded soldier and ignite the 'oh look they are picking a a newbie brigade' that reside on here, you might just want to look back at the help advice and comments that your thread has generated.

 

Also it is a simple fact that once you post something in here it will wander off topic and people will quiz you on stuff, if you can't deal with that without reacting in the way you have then you would be better posting on a more sanitised or over moderated forum.

 

 

 

..

Edited February 14, 2012 by MJG

[Graham Davis]

Martin.

I still stand by my original posting that I think the battery master switch was in a stupid place, but it appears that this person doesn't accept that people can have views that differ to his. Certainly in the motor sport world the battery master switch has to be within grabbing distance of the driver and/or passenger.

 

My second posting was only to clarify exactly what he wrote, as the two points I quoted seemed to be contradictory. I can't see why using the quote system is so antagonistic to him; I thought it was the easiest way.

 

I will admit my third posting was "tongue in cheek", but, hey, we need some light relief in life!

 

One thing that has struck me through reading back through this thread is that the fire appears to have started because a permanently live wire to the starter motor shorted out, causing the starter motor to run away and over heat. I'm sure that part of the canalboat inspection includes the security and correct "control" of all wiring. Certainly most new narrow boats I see have the engine wiring is very well secured and bundled up, well away from any likely rubbing points. Surely sea going boats must have similar controls.

 

And to the OP, I've always been polite to you. There are some members of this Forum who can be a lot more aggressive and inpolite! They have post counts in the 1000's, not less than 500 like me.

 

Now I'm going home to bed!!

Edited February 14, 2012 by Graham Davis

[carlt]

There are some members of this Forum who can be a lot more aggressive and inpolite! They have post counts in the 1000's, not less than 500 like me.

 

And this demonstrates what, exactly?

 

...or am I just misinterpreting a weak case of defending yourself as rudeness and finger pointing towards others?

 

Does having a low post count somehow exempt you from being brusque towards new members...or does it, perhaps, mean you have less useful stuff to contribute?

 

I do find the frequent snipes at members with a high post count tiresome and rude.

Edited February 14, 2012 by carlt

[jenlyn]

 

Which you aimed at Graham. So while it's all fine and dandy to play 'hurt' and the wounded soldier and ignite the 'oh look they are picking a a newbie brigade' that reside on here, you might just want to look back at the help advice and comments that your thread has generated.

 

Also it is a simple fact that once you post something in here it will wander off topic and people will quiz you on stuff, if you can't deal with that without reacting in the way you have then you would be better posting on a more sanitised or over moderated forum.

 

 

 

..

Here we go again. I don't think graham needs you to protect him?

Edited February 14, 2012 by jenlyn

[carlt]

And to the OP, I've always been polite to you.

 

Only 2.

1/ What a stupid place to put the battery master switches!

 

 

This may be easily misinterpreted as more aggressive and ruder than you intended but I'd hardly call it polite.

[Guest]

Here we go again. I don't think graham needs you to protect him?

 

Yup indeed 'here we go again' another boring Jenlyn v MJG spat...

 

- I'm not protecting Graham I'm commenting and offering an opinion, it's a discussion forum and it's what we do here 'discuss' things...'

[Arthur Brown]

If one extracts just one point from this thread "Latent Defect" and really looks into most boating scenarios, there is little that can happen that cannot be called "Latent Defect" except a third party collision.

 

SO is insurance worth having.

 

Sadly for an engine fire leading to total loss and sinking the OP may have been paid out.

[carlt]

SO is insurance worth having.

 

Not in my opinion.

 

I don't have anything I can't afford to lose so I only insure anything third party, where required to do so.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who, over their life, has claimed more than they've paid out, in insurance, so the money I save, by only insuring what I am legally required to, goes into the disaster fund...ie. I underwrite myself.

Edited February 14, 2012 by carlt

[Rebotco]

Not in my opinion.

 

I don't have anything I can't afford to lose so I only insure anything third party, where required to do so.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who, over their life, has claimed more than they've paid out, in insurance, so the money I save, by only insuring what I am legally required to, goes into the disaster fund...ie. I underwrite myself.

 

 

I agree with that entirely and work on the same principle.

 

I only insure what I could not afford to replace (e.g. House) + what I am legally obliged to insure (e.g. Car)

 

Lesser things I do not insure and must have saved the cost of those items many times over.

 

You only have to look at the sumptuous premises of insurers and the inflated salaries of their managements to KNOW you are

 

paying a lot more than the cover provided.

 

Its just like gambling - a mug's game. No thanks.

[Guest]

I agree with that entirely and work on the same principle.

 

I only insure what I could not afford to replace (e.g. House) + what I am legally obliged to insure (e.g. Car)

 

Lesser things I do not insure and must have saved the cost of those items many times over.

 

You only have to look at the sumptuous premises of insurers and the inflated salaries of their managements to KNOW you are

 

paying a lot more than the cover provided.

 

Its just like gambling - a mug's game. No thanks.

 

The tactic here (and one I have had recent experience with) seems to be to make it so hard to claim and put so many obstacles in the way that claimants give up and the company wins - the only way is to persist if you believe you are within the terms of the policy taking it all the way to the Ombudsman if needs be.

[lexicon]

Not in my opinion.

 

I don't have anything I can't afford to lose so I only insure anything third party, where required to do so.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who, over their life, has claimed more than they've paid out, in insurance, so the money I save, by only insuring what I am legally required to, goes into the disaster fund...ie. I underwrite myself.

 

 

totally agree.

 

the amount i save on just third party for the boat helps do it up. and the age of the boat means they want another survey when the one i had at sale was 6 months old and the saved costs from not getting one done etc certainly mount up.

 

insurance above whats legal is like gambling to me only play with things you can afford to lose.

[PeterScott]

This was fascinating

http://www.yachtsurv...ent_defects.htm

Two fire-in-engine experiences: once standing on the back here (and link inside that to burnt engine has gone awry) and once more heard of the problem the same day. We had 'betterment' issues in the second case but no other significant wriggling. Loss assessors were helpful. But it does seem worthwhile reading the smallprint for 'inherent defect' because of not previously understanding what that might mean.

[MartinC]

I am glad to see that this thread has now returned to the subject matter.

 

Much earlier in the thread David Schweizer gave some good advice, to which I would add a couple of general points (on the basis that anybody still following the thread is looking at their own possible situation):

 

1. If your policy is underwritten by a Lloyds syndicate you will need to refer the claim to the Lloyds market complaints team, after the underwriters have given their final decision. The FSO will not consider the claim until it has been through that second stage. The FOC will consider claims made against other insurers provided that a Final Decision letter has been issued by the insurer or such a letter has been requested and not received.

 

2. As has been made clear in this thread there are many different wordings on the market. The complication is that, depending what broker or underwriting agency you use, you will find that the same insurance company will have many different wordings.That said the majority of policies make it clear that the latent defect exclusion only applies to the actual defective part and not to damage to surrounding parts or equipment. A good example of a clear wording is the main policy form used by RSA.

 

Insuance is subject to the legal doctrine of "uberrimae fidei" which requires that the party seeking insurance discloses all relevant personal information, and the insurance agent selling you the coverage discloses the critical information you need to know about your contract and its terms. I think,in the days of call centres,you will struggle to find anybody who is aware of this.

 

When considering a multitude of quotations check the policy wording not just the price. Insurer are in the business of making a profit. Investment returns apart, this can be achieved by good underwriting (i.e.avoiding or pricing up the potential bad risks)or by excluding as many claims as possible. I know which type of insurer I prefer.

[Hairy-Neil]

I am glad to see that this thread has now returned to the subject matter.

 

Much earlier in the thread David Schweizer gave some good advice, to which I would add a couple of general points (on the basis that anybody still following the thread is looking at their own possible situation):

 

1. If your policy is underwritten by a Lloyds syndicate you will need to refer the claim to the Lloyds market complaints team, after the underwriters have given their final decision. The FSO will not consider the claim until it has been through that second stage. The FOC will consider claims made against other insurers provided that a Final Decision letter has been issued by the insurer or such a letter has been requested and not received.

 

2. As has been made clear in this thread there are many different wordings on the market. The complication is that, depending what broker or underwriting agency you use, you will find that the same insurance company will have many different wordings.That said the majority of policies make it clear that the latent defect exclusion only applies to the actual defective part and not to damage to surrounding parts or equipment. A good example of a clear wording is the main policy form used by RSA.

 

Insuance is subject to the legal doctrine of "uberrimae fidei" which requires that the party seeking insurance discloses all relevant personal information, and the insurance agent selling you the coverage discloses the critical information you need to know about your contract and its terms. I think,in the days of call centres,you will struggle to find anybody who is aware of this.

 

When considering a multitude of quotations check the policy wording not just the price. Insurer are in the business of making a profit. Investment returns apart, this can be achieved by good underwriting (i.e.avoiding or pricing up the potential bad risks)or by excluding as many claims as possible. I know which type of insurer I prefer.

 

 

 

In other words they will not pay for the new wiring loom or the huge labour costs of replacing it, but will pay for the replacement of the oil filter that was damaged in the resultant fire.....

[tosher]

In other words they will not pay for the new wiring loom or the huge labour costs of replacing it, but will pay for the replacement of the oil filter that was damaged in the resultant fire.....

 

Just a thought, from the OP's description of what happened it would appear quite possible that only one wire (or maybe two wires) were faulty that caused the engine to start. All other electrical systems seemed to be behaving normally at the time. So is it correct to blame the whole wiring loom for the fire when only a couple a wire were responsible.????

[Guest wanted]

Just tell the person dealing with the claim that you have a photo from 'that' stag/hen do in the 90's. You never know?

[Naughty Cal]

I would have thought the auto fire extinguishers could be set off manually from afar?.

 

They normally can. Ours has a manual switch at the helm.

[Alan de Enfield]

As the thread progresses the worry levels increase to such an extent I just HAD to get out our policy and check the small print and here it is :

 

We will pay for loss or damage directly caused by :

* External accidental means

* Fire, expolosion, self-ignition and lightning

* Latent defects in the hull or machinery

* Salvage charges & other easonable costs in preventing or minimising a loss that is, or would have been recoverable under this policy.

 

etc. etc. etc.

 

We will not pay loss or damage claims for :

* Wear & Tear, deterioration and mildew

* Loss of or damage of motor and electrical machinery and batteries and their connections (with the exception of the shaft and propeller) and metalling UNLESS caused by being stranded, sinking from a peril insured against, burnt, on fire or in contact with any external substance (ice included) ........ etc.

 

No legal expert but it looks like this policy would have covered the OP and makes me feel 'happier'

 

Any comments on my interpretation ?

[nigel carton]

Who's that with Alan?

[Rebotco]

As the thread progresses the worry levels increase to such an extent I just HAD to get out our policy and check the small print and here it is :

 

We will pay for loss or damage directly caused by :

* External accidental means

* Fire, expolosion, self-ignition and lightning

* Latent defects in the hull or machinery

* Salvage charges & other easonable costs in preventing or minimising a loss that is, or would have been recoverable under this policy.

 

etc. etc. etc.

 

We will not pay loss or damage claims for :

* Wear & Tear, deterioration and mildew

* Loss of or damage of motor and electrical machinery and batteries and their connections (with the exception of the shaft and propeller) and metalling UNLESS caused by being stranded, sinking from a peril insured against, burnt, on fire or in contact with any external substance (ice included) ........ etc.

 

No legal expert but it looks like this policy would have covered the OP and makes me feel 'happier'

 

Any comments on my interpretation ?

 

Looks very much like my Craftinsure policy.

[Alan de Enfield]

Who's that with Alan?

 

It is indeed Craftinsure

[Guest]

It is indeed Craftinsure

 

Phew - I'm so glad you have just said that....I hadn't got around to checking..

[nigel carton]

Phew - I'm so glad you have just said that....I hadn't got around to checking..

 

Ditto

[Thewatchmaker]

Ditto

 

Me too

Mind you if the time ever comes that I need to put in a claim...........

The OP's insurance will be doing themselves no favours here !