insurance

[bigcol]

I read and replied to a earlier post this morning,( more bell weir drama!!)

it seems that I might have offended someone im sorry if this is the case I just wondered implcations of insurance re this poor chap.

 

But Ive been having a look at a policy to see whats covered and what isnt regards to the ultmate disaster of a boat sinking

 

If you have a boat that is over 10 years old, hasnt got a recent survey, and takes in water due to pit/hole in hull or leaking stearn gland are you covered if you had or hadnt got a bilge pump fitted ?

 

what happens if the same thing happens and the bilge pump float does not activate, or your batteries fail

will they call this lack of maitenance ?,

 

if the boat is only 5 years old, with a survey!, and ice makes a hole on a badly pitted hull, and the pump ativates or dosent!!, would they still say its negligence or lack of maitenence? ie hull not blacked/inspected enough,

anoldes faulty, pump not working, batterys u/s ?

 

with or without a survey if a boat took on water due to rain, or sinking, and your batteries or pump failed

would they say this is due to lack of maitinence?.

it seems to me if you had a 5 month old boat left it in the marina for few months with all this rain,

and you forgot to make sure the power was on for your pump, it sinks would they say its neglgence!!

another senario

if you left your boat as above, but your boat took on water and your pump did or didnt operate due to faulty stern gland , batterys then went flat,blocked pipe,or pump wasnt eficient enough would they say its a manufactring defect and still not pay out?

 

 

I know a few folks who havent got a automatic pump fitted! surely this will come under neglegence?? if the boat sank or took on rain water.

 

its just got me thinking with so many boat sinking due to bad weather. got my craft sure poicy out its good reading!!

 

On another post read today (not the best start to 2013) by Theo its made me buy 2 life rings this afternoon.

 

but phrases like neglgence, lack of maitinence, act of god, knowing that insurance assessors from the word go their u remit is to limit their insurers risk.

 

I do apolygise for my spelling and grammer but had to take some presribed oral morph so maybe shouldnt have posted

 

are their folks who have been paid out due to sinking or major sinking and what companys?

 

all the best

 

Col

Edited January 3, 2013 by bigcol

[Naughty Cal]

Insurers will try their best to not have to pay out on a claim, all of them.

 

All you can do is maintain and protect your boat to the best of your abilities and hope that that is enough to satisfy them.

 

It is a good idea to read insurance policies thoroughly to check exactly what you are and are not covered for and to make sure that the policy actually suits your needs.

[Chris Pink]

The most basic insurance covers the salvage costs and I would imagine there's very few get outs for this.

 

Comprehensive insurance will spell out your responsibilities as to maintenance. I have known a few insurance claims after fire and sinkings and in all cases there have been no payout problems.

[MtB]

Part of the supposedly 'personal' info deleted in the other thread was the fact that this was an elderly wooden boat which relied a very large bilge pump to keep it afloat. (The other bit of personal info is presumably why it was deleted.)

 

I would suggest that if you had a boat like this, only third party insurance would be obtainable. No insurance company would pay your sinking claim when you only have a third party policy. Do you count that as wriggling out of a claim?

 

MtB

[Chris Pink]

Is the salvage clause part of CRT or EA's requirements for insurance? It's certainly part of all the marine policies I've seen, third party or comprehensive.

[Naughty Cal]

Part of the supposedly 'personal' info deleted in the other thread was the fact that this was an elderly wooden boat which relied a very large bilge pump to keep it afloat. (The other bit of personal info is presumably why it was deleted.)

 

I would suggest that if you had a boat like this, only third party insurance would be obtainable. No insurance company would pay your sinking claim when you only have a third party policy. Do you count that as wriggling out of a claim?

 

MtB

 

No but they would presumably pay to remove the wreckage if necessary. .

 

If you only have third party insurance there would be no claim to wriggle out of so no!

[MtB]

No but they would presumably pay to remove the wreckage if necessary. .

 

If you only have third party insurance there would be no claim to wriggle out of so no!

 

Indeed. I was only commenting thus because the boat in the other thread (which inspired this thread) can only have been insured third party.

 

MtB

[bigcol]

Great re the replys

 

But is there anyone on the forum that has had a boat Sink through water ingress/flood

and been paid out for repairs to their boat as per their claim.

 

Or did words like bilge pump lack of maintenence. Or neglegence come up

 

We all insure our boats against this risk, be nice to know what excuses or reasons are made by these companys for not settling the claim

 

Col

[bigcol]

Maybe bumping the post

But Reading posts about sunk boats etc. It implies that no forum members have this terrible thing happen,

So not having to go through claiming and the pitfalls of dealing with insurance companies re an serious claim.

 

Although Chris Pinks post sounds positive re claims being met

 

Long, may this continue.

 

All the best

Col.

Edited January 5, 2013 by bigcol

[Doug Scullery]

 

We all insure our boats against this risk, be nice to know what excuses or reasons are made by these companys for not settling the claim

 

Col

 

I would also love to know more about this, especially after the Avon floods a few months ago, where I ended up feeling that I was fairly close to the river level limits of my riser set up. On mine I was afraid of either the bow riser meeting the gunwhale or the arc af the risers ending up pushing the boat into the trees (not sure which would happen first, and I hope I never find out). A list of reasons that insurance companys have used not to pay out on claims would make very interesting reading for virtually all of us on the forum.

[JamesWoolcock]

Paid out? - yes indeed.

 

I insure this 115 year old boat with Towergate Mardon of Shrewsbury, who insist on an eight year out of water hull survey. In late 2011 she got caught on the left hand side gunwales going up Camp Hill 4 in Birmingham. Frighteningly iron plates were protruding from the lock sides 20mm in places and had been caused through movement in the lock walls which the then BWB must have known about. An issue strongly made by me to them. The damage was minimal inside MARQUIS but the engineroom flooded and the Lister FR3M, installed in 1957, hydraulic-ed. Fortunately I had spare con-rods, heads etc, and sourced the rest, shells, pistons, liners, valves, spring, followers, gaskets etc.... The insurers readily paid for all the repairs which really amounted to a total rebuild down to the crankshaft. Several thousands of pounds. I shan't be changing from Towergate Mardon in a hurry! And Richard Milligan (Blackhands) worked his meticulous wonders. Thanks again Richard.

 

James

Edited January 9, 2013 by JamesWoolcock

[Athy]

I had a boat sink on her mooring a while ago. It was an old n/b, maybe 25 years old. Insurers GJW were reluctant at first (and sent a totally inappropriate inspector who seemed to know only about Broads cruisers) but eventually stumped up £1,500 which covered the cost of recovery and repairs. Full marks GJW, eventually.

[Lady Muck]

I had a payout for contents - I had my work bag swiped on the tube in 2011 - I had this stuff insured under my contents policy. They paid out. I would not switch from Towergate Mardon. They have always been really pleasant to deal with and have always phoned me for payment when I (invariably) forget to renew.

[Phoenix_V]

From the horses mouth aka financial ombudsman website

 

sinking

 

Most marine insurance policies provide cover for sinking. But the extent of the cover depends on the reason for the sinking. For example:

 

Sinking or partial sinking caused by an accident – while underway or moored – which results in a sudden and rapid “incursion of water” will generally mean full cover applies. An example would be where the vessel is hit by another vessel and suffers a serious hole below the waterline.

Sinking or partial sinking caused by a slow build-up of water in the vessel – while underway or moored – might mean that no cover applies, because the vessel was not seaworthy, or that restricted cover applies (for example – the hull will be covered but the engines and electrical apparatus will not). An example would be where loose engine-mountings allow water into the vessel.

 

The restrictions in cover if the leak was a slow leak are usually severe, because a slow leak may indicate a lack of maintenance.

 

In some cases, the exact cause of the leak is obvious – and so there is no dispute as to the cover provided. But in many cases, the cause is not so obvious – for example, where the consumer returns to the mooring after a period of time to find the vessel submerged.

 

There may be many reasons why the vessel took on water. Without witnesses it is usually not possible to say for sure whether it sank quickly or slowly.

 

Where there is a dispute as to whether the sinking happened in a way that means restrictions or exclusions of cover should apply, we will look carefully at the evidence provided by both the consumer and the insurer. Conjecture is not enough – we will look for clear evidence. We will also review evidence as to the cause and speed of the “incursion of water”.

seaworthiness

 

Section 39(5) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that:

 

“in a time policy there is no implied warranty that the ship shall be seaworthy at any stage of the adventure, but where, with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness.”

 

Most marine insurance policies exclude losses caused by “unseaworthiness”.

 

This means that if a vessel was knowingly unseaworthy when used – and the loss or damage resulted from it being unseaworthy – the claim can be refused. We would not usually decide that an insurer may refuse a claim based solely on the wording of the Marine Insurance Act 1906. We would usually expect to see a similar clause within the policy wording itself.

 

Under section 39(4) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 a vessel is deemed to be seaworthy when:

 

"she is reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas of the adventure insured.”

 

When we consider cases involving claims that have been rejected on the basis that the vessel was not seaworthy, we will usually look for evidence as to whether the vessel was regularly and well maintained by a professional marine engineer – and whether the servicing and maintenance was carried out in line with manufacturer and industry recommendations.

 

We recognise that marine engineers can make mistakes and overlook things. But provided that we are satisfied that adequate maintenance was carried out, we will usually decide that the vessel was seaworthy.

 

If the insurer claims that the consumer should have known that the vessel was not seaworthy, we will consider carefully the consumer’s knowledge. We may expect consumers who are qualified and experienced skippers to have some understanding of the technicalities of their vessel – and so of its seaworthiness.

 

But we do not generally expect consumers to have this level of understanding. And so, provided they had the vessel serviced and maintained as outlined above, we will not usually decide that they should have known that the vessel was not seaworthy.

 

However, whatever the knowledge of the consumer, there are still some basic checks and precautions that consumers should carry out. If we find they did not do so, we may agree that the insurer was entitled to refuse or reduce the claim, on the grounds that the consumer had not taken reasonable care.

 

Basic checks and precautions that we believe it is generally reasonable to expect a consumer to carry out include the following:

 

checking the bilges (inside the bottom of the vessel), to ensure that there is no water in them – as this may be evidence of a leak;

inserting bungs into the drain holes at the back of the vessel, if it is being launched from a trailer;

closing all sea cocks, to prevent water getting back into the vessel; and

checking all safety equipment.

 

lack of reasonable care

 

Section 78(4) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that:

 

“it is the duty of the assured and his agents, in all cases, to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss.”

 

We see cases where claims were rejected by the insurer because:

 

the consumer cast off without taking appropriate precautions;

the consumer ignored weather warnings; and

the consumer ignored warnings about the condition of the vessel.

 

If an insurer wants to reject a claim on the basis that the consumer did not use reasonable care, we will look carefully at the evidence involved.

 

If we are satisfied that the consumer was reckless – as they were aware of the risk but chose to carry on without taking precautions to avert it – we may decide that the insurer was entitled to reject the claim.

 

But if we decide that the consumer was unaware of the risk, we may decide that the claim should be paid.

“non-disclosure”

 

We generally take the same approach to complaints involving “non-disclosure” in relation to marine insurance as we do to complaints about “non-disclosure” in relation other types of insurance.

 

Many of the disputes we deal with involving “non-disclosure” in marine insurance policies arise because of the subjective nature of the answers to some of the questions on the proposal form.

 

For example – in answer to a question about how many years experience they have, a consumer who has hired a speed boat for one day every year for twenty years might answer “twenty years”.

 

Unless a consumer has had insurance before, or has other supporting documentation, it is often difficult to establish how much experience they have. This is particularly the case for many smaller boats where insurance may not be required – so an experienced consumer may not necessarily have had insurance previously.

 

Many boats in the UK are used for pleasure only, and are owned by people who use them rarely – for example, when there is a weekend of good weather in the summer. In addition, there is no law requiring a valid skipper’s licence or similar, to take a boat out (although certain waters do require a day certificate or, in the case of personal watercraft, a PWC Boat Handling certificate which requires completion of a one-day training course).

 

So we recognise that many consumers are not experienced or qualified in boat handling.

fraud

 

The engines, mechanics and electrical equipment are the most expensive parts of a vessel. This means that it may not be economically viable to replace an engine on an old vessel. As it is relatively easy to sink a vessel or destroy it by fire, we sometimes see cases where insurers suspect that the loss of the vessel was motivated by a desire to obtain insurance money.

 

Legally, the essential elements of fraud are:

 

dishonest deceit; and

the intention to obtain a benefit, or some other advantage, to which the person is not entitled.

 

We have to be satisfied that both these elements are present, before we decide that an insurer is entitled to reject a claim for this reason.

security requirements

 

Many smaller boats and personal watercraft are easily stolen. This is why policies often include additional security requirements for these types of vessels – for example, requirements that they should be anchored to an immovable object and fitted with a hitch-lock.

 

We see complaints where an insurer has rejected a claim because it says the security requirements were not met by the consumer. When we decide whether or not this is the case, we also look carefully at whether the security requirements were brought to the consumer’s attention.

 

If we decide that the security requirements were brought to the consumer’s attention – and were then breached by the consumer – we will take into account whether the requirement that was not met would have made a difference if it had been complied with.

[bigcol]

nice to see some folks have had no problems with their claims being met

well done towergate mardon!!

 

good info! thankyou Phonix v

 

anyone not had their claim settled then ?

 

col

Edited January 9, 2013 by bigcol

[tree]

Maybe bumping the post

But Reading posts about sunk boats etc. It implies that no forum members have this terrible thing happen,

So not having to go through claiming and the pitfalls of dealing with insurance companies re an serious claim.

 

Although Chris Pinks post sounds positive re claims being met

 

Long, may this continue.

 

All the best

Col.

 

As many of you will know about my beautiful boat 'Treespirit' and her recent sinking as devastating as this was I was insured with Collidge & Partners and they have settled my claim and throughout this very sad time for me, were professional, kind and really wonderful. I have had her re-insured with them because their service was more than a 100%. I still have my boat but will have to now embark on a complete fit-out to get her back to her pretty self again. The other professionals involved were Mr David Fuller and the staff at RiverCanalRescue and these wonderful people made a horrid situation a lickle bit easier to bear. I will be having RCR cover for my boat and cannot thank them enough for all their help You dont expect horrid sad things to happen in life but they do and its good to know where to go for help. I can only comment on the service,kindness that I received from the companies and people named. But I will always use them

 

All thats left is for me to mentally and physically lol prepare myself for a lot of hard work in the coming months, but with good friends and endless supplies of cups of tea and bacon butties, I am sure that all will be well

 

Lorraine the happy wacky treepoet

[Tuscan]

As many of you will know about my beautiful boat 'Treespirit' and her recent sinking as devastating as this was I was insured with Collidge & Partners and they have settled my claim and throughout this very sad time for me, were professional, kind and really wonderful. I have had her re-insured with them because their service was more than a 100%. I still have my boat but will have to now embark on a complete fit-out to get her back to her pretty self again. The other professionals involved were Mr David Fuller and the staff at RiverCanalRescue and these wonderful people made a horrid situation a lickle bit easier to bear. I will be having RCR cover for my boat and cannot thank them enough for all their help You dont expect horrid sad things to happen in life but they do and its good to know where to go for help. I can only comment on the service,kindness that I received from the companies and people named. But I will always use them

 

All thats left is for me to mentally and physically lol prepare myself for a lot of hard work in the coming months, but with good friends and endless supplies of cups of tea and bacon butties, I am sure that all will be well

 

Lorraine the happy wacky treepoet

 

 

That is really good to know, I hope you get Treespirit back how you want her soon.

[tree]

That is really good to know, I hope you get Treespirit back how you want her soon.

 

aww.. thank you Tuscan

 

Once the norty River Nene goes off Red , then I can get her off to the dry dock and start the first stage of work on her before I move down fulltime in 6-8 weeks. So at the moment I have my bag ready and have notified the young people that I support, that I might be having 10 days off from this w/e or the next

She will have to be totally gutted out, but luckily for me I used to be married to a an excellent 'boatfitter' and know the full extent of what lies ahead, but ime a grafter and she will be my beautiful home once again

 

Lorraine

[MtB]

Excellent news Tree, FANTASTIC!!!

 

Did you ever find out why she sank in the first place?

 

 

MtB

[tree]

Excellent news Tree, FANTASTIC!!!

 

Did you ever find out why she sank in the first place?

 

 

MtB

wotcha Mike and thanks

 

erm.. I am still awaiting the full report and once I do will update ime just chomping at the bit lol to get cracking on as I will basically have to start from scratch as everything inside is ruined and will need to be replaced all my lovely things ... she will be just a shell...at least the paintjob is ok and my pramcover and cratch cover, although my cratch board is erm.. no more, still so be it. Its no good pondering on the past, time to get on with the future. The worst thing lol will be having to live in a caravan until shes all gorgeous again.. but that will give me more incentive to not have too many lazy days lol

 

Treespirit reborn will be the title of my blog thingy

 

moi xx

[MtB]

wotcha Mike and thanks

 

erm.. I am still awaiting the full report and once I do will update ime just chomping at the bit lol to get cracking on as I will basically have to start from scratch as everything inside is ruined and will need to be replaced all my lovely things ... she will be just a shell...at least the paintjob is ok and my pramcover and cratch cover, although my cratch board is erm.. no more, still so be it. Its no good pondering on the past, time to get on with the future. The worst thing lol will be having to live in a caravan until shes all gorgeous again.. but that will give me more incentive to not have too many lazy days lol

 

Treespirit reborn will be the title of my blog thingy

 

moi xx

 

 

Yay!

 

but the BIG QUESTION is, ave you cashed the cheque yet?

 

MtB

[tree]

whispers to Mike of course I have well ime a Yorkshire lass

 

edited for missedy bits ... OK!! Mike I will buy you a coffee maybe a cake too next time we meet up and no arguing lol as i dont recall who paided for the coffees when we met up last year when I had to bring some of the people I support up your end of the woods

Edited February 7, 2013 by tree

[MtB]

whispers to Mike of course I have well ime a Yorkshire lass

 

edited for missedy bits ... OK!! Mike I will buy you a coffee maybe a cake too next time we meet up and no arguing lol as i dont recall who paided for the coffees when we met up last year when I had to bring some of the people I support up your end of the woods

 

GUD! (Coz until it is cashed they can still change their minds and stitch you up). NEVAR trust an insurance company!

 

Well I don't like kake except for lemon kake... mmmmmmmmmm

 

MtB

[tree]

GUD! (Coz until it is cashed they can still change their minds and stitch you up). NEVAR trust an insurance company!

 

Well I don't like kake except for lemon kake... mmmmmmmmmm

 

MtB

Mike being 53 and 3/4 ( the 3/4 is very important I can appreciate your concern, but the Insurance company were IMO absolutely fantastic, they kept me updated all the way throughout, were kind and considerate ( especially having to deal with a blubbering moi when I first got the sad news and had to phone them up). Nothing was too much trouble and I will always use this company because YES!! some insurance companies may get a bit of a odd reputation, but they were lovely and didnt make me feel like just another number

 

We all pay for some form of insurance in our lives and we never ever think ( well I didnt ) that we would have to claim on owt, and its hearting to know that there are good companies out there, and if you ever need them, then they will treat you the same way that I was treated. As I have stated previously they were not only a 100% in their dealings with me but everyone I spoke to was decent, helpful and kind. That will do for me

[bowten]

I insure my boat with Collidge and Partners,always been good service.Hopefully will never have to claim,it's easy to touch wood I am surrounded by it Best of luck with 'the rebirth' Tree.