Insurance - be afraid.

[Simon (Hawksmoor)]

Surely a current Boat Safety Certificate would be proof of seaworthiness?

[Guest]

Surely a current Boat Safety Certificate would be proof of seaworthiness?

Not really. It doesn't take into account hull thickness for example.

[howardang]

Surely a current Boat Safety Certificate would be proof of seaworthiness?

Not really, and especially not where the capabilities and competence of the of the crew are concerned. Additionally, the BSC doesn't consider things like hull construction and condition for example.

 

Howard

[David Mack]

 

• We will indemnify you in respect of claims made and law costs incurred by third parties for which you will by reason of

your interest in “The Dog House” become legally liable to pay

 

Well, despite what others have said, that looks pretty clear cut to me. The insurer is saying they will pay for costs which the third party incurs. All the third party would have to do is establish that you are liable. That could mean a day in court if the circumstances were marginal or in dispute, but in most cases the insurer would just pay up to avoid the costs of litigation.

[casper ghost]

My understanding is that the Insurance company is correct, it's standard marine insurance policy that corrosion isn't covered and therefore nothing resulting in corrosion covered either. Have you approached the other boat owner? or maybe a claim through your own insurance, expect the excess makes that uneconomical. It's a bit like a car crashing into you and finding their not insured because they had bald tyres!

Casp'

Not really, and especially not where the capabilities and competence of the of the crew are concerned. Additionally, the BSC doesn't consider things like hull construction and condition for example.

Howard

Gas locker condition has just become a part of the BSS, where you can fail if signs of corrosion are seen by the examiner.

[J R]

After 17,600 plus posts it would have been thought that you would know that the tarry blacking will disolve in oil, white spirit, diesel, petrol etc as it is 'spirit based'. Having done the blacking last year I was dismayed when we had a 2 month mooring over winter at the western end of the K & A, whilst the moorings company were trying to rebuild one of their boats which had sunk twice, they put in four 25L containers as fenders which were full of sump oil from their other boats. Yes you have guessed it, tops came off with the natural action of boats moving and the oil spilled. No appreciable action was taken and I dread the enviromental impact for the two months.The staff just laughed as it 'was one of those things' and could not be bothered to take any action.. Took the blacking along the waterline on our boat, and four other private boats, and a number of the hire base boats as well. The 'professional full time staff' completed the refurb on the day/hire boat. It has only caught fire twice this season so far. Fact. Love professional hire bases.

 

Cheers -

 

ed. - the corroded gas locker floor issue is something that BSS inspectors now paying attention to. Not least because of this but also the fact that it can allow any leaking LPG into the bilge of the boat as well as water, not where you want that substance either!

 

Sorry about your blacking, I actually hadn't realise diesel can harm it.

 

 

[MartinC]

 

I think the difference her though is the affect on third parties. I am not aware of any refusals by a car insurance firm to pay out to a third party following an accident or incident caused by mechanical defect in turn caused by poor or inadequate maintenance of a vehicle. OK they may decline a claim from the insured but somebody else??

 

I'm open to correction though.

 

You are highlighting the way in which marine (and subsequently aviation) insurance has always operated in a different way. The type of motor claim you are talking about is covered by an agreement that the government "encouraged" motor insurers to enter into after a few problem claims. The marine and aviation insurance industry even managed to get excemption to a significant part of the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010.

[Guest]

J R ~ I can't reply directly because you ballsed up quoting me.. but surprising as it is it's true....

Edited September 9, 2013 by The Dog House

[J R]

Dog House

 

Still getting used to forum revised layout.

 

Cool

 

Can assure you that getting used to windows 8 is alot harder than getting the blacking right!

[MtB]

Bloody hell, life's a BITCH when one's blacking is dissolved away...

 

Some perspective is needed here, IMO.

 

MtB

[Guest]

Bloody hell, life's a BITCH when one's blacking is dissolved away...

 

Some perspective is needed here, IMO.

 

MtB

Point taken..

[casper ghost]

Bloody hell, life's a BITCH when one's blacking is dissolved away...

 

Some perspective is needed here, IMO.

 

MtB

True, I suppose we should really feel sorry for the owner who's boat sank, especially as they can't claim off their insurance either..

[little duck!]

we bought our boat last year, one of the things the surveyor picked up ws the vent for the gas locker was to near the water line and so could cause boat to sink ( it hadnt in the previous 15 years!) so we had to have the vent blocked and the gas locker floor raised ( or new "floor" put in)and a new vent drilled. As to the blacking coming off our boat has apoxy 2 pack blacking and, though more expensive, it does not suffer damage through diesel contact. Things i didnt know before owning a boat buy things i will consider if and when we ever change our boat.

Hope you can get things sorted.

[luctor et emergo]

My boat spend three years going up and down on a pretty much daily basis. And in that time i have encountered plenty of diesel spills. Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, i am quite good at manouvering my boat. Despite all that, most of my blacking was fine.

[PaddingtonBear]

Surely a current Boat Safety Certificate would be proof of seaworthiness?

What utter tosh, no sewer tube is "seaworthy" except possibly Progress and in any event the BSS is not applicable(?) in the Land that time forgot. Sorry I momentarily forgot my new personna Edited September 10, 2013 by PaddingtonBear

[BargeeSpud]

Surely a current Boat Safety Certificate would be proof of seaworthiness?

 

What utter tosh, no sewer tube is "seaworthy" except possibly Progress and in any event the BSS is not applicable(?) in the Land that time forgot. Sorry I momentarily forgot my new personna

 

I've always viewed the BSS certificate in the same light as a car's MOT certificate. Namely that the boat complies with the BSS only on the date of inspection.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Spuds

[PaddingtonBear]

Would the the situation be any different if the casualty was fully comp?

[cheshire~rose]

What utter tosh, no sewer tube is "seaworthy" except possibly Progress and in any event the BSS is not applicable(?) in the Land that time forgot. Sorry I momentarily forgot my new personna

 

As a broad generalisation yes I agree with you. I have to say that when a narrowboat bearing the name "Ocean Princess" came past our marina earlier this year and a neighbour commented that the name was somewhat aspirational I agreed. Something struck me about the boat that made me want to see if I could find out more.

The fact that there was no one at the tiller as it went past (unless you count the meerkat toy placed there to good effect)

 

Google soon ensured that I was put in my place about the name being a bit pretentious:

 

http://www.canalholidays.co.uk/about-us/ocean-princess-cruise

 

With regard to the "seaworthy" bit. I think this may be a legal term which extends to the canals as I know of a former trip boat skipper who did not have the correct certification for the boat and was taken to court for something along the lines of "taking an unsafe vessel to sea" even though the boat and it's crew never ventured off a fairly short section of very land locked midlands canal

[mayalld]

 

Well, despite what others have said, that looks pretty clear cut to me. The insurer is saying they will pay for costs which the third party incurs. All the third party would have to do is establish that you are liable. That could mean a day in court if the circumstances were marginal or in dispute, but in most cases the insurer would just pay up to avoid the costs of litigation.

 

Yes, it looks pretty clear cut if you extract one paragraph and read it in isolation.

 

Insurance policies always recite what you are insured for, then recite what they won't pay for.

 

So, yes they will indemnify you against anything that you end up having to pay to a third party, BUT they go on to say;

 

 

We will not pay for any claims arising from:

...

wear, tear, depreciation or gradual deterioration; corrosion and electrolysis

...

your failure to maintain your vessel in a seaworthy condition or in the case of a trailer, roadworthy condition

 

so, if you end up liable to a third party because you didn't maintain your vessel in a seaworthy condition, or because it corroded and sank, the insurer won't pay out for anything that you become liable to a third party for.

 

Motor insurance is different, because the RTA requires that you have insurance that will pay out to third parties without such exclusions.

 

It could be argued that Schedule 2 of the BW Act 1995 requires much the same;

 

 

The policy must insure the owner of the vessel and such other person, persons or classes of persons (if any) as is or as are authorised by the owner to have control of the vessel, in respect of any liability (other than a liability specified in paragraph 3 below) which may be incurred by the owner or any such other person resulting from the presence of the vessel on any inland waterway in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or any damage to property.

 

And as such, the best angle that the parties have here is to protest that the policy terms of just about every major inland waterways insurer are not compatible with the requirement to have insurance to obtain a licence. This is something that CRT should be pushing with the insurers, but the insured party WOULD have a good case against the insurer for misselling. The insurer has sold him a policy that purports to be for inland waterways, but does not actually cover the legal requirements of the largest navigation authority.

[Guest]

What is interesting is that this has never come to light previously or rather I have never heard of or considered it before.

 

There must have been numerous sinkings (or fires even) over the years that have resulted in contamination of the waterway requiring a cleaning up operation, salvage of the vessel and damage to other boats that could have been attributed to the boat in some way not being 'sea worthy' or neglected.

 

I wonder why it has taken this case for it to come to light?

[Chertsey]

Surely a current Boat Safety Certificate would be proof of seaworthiness?

Not only is it not, but it doesn't claim to be. However, it is meant to prevent your boat becoming a hazard to other waterways users, which could cover sinking, I guess.

Bloody hell, life's a BITCH when one's blacking is dissolved away...

 

Some perspective is needed here, IMO.

 

MtB

Fair point, the damage may be relatively trivial in this particular case - but the principle is worrying.

[Arthur Marshall]

As far as I was aware, boat 3rd party insurance just covers you if you whack another boat and damage it. If it's a commercial tanker, that's what your million quid's for (much the same as the million quid insurance I had to have when busking in the Albert Dock, presumably in case anyone needed to get away from my accordion so fast they fell in the dock and drowned and then sued me... no, I never understood it either). I never thought it covered anything else, and as companies generally weasel out of paying out, there's not much point in having anything except 3rd party. BSC is as we all know, nothing to do with safety. Both the BSC and the insurance are essentially pointless rubbish that costs us a bomb and makes money for someone, thought up by a bureaucratic clot.

PS has anyone on this site ever claimed on their insurance? Be interesting to know.

[MoominPapa]

 

Yes, it looks pretty clear cut if you extract one paragraph and read it in isolation.

 

Insurance policies always recite what you are insured for, then recite what they won't pay for.

 

So, yes they will indemnify you against anything that you end up having to pay to a third party, BUT they go on to say;

 

 

 

so, if you end up liable to a third party because you didn't maintain your vessel in a seaworthy condition, or because it corroded and sank, the insurer won't pay out for anything that you become liable to a third party for.

 

Motor insurance is different, because the RTA requires that you have insurance that will pay out to third parties without such exclusions.

 

It could be argued that Schedule 2 of the BW Act 1995 requires much the same;

 

 

 

And as such, the best angle that the parties have here is to protest that the policy terms of just about every major inland waterways insurer are not compatible with the requirement to have insurance to obtain a licence. This is something that CRT should be pushing with the insurers, but the insured party WOULD have a good case against the insurer for misselling. The insurer has sold him a policy that purports to be for inland waterways, but does not actually cover the legal requirements of the largest navigation authority.

 

Wow, dynamite! Thanks Dave. I shall call my insurers forthwith and see what they have to say.

 

MP.

[Hawkmoth]

 

PS has anyone on this site ever claimed on their insurance? Be interesting to know.

Yes, we damaged our propellor near Stoke on Trent a few years ago. The company paid out without a murmur.

Bob

edited for typo

Edited September 10, 2013 by lyraboat

[MoominPapa]

It could be argued that Schedule 2 of the BW Act 1995 requires much the same;

 

 

 

And as such, the best angle that the parties have here is to protest that the policy terms of just about every major inland waterways insurer are not compatible with the requirement to have insurance to obtain a licence. This is something that CRT should be pushing with the insurers, but the insured party WOULD have a good case against the insurer for misselling. The insurer has sold him a policy that purports to be for inland waterways, but does not actually cover the legal requirements of the largest navigation authority.

So, I just spent some time on the phone to the underwriter at my insurers, who explained that as far as they are concerned, navigating an unseaworthy boat violates the contract between the insurer are the insured in the same sort of way as not paying the premiums, so those exclusions don't render the insurance not compatible with the act. The situation in motor insurance is different because of the road traffic act. He also pointed out a couple of other things.

 

1) There was discussion between the insurance industry and the navigation authorities about policies when the "this vessel has a suitable insurance policy" certificates came in.

 

2) If things were changed to remove the exclusions, it's possible that insurers would require annual surveys.

 

However, I've just looked at the road traffic act and the BW act, and the language is strikingly similar, implying that it's at least arguable that parliament intended the same conditions to apply:

 

For instance

 

RTA: ... the policy must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place in Great Britain

 

BW act: The policy must insure the owner of the vessel and such other person, persons or classes of persons (if any) as is or as are authorised by the owner to have control of the vessel, in respect of any liability (other than a liability specified in paragraph 3 below) which may be incurred by the owner or any such other person resulting from the presence of the vessel on any inland waterway in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or any damage to property.

 

The list of exclusions is also remarkably similar in both cases.

 

I really need to talk to CRT and maybe a tame lawyer.

 

MP.

Would the the situation be any different if the casualty was fully comp?

Mine is, and the same exclusions apply.

 

MP.