Jump to content

Claiming from hire company for damage


pearley

Featured Posts

Can you clarify what you mean by "completely the wrong side"?

River or canal?

I presume it was right hand bend for him, so was he on the outside?

It is inevitable that the bow of a boat will be on the outside of a sharp bend, especially with longer boats on a narrow sections.

 

As with motoring, it is important to anticipate problems of this sort and be ready to take avoiding action, bearing in mind that novices may not be aware that they cannot slow down and steer at the same time. What has the sex of the group to do with the matter and why did you not anticipate a possible problem if you had seen the boat approaching?

 

Before complaining to AW, can you be sure that you were not partly to blame?

 

It was a left hand bend for him and he came round the bend on the left hand side. It was a right hand bend for me and I was on the right hand side. In fact, he was as close to the apex of the bend as it was possible to be.

 

So yes, I can be sure I wasn't even partly to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a left hand bend for him and he came round the bend on the left hand side. It was a right hand bend for me and I was on the right hand side. In fact, he was as close to the apex of the bend as it was possible to be.

 

So yes, I can be sure I wasn't even partly to blame.

 

Can you reread/check the above and confirm 100% its what you meant to type? Because as its written, i'd say its 50/50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a left hand bend for him and he came round the bend on the left hand side. It was a right hand bend for me and I was on the right hand side. In fact, he was as close to the apex of the bend as it was possible to be.

 

So yes, I can be sure I wasn't even partly to blame.

OK, but I wonder if a court would come to the same conclusion. It's relevant that you have seen the oncoming boat, even if the steerer has seen you. Commonsense suggests that you would slow down and be prepared for the possibility that you would meet on the corner and not assume that they would hear your horn on a blind bend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a blind bend in that you could see clearly across the land. This wasn't a narrow, overgrown canal,it was a 50 foot or so wide river with little appreciable flow. The other steerer could easily have seen me if he had looked or been paying attention. I wasn't going fast enough to warrant slowing down more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a blind bend in that you could see clearly across the land. This wasn't a narrow, overgrown canal,it was a 50 foot or so wide river with little appreciable flow. The other steerer could easily have seen me if he had looked or been paying attention. I wasn't going fast enough to warrant slowing down more.

I'm not sure what I would have done in this situation but I expect I would have slowed down or stopped and prepared to use power to try to make the impact a glancing one.

 

I'm not trying to be provocative, just trying to look at this incident from an alternative point of view.

 

I well remember an AW boat come at high speed through a bridge on a blind bend and go straight into the bank. I'm glad I did not meet that one head-on. The lads on board thought the incident was amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Further strengthening the assertion in post 141 of how utterly stupid of some of our newer members are......

 

IMO of course smile.png

Judging by your inability to understand who is responsible for damage caused by him/her/them I can't see your opinion counting for much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok so please point out where exactly you perceive am I wrong ???????

It has been explained to you on a number of occasions but you either can't understand or you are arguing for the sake of argument.

 

If you/he/she/they/them cause an accident you/he/she/they/them are liable. The perpetrator may be able to pass the financial part of the liability on to an insurance company but that does not take away your liability. But then you know this, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What says volumes about you is that you seem not to be content to disagree on this issue.

 

Anybody who disagree with you needs to be virtually screamed at and called names for daring to dispute your rightness.

 

I will say it again.

 

In law, liability for a wrong lies with the person who did that wrong. End of Story.

 

So, if a hire boater negligently damages your boat, HE IS LIABLE.

 

It may well be (indeed it is near certain) that the hire boater has contracted with others to indemnify him should he be liable. However that is a matter between him and the person who indemnifies him. The third party is (as the expression says) not a party to that arrangement.

 

So, in the case where a hire boater causes damage, but where the Hire Company won't play ball, the injured party has no rights in law agaist the Hire Company.

 

He cannot take the hire company to court to force it to fulfil a contract that he wasn't a party to. His recourse must be to the person who did him wrong. The person who damaged his boat.

 

It is, of course then possible that the Hirer can sue the hire company for not fulfilling its obligation to indemnify him.

 

You say that you have taken legal advice. If so, may I suggest that you have taken it from somebody who is ill qualified to dispense such advice, becasue it is advice that I would expect a 1st year law student to get right, let alone a qualified solicitor or barrister.

 

What says volumes about you is that you seem not to be content to disagree on this issue.

Anybody who disagree with you needs to be virtually screamed at and called names for daring to dispute your rightness.

 

Is that gobbledegook LOL

Where exactly have a called anyone names or screamed. And are you now conceding I'm right wacko.png

 

In law, liability for a wrong lies with the person who did that wrong. End of Story.

So, if a hire boater negligently damages your boat, HE IS LIABLE.

It may well be (indeed it is near certain) that the hire boater has contracted with others to indemnify him should he be liable. However that is a matter between him and the person who indemnifies him. The third party is (as the expression says) not a party to that arrangement.

 

Why would a person need to do this when the boat by law has to be insured by the hire company or boat owner.

 

However that is a matter between him and the person who indemnifies him.

 

 

Yes that being the boat hire company who require an excess deposit or waver for such deposit. You see, you're actually backing my claims now LOL

 

The third party is (as the expression says) not a party to that arrangement.

 

 

Of course not, as I've stated, the 3rd party claims from the Boat hire company. Thanks again for backing my position.

 

In law, liability for a wrong lies with the person who did that wrong. End of Story.

 

 

The hirer is liable for either the required deposit or waver for such deposit. Beyond that insurance takes on the liability, exactly what it's there for.

 

I'm astonished you cant understand the terms & conditions that have been posted that the hire company insures the boat, and requires the hirer to indemnify then in the instance of a claim.

 

So, in the case where a hire boater causes damage, but where the Hire Company won't play ball, the injured party has no rights in law agaist the Hire Company.

 

 

Completely wrong. If the hire company doesn't play ball they you can take action against the hire company.

 

He cannot take the hire company to court to force it to fulfil a contract that he wasn't a party to. His recourse must be to the person who did him wrong. The person who damaged his boat.

 

 

Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone can take action against anyone else. The person liable is the company. It the terms posted it clearly states the hirer will indemnify the company for and claim made against them. Again your inability to understand simple terms & conditions is a shock.

 

It is, of course then possible that the Hirer can sue the hire company for not fulfilling its obligation to indemnify him.

 

 

So now you shoot yourself in the foot by agreeing that the hire boat company BY regulation has to insure not only the boat but the person operating it, except for any deposit or CDW that is required by THE HIRE BOAT COMPANY

 

You say that you have taken legal advice. If so, may I suggest that you have taken it from somebody who is ill qualified to dispense such advice, becasue it is advice that I would expect a 1st year law student to get right, let alone a qualified solicitor or barrister.

 

Indeed I did, which instead of a hire boat company trying to fob me off with the kind of bollox you are. The hire boat company agreed to paid up.
I note you don't seem to back up your complete and utter nonsense with anything what so ever.
At least when I accuse people of being wrong, I produce some credible evidence that they are.
As I've stated numerous times.
If you're hit by a hire boat, your claim is against the hire boat company.
The Hirer will indemnify the Company and the Boat Owner against all costs, damage, expenses, liability and claims howsoever arising from the negligence, neglect or default of the Hirer to the extent that they are not covered by the Company’s policy.
THE COMPANY
Edited by Julynian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been explained to you on a number of occasions but you either can't understand or you are arguing for the sake of argument.

 

If you/he/she/they/them cause an accident you/he/she/they/them are liable. The perpetrator may be able to pass the financial part of the liability on to an insurance company but that does not take away your liability. But then you know this, don't you?

 

Nothing's been explained at all, no one has offered anything what so ever to back up their nonsensical claims.

 

The gist of the thread is who to claim from, clearly the hire boat company as they insure the boat.

 

The perpetrator may be able to pass the financial part of the liability on to an insurance company but that does not take away your liability.

 

 

Blimey are you really that dense, what do you think insurance is for LOL

 

When you pay for your car insurance, except for any access you agree to pay, you are passing on liability to the insurance company. That's what your insurance premium pays for FFS wacko.png

Edited by Julynian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand the discussion, there is a difference between 'liability' (a legal term) and 'the financial part of the liability' -- in other words, the risk. The insurance company in either case above (boat or car) is indemnifying you against your liability: the liability is unchanged by the existence of an insurance policy. The insurance policy takes on the financial risk.

 

If all else fails, read the post, every word of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand the discussion, there is a difference between 'liability' (a legal term) and 'the financial part of the liability' -- in other words, the risk. The insurance company in either case above (boat or car) is indemnifying you against your liability: the liability is unchanged by the existence of an insurance policy. The insurance policy takes on the financial risk.

 

If all else fails, read the post, every word of it.

 

Very nice explanation. I would add that the insurance policy takes on the financial risk subject to many pages of small print and exclusion clauses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand the discussion, there is a difference between 'liability' (a legal term) and 'the financial part of the liability' -- in other words, the risk. The insurance company in either case above (boat or car) is indemnifying you against your liability: the liability is unchanged by the existence of an insurance policy. The insurance policy takes on the financial risk.

 

If all else fails, read the post, every word of it.

 

And exactly the reason if you have an accident in a hire car and damage another car, the damaged cars owner claims from the hire companies insurance who are liable. It would be ridiculous to suggest that he pursues the driver, as it is ridiculous to suggest pursuing the hirer of a boat. Unless of course you agreed with the hire company to take full responsibility for the vehicles insurance.

 

Another analogy is if you own a car, it's insured for any driver over 25. You lend it to your 26 year old mate. He crashes in you your parked car. You'r claim is against the car owner, his is liable. The driver might be at fault and responsible, but it's up to the car owner if he wants to pursue his mate for any losses he incurred due to the 3rd party claim. That has nothing to do with the 3rd party though who claims from the owner/insured.

Edited by Julynian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Very nice explanation. I would add that the insurance policy takes on the financial risk subject to many pages of small print and exclusion clauses.

 

Very kind. You are also quite correct that the terms and conditions further explain why it is the risk not the liability that passes - ta!

 

 

And exactly the reason if you have an accident in a hire car and damage another car, the damaged cars owner claims from the hire companies insurance who are liable. It would be ridiculous to suggest that he pursues the driver, as it is ridiculous to suggest pursuing the hirer of a boat. Unless of course you agreed with the hire company to take full responsibility for the vehicles insurance.

 

Another analogy is if you own a car, it's insured for any driver over 25. You lend it to your 26 year old mate. He crashes in you your parked car. You'r claim is against the car owner, his is liable. The driver might be at fault and responsible, but it's up to the car owner if he wants to pursue his mate for any losses he incurred due to the 3rd party claim. That has nothing to do with the 3rd party though who claims from the owner/insured.

 

The insurance company may have taken on the risk and would therefore be financially responsible for the consequences, but we do need to be careful about the use of the words 'liable' and 'liability' for the reasons previously set out.

 

I don't understand how your second scenario is analogous.

My car isn't insured for any driver over 25 either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why would a person need to do this when the boat by law has to be insured by the hire company or boat owner.

 

 

Yes that being the boat hire company who require an excess deposit or waver for such deposit. You see, you're actually backing my claims now LOL

 

 

Of course not, as I've stated, the 3rd party claims from the Boat hire company. Thanks again for backing my position.

 

The hirer is liable for either the required deposit or waver for such deposit. Beyond that insurance takes on the liability, exactly what it's there for.

 

I'm astonished you cant understand the terms & conditions that have been posted that the hire company insures the boat, and requires the hirer to indemnify then in the instance of a claim.

 

 

Completely wrong. If the hire company doesn't play ball they you can take action against the hire company.

 

 

Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone can take action against anyone else. The person liable is the company. It the terms posted it clearly states the hirer will indemnify the company for and claim made against them. Again your inability to understand simple terms & conditions is a shock.

 

 

So now you shoot yourself in the foot by agreeing that the hire boat company BY LAW has to insure not only the boat but the person operating it, except foe any deposit or CDW that is required by THE HIRE BOAT COMPANY

 

Again read the terms & cons of hire boat companies, you might learn something.

 

Indeed I did, which instead of a hire boat company trying to fob me off with the kind of bollox you are. The hire boat company paid up.
I note you don't seem to back up your complete and utter nonsense with anything what so ever.
At least when I accuse people of being wrong, I produce some credible evidence that they are.
As I've stated numerous times.
If you're hit by a hire boat, your claim is against the hire boat company.
The Hirer will indemnify the Company and the Boat Owner against all costs, damage, expenses, liability and claims howsoever arising from the negligence, neglect or default of the Hirer to the extent that they are not covered by the Company’s policy.
THE COMPANY

 

 

Julynian,

 

You are looking very much like one of those JTMIR newbies that is referred to in another thread.

 

As several of us have told you before, if you are the victim of damage, the legal liabilty to remedy that damage lies with the person who caused it. In the case in question that is the hirer, not the hire boat company or the insurer.

 

We all agree that there will (or should) be insurance in place which (subject to the circumstances being covered by the terms of the insurance) will pay out, and if it does, everybody is (relatively) happy. And if you dispute the company or insurer's version of events or the level of compensation offered, you would be expected to go through their dispute resolution processes first, before launching legal action.

 

But you cannot be bound by a contract of insurance (which is between the boat owner and the insurance company) or by a boat hire contract (between the boat owner and the hirer, which may also bind the hirer into the terms of the insurance contract) as you are not a party to either of those contracts. A contract can only be enforced by one party to the contract against another party to that contract. A third party (such as the innocent victim) has no ability in contract law to enforce anything in relation to that contract.

 

The fact that the law and CRT's Terms and Conditions require a hire company to have insurance in place, makes no difference. That requirement is simply there to make sure that anyone suffering damage has a means of recourse. Same as for car insurance, and other areas where parliament has decided that there should be mandatory insurance.

 

The requirement in the hire boat conditions you quote, for a hirer to indemnify the company for claims not covered by the insurance is simply a "for the avoidance of doubt" provision, which restates the underlying legal position. It is no doubt inserted by the hire companies just to make clear to the hirer their ability to claim from him/her any cost which they incur as a result of the incident and which is not reimbursed by the insurance, and also as a reminder that the insurance covers reasonable circumstances, not the results of negligence, neglect or default on the part of the hirer.

 

And if the insurance doesn't pay out, for whatever reason, then your only recourse is to sue the responsible person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we take this discussion away from purely financial liability .... lets say the hirer negligently causes an accident where someone is seriously injured (thankfully its rare in boating for this to happen) and the police decide that someone should be prosecuted for the crime: would we expect the hire company to be in the dock or the person in charge of the vessel at the time? Clearly it's the person in charge of the vessel at the time.

 

Parallel to the criminal action (or maybe afterwards) there would probably be a civil case to determine compensation payable to the victim - in that case the insurer would liable for payment.

 

Simples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Julynian,

 

You are looking very much like one of those JTMIR newbies that is referred to in another thread.

 

As several of us have told you before, if you are the victim of damage, the legal liabilty to remedy that damage lies with the person who caused it. In the case in question that is the hirer, not the hire boat company or the insurer.

 

We all agree that there will (or should) be insurance in place which (subject to the circumstances being covered by the terms of the insurance) will pay out, and if it does, everybody is (relatively) happy. And if you dispute the company or insurer's version of events or the level of compensation offered, you would be expected to go through their dispute resolution processes first, before launching legal action.

 

But you cannot be bound by a contract of insurance (which is between the boat owner and the insurance company) or by a boat hire contract (between the boat owner and the hirer, which may also bind the hirer into the terms of the insurance contract) as you are not a party to either of those contracts. A contract can only be enforced by one party to the contract against another party to that contract. A third party (such as the innocent victim) has no ability in contract law to enforce anything in relation to that contract.

 

The fact that the law and CRT's Terms and Conditions require a hire company to have insurance in place, makes no difference. That requirement is simply there to make sure that anyone suffering damage has a means of recourse. Same as for car insurance, and other areas where parliament has decided that there should be mandatory insurance.

 

The requirement in the hire boat conditions you quote, for a hirer to indemnify the company for claims not covered by the insurance is simply a "for the avoidance of doubt" provision, which restates the underlying legal position. It is no doubt inserted by the hire companies just to make clear to the hirer their ability to claim from him/her any cost which they incur as a result of the incident and which is not reimbursed by the insurance, and also as a reminder that the insurance covers reasonable circumstances, not the results of negligence, neglect or default on the part of the hirer.

 

And if the insurance doesn't pay out, for whatever reason, then your only recourse is to sue the responsible person.

 

As several of us have told you before, if you are the victim of damage, the legal liabilty to remedy that damage lies with the person who caused it. In the case in question that is the hirer, not the hire boat company or the insurer

 

.

Hire company Terms & cons suggest the opposit LOL

We all agree that there will (or should) be insurance in place which (subject to the circumstances being covered by the terms of the insurance) will pay out, and if it does, everybody is (relatively) happy. And if you dispute the company or insurer's version of events or the level of compensation offered, you would be expected to go through their dispute resolution processes first, before launching legal action.

 

 

3rd party Insurance is a requirement for boat hire companies. If they dispute you could go through arbitration if you wished, it's not compulsory though so you can sue.

 

But you cannot be bound by a contract of insurance (which is between the boat owner and the insurance company) or by a boat hire contract (between the boat owner and the hirer, which may also bind the hirer into the terms of the insurance contract) as you are not a party to either of those contracts. A contract can only be enforced by one party to the contract against another party to that contract. A third party (such as the innocent victim) has no ability in contract law to enforce anything in relation to that contract.

 

 

 

More gobbledegook

 

What contract, how could a 3rd party victim have any kind of contract with the offending boat LOL

A third party claims from the boat hire company, you clearly haven't read the terms & cons of a boat hire company, or you you simply can't understand them.

 

The fact that the law and CRT's Terms and Conditions require a hire company to have insurance in place, makes no difference. That requirement is simply there to make sure that anyone suffering damage has a means of recourse. Same as for car insurance, and other areas where parliament has decided that there should be mandatory insurance.

 

 

 

So then you agree, the boat hire company has to insure at minimum against 3rd party claims. So who in their right mind would try to claim from the hirer. If the hirer is liable, then why does the hire company require such redress from the hirer in it's terms and conditions, and why does the hirer require a deposit of waver? Try to apply some common sense LOL

 

The requirement in the hire boat conditions you quote, for a hirer to indemnify the company for claims not covered by the insurance is simply a "for the avoidance of doubt" provision, which restates the underlying legal position.

It is no doubt inserted by the hire companies just to make clear to the hirer their ability to claim from him/her any cost which they incur as a result of the incident and which is not reimbursed by the insurance,

 

and also as a reminder that the insurance covers reasonable circumstances, not the results of negligence, neglect or default on the part of the hirer.

 

 

 

 

Again you are agreeing with my position that the boat hire company are the insured. they are saying that any 3rd party claim their insurance won't cover due to the hirers negligence, gives the right for the hire company to claim those costs from the hirer. Nowhere does it suggest the hirer is liable to the 3rd party only to THE COMPANY

 

And if the insurance doesn't pay out, for whatever reason, then your only recourse is to sue the responsible person. It's not the only recourse, you could take the insurance company to arbitration or sue them.

 

Incorrect again. If the Boat hire companies insurance doesn't pay up, then you have an option of arbitration or indeed taking the insurance to court. The hirer's liability is to the hire company not the third party as the terms and conditions clearly state.

 

I will state again if you're hit b a hire boat you claim is against the company hiring or owning it. The hirer's liability is to the company.

 

Thank you again for propping up my assertion than any claim for damage is made against the boat hire company and not the hirer.

Edited by Julynian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Is that gobbledegook LOL

Where exactly have a called anyone names or screamed. And are you now conceding I'm right wacko.png

 

 

Why would a person need to do this when the boat by law has to be insured by the hire company or boat owner.

 

 

You have called people names many times.

 

A person may need to do this, because that is the way that contract law works. I have insurance on my boat. I am obliged to have that insurance, but that insurance is a contract between me and my insurer.

 

You are not a party to that contract. If I hit your boat, your claim is against me. The fact that I have contractually arranged that somebody else will indemnify me does not shift the liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Completely wrong. If the hire company doesn't play ball they you can take action against the hire company.

 

 

Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone can take action against anyone else. The person liable is the company. It the terms posted it clearly states the hirer will indemnify the company for and claim made against them. Again your inability to understand simple terms & conditions is a shock.

 

 

The terms and conditions CANNOT change the liability.

 

They merely form a contractual framework for indemnifying people.

 

You can, of course, sue whoever you like. It doesn't mean that you will actually WIN.

 

If you try to sue a hire company because they don't pay out for their hirer's negligence, you will fail, because you are not a party to the contractual arrangement.

 

Blimey are you really that dense

 

 

Is this you refraining from name calling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You have called people names many times.

 

A person may need to do this, because that is the way that contract law works. I have insurance on my boat. I am obliged to have that insurance, but that insurance is a contract between me and my insurer.

 

You are not a party to that contract. If I hit your boat, your claim is against me. The fact that I have contractually arranged that somebody else will indemnify me does not shift the liability.

 

A person may need to do this, because that is the way that contract law works. I have insurance on my boat. I am obliged to have that insurance, but that insurance is a contract between me and my insurer.

 

 

Thank you

 

Exactly as a hire boat company has to also, and the people you should claim from if they cause damage to your boat. They are liable either with or without insurance.

 

You can, of course, sue whoever you like. It doesn't mean that you will actually WIN.

If you try to sue a hire company because they don't pay out for their hirer's negligence,

you will fail, because you are not a party to the contractual arrangement.

 

 

 

Again complete and utter nonsense. You don't need to be in any kind of agreement being a 3rd party claimant. And please explain how that would come about. A hire boat hit's you and damages your boat, you claim against the company. Where does this mythical arrangement arise wacko.png

 

Again I'm stunned you can't comprehend the terms and conditions of a hire boat company.

 

The company insures the boat and its equipment and inventory against public liability risks. The company’s insurance does not cover personal accidents or loss or damage to personal effects. Hirers and their crews are advised to take out their own personal insurance cover. The price does not include a compulsory accidental damage waiver per booking. Accidental damage waiver excludes damage arising from speeding, contact with a lock sill causing damage to the rudder, skeg or stern gear, TV aerials, chimneys, malicious or intentional damage to the boat. Also excluded is malicious or intentional damage to other boats and property and the late return of the boat and return of the boat in unclean condition. The Hirer will indemnify the Company against all costs, damage, expenses, liability and claims howsoever arising from the negligence, neglect or default of the Hirer to the extent that they are not covered by the company’s policy.

Edited by Julynian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we take this discussion away from purely financial liability .... lets say the hirer negligently causes an accident where someone is seriously injured (thankfully its rare in boating for this to happen) and the police decide that someone should be prosecuted for the crime: would we expect the hire company to be in the dock or the person in charge of the vessel at the time? Clearly it's the person in charge of the vessel at the time.

 

Parallel to the criminal action (or maybe afterwards) there would probably be a civil case to determine compensation payable to the victim - in that case the insurer would liable for payment.

 

Simples?

 

Responsibility and liability are 2 different things. If I have an accident in my car through wreckless driving, I could be prosecuted, however my insurers will be the people paying out to any third party, as I have paid for a policy agreement for them to cover my Liability in such an event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The terms and conditions CANNOT change the liability.

 

They merely form a contractual framework for indemnifying people.

 

You can, of course, sue whoever you like. It doesn't mean that you will actually WIN.

 

If you try to sue a hire company because they don't pay out for their hirer's negligence, you will fail, because you are not a party to the contractual arrangement.

 

Is this you refraining from name calling?

 

The terms and conditions CANNOT change the liability.

 

 

Who said they could?

 

They merely form a contractual framework for indemnifying people.

 

 

You mean the Hirer surely

 

You can, of course, sue whoever you like. It doesn't mean that you will actually WIN.

 

 

Well that's different than you posted earlier in the thread LOL, you're getting there though!

 

Stating the obvious LOL

 

If you try to sue a hire company because they don't pay out for their hirer's negligence, you will fail, because you are not a party to the contractual arrangement.

 

 

I don't need to be, as the hire company is liable being the the owner of the boat and hopefully the insured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

>> If I hit your boat, your claim is against me. The fact that I have contractually arranged that somebody else will indemnify me does not shift the liability.

 

Julynian, why do you not understand this? (see below)

 

 

>> the hire company is liable being the the owner of the boat and hopefully the insured.

 

How can the hire company possibly be liable for something over which it has no control? If the hirer has purchased some sort of indemnity from them, how could you, as the third party, possibly know about it? Your claim is against the person steering the boat that hit you. In practice any compensation you get may come from somewhere else, but that isn't the point.

 

The same argument applies to motor insurance. If that were not so, all those claims management companies who sue for uninsured losses would very quickly go out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.