Claiming from hire company for damage

[johnmck]

" I will add though Martin I have more respect for you than most members currently on here, and have to agree you'r a much nicer bloke than sometimes comes over on this forum."

 

And that is a compliment is it?

 

Lighten up and smell the fresh mown grass.

 

 

Note to self. When you try to defend someone from a backhanded compliment, as I percieved the above from Julyian to be, do not be suprised when the person whose integrity you are defending, bites you on the posterior. The written word is indeed both a sword and an olive branch, depending how you read it!

 

Final word, yes final... Julyian, your assertion is incorect. The better man accepts that he can be " incorrect", without loosing face.

 

Or better still, agree to differ, without it becoming personal.

[Alan Saunders]

Clearly Julynian has difficulties with English grammar and spelling (e.g. dyslexia) for which we must make allowances. He/she (July or Ian?) also misunderstands or chooses to misinterpret legal terms like 'liable', 'indemnity', 'contract' and 'risk'.

 

S(he) obviously misundertood the advice from his legal adviser as (s)he does the multiple advice on this forum (e.g. mayalld who is rarely, if ever, wrong).

 

I am pleased that Pearly has received a satisfactory 'round figure' settlement without involving Insurance Companies.

 

Alan

[mayalld]

(e.g. mayalld who is rarely, if ever, wrong).

 

 

I must let Mrs M see this!!

[johnmck]

 

I must let Mrs M see this!!

 

She will say you are hallucinating. Now they are ALWAYS right!

[Paul G2]

Being unfamiliar with UK laws and insurance practices, I'm just wondering. If a hire is all properly tied up, at its home mooring, by the owner/hire company workers, and a vandal comes along when no one is on the boat and cuts the mooring lines, and the boat then drifts into another boat and causes damage, who is liable for the damage? The boat has no driver and the vandal is long gone.

[Grace and Favour]

Being unfamiliar with UK laws and insurance practices, I'm just wondering. If a hire is all properly tied up, at its home mooring, by the owner/hire company workers, and a vandal comes along when no one is on the boat and cuts the mooring lines, and the boat then drifts into another boat and causes damage, who is liable for the damage? The boat has no driver and the vandal is long gone.

I could only speculate that it would be the Hire Co's responsibility, as their security was insufficient to prevent the scrotes from loosing the craft (thus causing damage to the third party's boat).

 

Whether the Hire Co would choose to stand the loss, or draw on their Public Liability cover, would be up to them, I suspect.

[nicknorman]

I could only speculate that it would be the Hire Co's responsibility, as their security was insufficient to prevent the scrotes from loosing the craft (thus causing damage to the third party's boat).

 

Whether the Hire Co would choose to stand the loss, or draw on their Public Liability cover, would be up to them, I suspect.

This smacks a bit of our current culture of "where there is an accident, there is always someone to sue". But in law, the owner of the boat bumped into could only sue for damage if the drifting boat's owner could be shown to have been negligent. If the boat had been properly tied up, and it being custom and practice to leave boats properly moored on the towpath, they wouldn't be. Fortunately a boat drifting on a canal is unlikely to do significant damage.

[MtB]

Being unfamiliar with UK laws and insurance practices, I'm just wondering. If a hire is all properly tied up, at its home mooring, by the owner/hire company workers, and a vandal comes along when no one is on the boat and cuts the mooring lines, and the boat then drifts into another boat and causes damage, who is liable for the damage? The boat has no driver and the vandal is long gone.

 

I suspect, no-one.

 

Over here we still have such things as genuine 'accidents', for which no-one is liable.

 

(just about!)

 

MtB

[Jerra]

 

I suspect, no-one.

 

Over here we still have such things as genuine 'accidents', for which no-one is liable.

 

(just about!)

 

MtB

I am glad you added the just about. The police no longer refer to road traffic accidents, I can't remember what they call them but a copper did tell me and said they had dropped the accident because somebody was always at fault even if unintentionally.

[Guest]

I am glad you added the just about. The police no longer refer to road traffic accidents, I can't remember what they call them but a copper did tell me and said they had dropped the accident because somebody was always at fault even if unintentionally.

RTC - Road traffic collision.

[mayalld]

I am glad you added the just about. The police no longer refer to road traffic accidents, I can't remember what they call them but a copper did tell me and said they had dropped the accident because somebody was always at fault even if unintentionally.

 

RTA (Road Traffic Accident) is now RTC (Road Traffic Collision)

[KevMc]

 

So the liability is passed on, thank you!

 

NO no no no - if you damage my vessel and refuse to pay my damages I will sue you, not your insurance company because they have done no wrong. The insurance company indemnify you against loss under certain circumstances laid out in the policy document. The insurance company may decide to assist in your defence as it might be in their interest to do so - but in the end the court will make its decision as to the damages you are liable for. At which point you ask your insurance company to pay me - they may decide that you are in breach of your conditions and refuse to do so but that has nothing to do with who is liable.

[mango]

 

NO no no no - if you damage my vessel and refuse to pay my damages I will sue you, not your insurance company because they have done no wrong. The insurance company indemnify you against loss under certain circumstances laid out in the policy document. The insurance company may decide to assist in your defence as it might be in their interest to do so - but in the end the court will make its decision as to the damages you are liable for. At which point you ask your insurance company to pay me - they may decide that you are in breach of your conditions and refuse to do so but that has nothing to do with who is liable.

If we are discussing privately owned craft, why not just exchange insurance details in the same way as you would after a motor accident. It makes sense to have insurance details to hand in case they are needed. If one party believes that they were not to blame then they will have to provide evidence to their insurance company.

[KevMc]

If we are discussing privately owned craft, why not just exchange insurance details in the same way as you would after a motor accident. It makes sense to have insurance details to hand in case they are needed. If one party believes that they were not to blame then they will have to provide evidence to their insurance company.

 

All very well until the insurance companies both refuse to agree who is to blame - then you need to go to court and sue the person you believe liable for the damage (i.e. the other boater)

[mango]

 

All very well until the insurance companies both refuse to agree who is to blame - then you need to go to court and sue the person you believe liable for the damage (i.e. the other boater)

Does that happen very often? Unless boat insurance is different from motor insurance, this would be settled by a knock-for-knock agreement. Thus I would expect my insurance to pay up if I had an accident and had complied with the terms (e.g. not admitting liability). Why worry people about problems that may not exist?

[dor]

Well my boat was hit quite slowly by an Alvechurch boat. I contacted the hire company and they came out to look at the damage. I said I can forget the marks on the paintwork but I would like the damaged cratch cover repaired. They said ok, I got the cratch repaired and they paid the bill.

 

Oh and by the way, if someone steers a boat into mine and causes damage, it is the person creating the damage who is liable. s/he may or may not have insurance to cover the cost of what I will claim, and that insurer may choose to deal with me or the repairer directly.

[Machpoint005]

Another voice raised in confirmation.

Whether or not the hire company got its money back from its own customer was no concern of dor's,of course, but presumably it did. The fault, and thus the liability, was still the customer's.

[David Mack]

 

NO no no no - if you damage my vessel and refuse to pay my damages I will sue you, not your insurance company because they have done no wrong.

 

Kev,

 

Some of us have been telling Julynian this since the beginning of this thread, but he won't have any of it!

[Delta9]

He has removed his avatar and the information from his profile. I think he may have flounced...

[David Mack]

He has removed his avatar and the information from his profile. I think he may have flounced...

 

 

For anyone who didn't see it, this is the company that was linked from his profile.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Grace & Favour
I have removed his company details at his request.

[SamKingfisher]

On the frozen tundra, sensing weakness, the pack turn on the factually incorrect wolf and begin to tear it bloodily to bits. The camera crew turn away, disgusted, and try hard to find some cuter, more laid back animals. LOL

[Guest]

He has removed his avatar and the information from his profile. I think he may have flounced...

Mmmm, I think there may be more to it than that.

 

Group - 'Ex-member'

 

Not seen that before on here.

Edited August 13, 2014 by The Dog House

[mango]

Mmmm, I think there may be more to it than that.

 

Group - 'Ex-member'

 

Not seen that before on here.

Hopefully he has gone boating. Now can we get on with friendly constructive debate please?

[Guest]

Hopefully he has gone boating. Now can we get on with friendly constructive debate please?

Well I'm not really sure there is much left to debate re the OP to be honest, but fair play to anybody that thinks there might be.

 

It's pretty clear to me what people need to do in the event of being hit by a hire boat and the result the OP got shows that his approach can and does work along with other examples refereed to in the thread.

 

To me the liability issue is some what of a red herring if the hire co. is quite happy to pay up or their insurers are, and as I see it it would only be if the hire co. refuses for what ever reason to do so would the 'liability' issue come into play, even then I would still be more inclined to go after the hire co. arguing poor instruction/tuition on their part depending on the cause of the incident of course.

 

Over to you.

[mango]

Well I'm not really sure there is much left to debate re the OP to be honest, but fair play to anybody that thinks there might be.

 

It's pretty clear to me what people need to do in the event of being hit by a hire boat and the result the OP got shows that his approach can and does work along with other examples refereed to in the thread.

 

To me the liability issue is some what of a red herring if the hire co. is quite happy to pay up or their insurers are, and as I see it it would only be if the hire co. refuses for what ever reason to do so would the 'liability' issue come into play, even then I would still be more inclined to go after the hire co. arguing poor instruction/tuition on their part depending on the cause of the incident of course.

 

Over to you.

OK, but it's difficult to believe that one party is entirely responsible for a serious collision involving two boats coming in opposite directions. It makes sense to take action to minimise the impact. Most car drivers learn to expect the unexpected and react promptly to take avoiding action.