Claiming from hire company for damage

[Machpoint005]

 

Not everyone can afford to write off £100 just like that. The hit I took damaged my (only) laptop beyond the point of economical repair, and it is only through being donated one from a very kind forumite that I was able to keep working uninterrupted and didn't lose all of my income, due to my laptop being the most essential element of my (freelance) work. Even so, the loss of the stuff I had on the laptop prior to the company paying out for hard disc recovery really put me in a mess.

I could not have earned, or afforded to live in the time it took the hire company and their insurers to mess around sorting it out and paying out, and I did not have the funds to buy a new laptop and software just like that with no notice in the interim.

The claim wasn't at all huge, but the impact and knock-on problems it caused me was quite a big deal to me.

 

With respect, that's not the fault of the person who collided with you, it's a failure to back up the data.

However, as Magpie Patrick says, we were both working on the assumption that the OP had £100 worth of damage to the boat, full stop.

Glad to see the hire company contacts, though -- there are businesses who do the right thing simply because it is the right thing!

[Ex- Member]

To be fair to crafty (with whom I otherwise disagree), postcodes for house and car insurance, for example, is relevant because they look at risk based on location and every claim has an impact on the reputation of that area. Not so for boats, I am sure. And yes, a claim against a third party should never affect one's own premium, although I think it is necessary to inform one's own insurance company - certainly in the case of cars anyway.

 

But not with regard to making a claim which was the point in question.

[Starcoaster]

 

With respect, that's not the fault of the person who collided with you, it's a failure to back up the data.

However, as Magpie Patrick says, we were both working on the assumption that the OP had £100 worth of damage to the boat, full stop.

Glad to see the hire company contacts, though -- there are businesses who do the right thing simply because it is the right thing!

 

I'm not being funny but it's totally the fault of the person that collided with me! Backing up data etc., is sensible, and something I do regularly (not regularly enough, as that point proved) but I don't tend to stick my working notes and unfinished pieces in the cloud until they are completed. Some of the things I have/had cannot be backed up in that way anyway, due to my terms with certain companies.

When someone, through no fault of my own whatsoever, causes me an issue through thoughtlessness, drunkeness and brazen disregard for other people, that is on them, not me!

[Machpoint005]

 

I'm not being funny but it's totally the fault of the person that collided with me! Backing up data etc., is sensible, and something I do regularly (not regularly enough, as that point proved) but I don't tend to stick my working notes and unfinished pieces in the cloud until they are completed. Some of the things I have/had cannot be backed up in that way anyway, due to my terms with certain companies.

When someone, through no fault of my own whatsoever, causes me an issue through thoughtlessness, drunkeness and brazen disregard for other people, that is on them, not me!

 

How is that the responsibility of a thoughtless drunkard?

[Paul C]

How did the laptop break and the hard disk crash from a boat impact? Was it perched on the edge of a table or something?

[craftycarper]

Well you clearly aren't as you're talking nonsense.

 

Postcode is totally irrelevant, Insurance policies are in the name of people or companies, not postcodes.

 

Only if you claim from your own insurance company. As already stated, you cannot be penalised by your insurance company by claiming from a 3rd party.

Well you clearly aren't as you're talking nonsense.

 

Postcode is totally irrelevant, Insurance policies are in the name of people or companies, not postcodes.

 

Only if you claim from your own insurance company. As already stated, you cannot be penalised by your insurance company by claiming from a 3rd party.

. As I said you carry on in your make believe world of perfection but the real world is slightly less kind hopefully it seems the hire company boss also lives in the real world and when the op takes up his offer he will I,m sure make him a cash offer as it don't matter which party you are one hundred English pounds is far better for all concerned in cash than dealing with insurance and to nick Norman i will take that as a positive and thank you kindly I,m now off to my boat for the weekend to face hurricane birtha

[David Mack]

,every claim made from your post code will affect future insurance policy's taken out by you

 

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I have heard that with motor insurance at least even a claim which is fully paid by the other driver's insurance will result in your base premium going up (even though you don't lose any no claims bonus). And multiple such claims will certainly affect your premium.

 

The insurers' argument is that people who aren't at fault, but have more accidents still represent more of a risk. Claiming (or even just notifying them) in the event of such an occurence, marks you out as one of these unlucky folk.

[Paul C]

 

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I have heard that with motor insurance at least even a claim which is fully paid by the other driver's insurance will result in your base premium going up (even though you don't lose any no claims bonus). And multiple such claims will certainly affect your premium.

 

The insurers' argument is that people who aren't at fault, but have more accidents still represent more of a risk. Claiming (or even just notifying them) in the event of such an occurence, marks you out as one of these unlucky folk.

 

My experience/understanding is that for most kinds of non-fault accidents in car insurance (ie when you made a claim but the other party 100% paid) won't affect your insurance premium. However a small minority of them can and do. This is based on my own experience (1 non-fault claim which was not too high value) and spending a little time on insurance comparison websites which are not sophisticated enough to allow you to enter details of accidens/claims and provide automatic quotes.

 

The easy way to find out who is right, is to try a few scenarios out in a comparison website.

[Ex- Member]

 

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I have heard that with motor insurance at least even a claim which is fully paid by the other driver's insurance will result in your base premium going up (even though you don't lose any no claims bonus).

 

And multiple such claims will certainly affect your premium.

 

The insurers' argument is that people who aren't at fault, but have more accidents still represent more of a risk. Claiming (or even just notifying them) in the event of such an occurence, marks you out as one of these unlucky folk.

 

Would like to see some evidence of this, it's never happened to me.

 

A no claims discount is simply that, a percentage discount applied to the full premium offered. An insurance premium can go up in price for many reasons and usually do go up for those loyal customers who stupidly and blindly continue insuring with the same company year on year and are usually charged premium for doing so. More times than not my renewal is cheaper than the previous year using a different company, and that's not down to NCD as I'm at maximum anyway.

 

I have insured my personal vehicle with numerous different companies over the past 12 years, only on one occasion using the same company for a second years insurance.

 

The insurers' argument is that people who aren't at fault, but have more accidents still represent more of a risk. Claiming (or even just notifying them) in the event of such an occurence, marks you out as one of these unlucky folk.

 

 

That's complete and utter nonsense IMO

 

I would dearly love to see some evidence of this.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Julynian

[Hey Ho]

 

The insurers' argument is that people who aren't at fault, but have more accidents still represent more of a risk. Claiming (or even just notifying them) in the event of such an occurence, marks you out as one of these unlucky folk.

 

 

I used to work for a vehicle hire company. Anyone with more than two claims over the previous three years was refused hire. If didn't matter whether these were fault or non fault claims. So there can be consequences, in the motoring world at least, of non fault claims.

[Ex- Member]

 

 

I used to work for a vehicle hire company. Anyone with more than two claims over the previous three years was refused hire. If didn't matter whether these were fault or non fault claims. So there can be consequences, in the motoring world at least, of non fault claims.

 

How strange I've hired hundreds of vehicles over the past 30 years or so from numerous companies. Not once have I been asked how many insurance claims I have made to hire a vehicle or provide any insurance details or history.

 

What a strange hire company that must have been.

[Guest]

How strange I've hired hundreds of vehicles over the past 30 years or so from numerous companies. Not once have I been asked how many insurance claims I have made to hire a vehicle or provide any insurance details or history.

 

What a strange hire company that must have been.

 

Not as many hires but same here, I seem to recall being asked about motoring offences (in the states) but never accident or claims record.

[Ex- Member]

Not as many hires but same here, I seem to recall being asked about motoring offences (in the states) but never accident or claims record.

 

I'm beginning to sympathise with your boiling pee remark LOL

 

How did that happen, I gave myself a Greenie, it was meant for you LOL

Edited August 8, 2014 by Julynian

[KevMc]

 

I'm not being funny but it's totally the fault of the person that collided with me! Backing up data etc., is sensible, and something I do regularly (not regularly enough, as that point proved) but I don't tend to stick my working notes and unfinished pieces in the cloud until they are completed. Some of the things I have/had cannot be backed up in that way anyway, due to my terms with certain companies.

When someone, through no fault of my own whatsoever, causes me an issue through thoughtlessness, drunkeness and brazen disregard for other people, that is on them, not me!

Hi Starry... I don't know if you have considered it but I use NAS (Network Attached Storage) to backup my laptop. It sits physically attached to your router and the software automatically backs up all the data from your laptop all the time. I know it won't be any good if my boat sinks or is burned out but the laptop being dropped, or the harddrive in the laptop crashing etc are all covered - and I can access my files over the internet if I need to (usually only use that to show pics to people in the pub if I'm one over the eight though cos I've never found a real reason to do it).

[mango]

 

I'm beginning to sympathise with your boiling pee remark LOL

 

How did that happen, I gave myself a Greenie, it was meant for you LOL

Have one from me, for honesty.

[Ex- Member]

. As I said you carry on in your make believe world of perfection but the real world is slightly less kind hopefully it seems the hire company boss also lives in the real world and when the op takes up his offer he will I,m sure make him a cash offer as it don't matter which party you are one hundred English pounds is far better for all concerned in cash than dealing with insurance and to nick Norman i will take that as a positive and thank you kindly I,m now off to my boat for the weekend to face hurricane birtha

 

No one is disputing that, your assertion though that and insurance claim from the 3rd party hirer will affect you own insurance premium is remains incorrect.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Julynian

[Hey Ho]

 

What a strange hire company that must have been.

 

They were a small company and, now you mention it, were a strange outfit to work for. You won't be surprised to hear that they ceased trading some time ago. The fact remains that they did discriminate against drivers with multiple non fault claims.

 

Actually, discriminate might be a bit harsh as surely any business can decide who it accepts as customers on whatever criteria they feel like. I've never heard of insurance companies loading premiums for multiple non fault claims but I suppose they'd be perfectly entitled to if they wanted to. I'd have thought it would depend on how they chose to assess risk & which part of the market they were keen to attract. No expert as you can possibly tell

[Ex- Member]

 

They were a small company and, now you mention it, were a strange outfit to work for. You won't be surprised to hear that they ceased trading some time ago. The fact remains that they did discriminate against drivers with multiple non fault claims.

 

Actually, discriminate might be a bit harsh as surely any business can decide who it accepts as customers on whatever criteria they feel like. I've never heard of insurance companies loading premiums for multiple non fault claims but I suppose they'd be perfectly entitled to if they wanted to. I'd have thought it would depend on how they chose to assess risk & which part of the market they were keen to attract. No expert as you can possibly tell

They were a small company and, now you mention it, were a strange outfit to work for. You won't be surprised to hear that they ceased trading some time ago. The fact remains that they did discriminate against drivers with multiple non fault claims.

 

 

 

I'm shocked customers agreed to offer their insurance information so freely. Seems not just a strange company but some extremely dumb customers.

 

Why would any insurance company in their right mind ever feel the need to alienate hundreds & thousands of customers who have previously made non fault claims as you put it. If an insurance company wishes to raise it's premium they don't need an excuse as crass and stupid as that LOL.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Julynian

[Ricco1]

It's true that insurance can be more expensive if you're involved in a claim, even if it's deemed non-fault.

 

Although insurance companies accept 100% fault and non-fault as regards paying claims they take a more sensible view on accidents. That is, that very rarely can one party be blamed 100%. For example, a car goes through a red light hitting a car going through on green. 100% the fault of the driver who went through on red? most probably not. A green light means go through if it's safe to do so, not to go through without taking proper observations. Someone taking proper observations can avoid another car, most times. So the settlement is 100% but the fault is shared, a high proportion of which is taken by the driver who went through on red.

 

If you doubt this, check the highway code or speak to anyone who rides a motorbike; they'll only still be alive or able bodied if they avoided accidents that most car drivers would be involved with, from following road regulations but omitting further observations.

[Nige G]

 

 

If you doubt this, check the highway code or speak to anyone who rides a motorbike; they'll only still be alive or able bodied if they avoided accidents that most car drivers would be involved with, from following road regulations but omitting further observations.

 

How true!

 

I've been a biker for 30 years and have stayed alive by believing that everyone else on the road is out to kill me!

[mayalld]

 

Complete and utter nonsense. The claim is against the hire company. I've been through this and so have some other members. That's why hire companies take a £500+ deposit for hirers. If the hirer was liable, why would they need to do that?

 

 

Again you are completely wrong.

 

I'm afraid that he isn't wrong.

 

Firstly, why do hire companies take deposits - to pay the costs of anything that you break on their boat, and possibly so that they can preserve their repuation by settling any small damage claims on your behalf.

 

Secondly, you need to forget the way that things work with insurance companies (which is arranged so as to be convenient) from the actual chain of liability.

 

Colloquially we may talk about "claiming on the other person's insurance", and in practical terms that is how the money flows.

 

In liability terms, that consists of the other person being liable to you for damage caused, and his insurer being liable to him for the costs.

 

So, if I damage your boat, I am liable for that cost. Fortunately, I am insured, so my insurer is liable to me for the amount I have to pay. As a matter of convenience, my insurer pays you.

 

In the case of a hire boat, the hirer caused the damage, and is liable. The Hire company will have a contractual liability to provide an insured boat, and be liable to the hirer for any damages that he has to pay. The Insurer is liable to the hire company for any damages that he has to pay to the client. Again, common sense says that once liability is established the insurer pays the injured party.

 

If the hire company are responsive and take on the claim, all well and good. If not, then you simply claim against the hirer and leave the whole mess with the hire company for him to argue.

[Hawkmoth]

 

How true!

 

I've been a biker for 30 years and have stayed alive by believing that everyone else on the road is out to kill me!

How true, have a greenie.

Bob

[Ex- Member]

You should read the terms & conditions of a hire boat company.

 

Firstly, why do hire companies take deposits - to pay the costs of anything that you break on their boat, and possibly so that they can preserve their repuation by settling any small damage claims on your behalf.

 

They take deposits to off set their excess requirement by their insurer, the hirer pays a deposit of say £500 if he damages goods/boats to the value of 500 then he loses his deposit. Any claim above that is made against the hire boat company unless the hirer has agreed to cover himself for such liability.

 

So, if I damage your boat, I am liable for that cost. Fortunately, I am insured, so my insurer is liable to me for the amount I have to pay. As a matter of convenience, my insurer pays you.

 

 

If you're in a hire boat and damage my boat the hire boat company is liable. The steerer might be responsible that doesn't make him liable other than any deposit paid as a deposit.

 

In the case of a hire boat, the hirer caused the damage, and is liable. The Hire company will have a contractual liability to provide an insured boat, and be liable to the hirer for any damages that he has to pay. The Insurer is liable to the hire company for any damages that he has to pay to the client. Again, common sense says that once liability is established the insurer pays the injured party.

 

 

 

That's basically what I've stated, ultimately the hire boat are liable and who a claimant should claim from.

 

7. Insurance
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.

 

I read from that that the hire company can claim from their customer, but they are liable weather through their insurance company or not. and the people to claim from if their boat damages another.

 

I have made such a claim, Starcoaster has too, my claim had nothing to do with the hirer although they were responsible, exactly the same for Starcoaster.

[mayalld]

You should read the terms & conditions of a hire boat company.

They take deposits to off set their excess requirement by their insurer, the hirer pays a deposit of say £500 if he damages goods/boats to the value of 500 then he loses his deposit. Any claim above that is made against the hire boat company unless the hirer has agreed to cover himself for such liability.

 

 

If you're in a hire boat and damage my boat the hire boat company is liable. The steerer might be responsible that doesn't make him liable other than any deposit paid as a deposit.

 

 

That's basically what I've stated, ultimately the hire boat are liable and who a claimant should claim from.

 

7. Insurance

The company insures the boat and its equipment and inventory against public liability risks. The companys 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 companys policy.

 

I read from that that the hire company can claim from their customer, but they are liable weather through their insurance company or not. and the people to claim from if their boat damages another.

 

I have made such a claim, Starcoaster has too, my claim had nothing to do with the hirer although they were responsible, exactly the same for Starcoaster.

Notwithstanding that the company may as a matter of convenience choose to deal with the claim ( because they are contractually obliged to indemnify the hirer and have a keen interest in joker ping the claim low) and that the insurer may take over the claim, their interest in the claim lies only in a contractual relationship with the next part down the chain.

 

The base liability is with the person who was negligent.

 

If the insurer refuses the claim and the hire company refuses to play ball you sue the hirer and assuming you win he sues the hire company and they sue the insurer

[Ex- Member]

Notwithstanding that the company may as a matter of convenience choose to deal with the claim ( because they are contractually obliged to indemnify the hirer and have a keen interest in joker ping the claim low) and that the insurer may take over the claim, their interest in the claim lies only in a contractual relationship with the next part down the chain.

 

The base liability is with the person who was negligent.

 

If the insurer refuses the claim and the hire company refuses to play ball you sue the hirer and assuming you win he sues the hire company and they sue the insurer

 

 

The base liability is with the person who was negligent.

 

 

But not the person you claim from, and very unlikely the person who would ultimately pay anything what so ever to the claimant other than any deposit he/she paid and possibly lost.

 

As the thread was with regard who to claim from in the event of a boat accident with a hire boat, then I'm clearly right.

 

 

If the insurer refuses the claim and the hire company refuses to play ball you sue the hirer and assuming you win he sues the hire company and they sue the insurer

 

you could the hirer.

 

That is of course is an option. However as I've clearly stated several times, the initial claim is against the hire company and not the hirer, and TT is incorrect stating it is.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Julynian