Jump to content

Narrow boat sinks


koukouvagia

Featured Posts

Can anyone think of a reasonable route from "I need some welding done" to "Third party insurance is a good idea"?

Policy exclusions would probably suspend hull and machinery cover for the duration of the job but not before or after. It would make no sense for the policy holder to reduce cover because some welding needs doing. It is perhaps the case that the insurer has refused cover considering the hull unsound until the work was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Can anyone think of a reasonable route from "I need some welding done" to "Third party insurance is a good idea"?

Policy exclusions would probably suspend hull and machinery cover for the duration of the job but not before or after. It would make no sense for the policy holder to reduce cover because some welding needs doing. It is perhaps the case that the insurer has refused cover considering the hull unsound until the work was done.

Background: As you may have noted, I think much of the boatlord's story was "spin" - though possibly "self-justification in retrospect", in which case the spin-doctor may not be fully aware of what they're doing.

I viewed the reference to 3rd party insurance as an attempt to imply, without actually lying, that the boat was insured in good faith.  In fact it seems more likely that it was insured for the duration of the welding job, at the recommendation of the welder, and intended to protect againt a welding mishap (where the worst case would be burning out some/all of the fitting).

On first reading I took it as evidence that the boatlord hadn't insured the boat, and knew it. IMO when you see a half-truth slipped in like that you can be 95% sure that the part left unsaid is to the disadvantage of the speaker, and they that they know it. Of course I'm a bit tarnished by my professional experience, but that kind of trick is routine in marketing.

Edited by Gordias
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Can anyone think of a reasonable route from "I need some welding done" to "Third party insurance is a good idea"?

(snip)

Possibly couldn't get comprehensive insurance until the welding was done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/07/2017 at 11:51, Iain_S said:

Possibly couldn't get comprehensive insurance until the welding was done?

 

Quite a likely explanation I'd say. I'd hypothesise the boat reach 25 years old, the insurance co demanded a survey, the survey showed welding required, comprehensive cover suspended pending welding, TPI taken out with Basic Boat Company to get a licence.

If correct, the TPI will have paid for the recovery by RCR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Quite a likely explanation I'd say. I'd hypothesise the boat reach 25 years old, the insurance co demanded a survey, the survey showed welding required, comprehensive cover suspended pending welding, TPI taken out with Basic Boat Company to get a licence.

If correct, the TPI will have paid for the recovery by RCR.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but my understanding of TPI is that it covers other people's losses, not the insuree's. If that is the case, I'm not sure why the insurers would pay for the boat recovery, unless they pay the money to CRT who could possibly be regarded as a disadvantaged third party if their canal was blocked by the sunken boat. If that were the case, then all RCR would need to do is refloat the boat and then leave it where it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Athy said:

A peculiar statement: have we not been told many times that there is no such thing as a continuous cruising licence?

It dosent say there is, it says on a continuous Cruising basis the only licence they mention is the Business Licence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but my understanding of TPI is that it covers other people's losses, not the insuree's. If that is the case, I'm not sure why the insurers would pay for the boat recovery, unless they pay the money to CRT who could possibly be regarded as a disadvantaged third party if their canal was blocked by the sunken boat. If that were the case, then all RCR would need to do is refloat the boat and then leave it where it is.

that was my read of it, CRT would claim third party damage as the have had to clear the navigation by employing RCR who have lifted it successfully. Just think if a car with third party insurance goes through your front wall into the house. I am sure you would claim off that policy as the third party to have that car removed from your lounge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard of insurers paying to remove sunken vessels that have only been insured for third party liability so that they don't get sued by a third party for obstruction of the channel of pollution.

I was involved a few years ago with a boat which had exploded and then caught fire. It was only third party insured but they sent a surveyor to make sure it was not in danger of sinking or polluting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rose Narrowboats said:

I have heard of insurers paying to remove sunken vessels that have only been insured for third party liability so that they don't get sued by a third party for obstruction of the channel of pollution.

I was involved a few years ago with a boat which had exploded and then caught fire. It was only third party insured but they sent a surveyor to make sure it was not in danger of sinking or polluting.

I guess because if it did pollute the water, then third parties would be harmed by the vessel and would have a valid claim against the vessel and any third party insurer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Can anyone think of a reasonable route from "I need some welding done" to "Third party insurance is a good idea"?

Policy exclusions would probably suspend hull and machinery cover for the duration of the job but not before or after. It would make no sense for the policy holder to reduce cover because some welding needs doing. It is perhaps the case that the insurer has refused cover considering the hull unsound until the work was done.

Maybe she had none but the welding was being done at a yard and they wanted it so that if anything happened to her boat (but not caused by them) which caused damage to other boats then her insurance would cover their repairs.

 

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.