Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK, Greece and Spain
    Posts
    17,598

    Default Re: Insurance Company Recommendations Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by STATUE View Post
    No, no, no ! Avoid GJW if a boat they have insured breaks off its mooring and crashes into your vessel, GJW will not pay out. EVIDENCE : A full two page artical in this magazine.
    As a matter of interest do you have a link or the date and magazine in question?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    29,410

    Default Re: Insurance Company Recommendations Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by STATUE View Post
    No, no, no ! Avoid GJW if a boat they have insured breaks off its mooring and crashes into your vessel, GJW will not pay out. EVIDENCE : A full two page artical in this magazine.
    Seems you misunderstood the message of the article. GJW were under no obligation to pay for the damage unless the owner of the boat that broke free could be shown to be negligent. I expect with the same facts other insurers would not have paid.

    You need to be clear about the legal relationships. If somebody else's boat hits yours, your claim is against him, not his insurer. You have no relationship with his insurer. If you can show the person is negligent then you hope he has insurance that covers his negligence. The important thing is that the claim is valid if negligence is proven and the insurer has to pay. If he is not insured then you pursue the owner.

    In this case the owner of the damaged boat did not have insurance cover (only third party), so was unable to claim from his own insurer. If he had he could have claimed on his policy and his insurer would then recover from the owner of the other boat. As it is the best he could hope is that if he had cover for uninsured losses he could claim on that policy IF the insurer was convinced he had a claim with a chance of success.

    If you claim on your own insurance then what you can claim for is covered by the terms and conditions of your contract. However if you claim on the other party it is under the law of Tort and the other party has to make good your losses. They are not limited by his insurance contract terms, so you may well be able to claim for more.

    The downside of claiming from the other party is that it is potentially more work and hassle and if you are in the common situation of the claim exceeding the value of the boat (as it was in this case) the fight may be particularly hard. This is different from claiming from your insurer (if you have an all risks policy) where the payout is governed by the contract.

    So suggest you withdraw your comment about GJW. If they had a liability they would have paid. As you read from many of the comments on this thread (and others) most claims with established insurers are paid fairly and promptly. Where there is a dispute or non payment there will be a reason - like this one, or the claim was not covered by the contract. This does not mean of course that there are never unfair refusals to pay or straightforward mistakes but they are a tiny minority of claims.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    S. Dorset
    Posts
    330

    Default Re: Insurance Company Recommendations Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tranona View Post
    Seems you misunderstood the message of the article. GJW were under no obligation to pay for the damage unless the owner of the boat that broke free could be shown to be negligent. I expect with the same facts other insurers would not have paid.

    You need to be clear about the legal relationships. If somebody else's boat hits yours, your claim is against him, not his insurer. You have no relationship with his insurer. If you can show the person is negligent then you hope he has insurance that covers his negligence. The important thing is that the claim is valid if negligence is proven and the insurer has to pay. If he is not insured then you pursue the owner.

    In this case the owner of the damaged boat did not have insurance cover (only third party), so was unable to claim from his own insurer. If he had he could have claimed on his policy and his insurer would then recover from the owner of the other boat. As it is the best he could hope is that if he had cover for uninsured losses he could claim on that policy IF the insurer was convinced he had a claim with a chance of success.

    If you claim on your own insurance then what you can claim for is covered by the terms and conditions of your contract. However if you claim on the other party it is under the law of Tort and the other party has to make good your losses. They are not limited by his insurance contract terms, so you may well be able to claim for more.

    The downside of claiming from the other party is that it is potentially more work and hassle and if you are in the common situation of the claim exceeding the value of the boat (as it was in this case) the fight may be particularly hard. This is different from claiming from your insurer (if you have an all risks policy) where the payout is governed by the contract.

    So suggest you withdraw your comment about GJW. If they had a liability they would have paid. As you read from many of the comments on this thread (and others) most claims with established insurers are paid fairly and promptly. Where there is a dispute or non payment there will be a reason - like this one, or the claim was not covered by the contract. This does not mean of course that there are never unfair refusals to pay or straightforward mistakes but they are a tiny minority of claims.
    Sadly you have fallen into the usual trap used by insurers of OBFUSCATION - a lot of words that should only require a few to make it immediately obvious.

    Clarity is what we sailors need in the distressing circumstances we can find ourselves in !

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    29,410

    Default Re: Insurance Company Recommendations Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by STATUE View Post
    Sadly you have fallen into the usual trap used by insurers of OBFUSCATION - a lot of words that should only require a few to make it immediately obvious.

    Clarity is what we sailors need in the distressing circumstances we can find ourselves in !
    Nothing could be clearer than what I have written. If somebody damages your boat they are liable if you can prove negligence and you then claim against them. They may well have insurance against their negligence but you do not claim against their insurer, although he may well appoint his insurer as his agent. The negligent person is required to put you back in the same situation as before.

    If you have insured your boat all risks (commonly known as comprehensive) you can claim under your policy in which case the claim is met under the terms of the contract you have with your insurer. The insurer may well try to recover the loss from the other party (or his insurer).

    Nothing could be clearer than that. It is important to understand the differences in the relationship you have with the other parties in the two different types of claims.

    The difficulty most people have in cases like this is understanding what is needed to prove negligence and this depends on the facts of the individual case. In this case the insurer on behalf of their insured claimed (and presumably could prove) that there was no negligence. There was not enough information in the article to say whether that could be challenged successfully. However the insurer deals with this sort of thing on a daily basis so there is some confidence in their decision, even if you don't like the outcome.

    So, the lesson is that if you want the best chance of getting your damaged boat repaired irrespective of the cause, then take out an all risks policy - but be aware that it will only pay if the damage is specifically covered by the terms and conditions of the policy.

    I understand your desire for clarity, but perhaps what you want is simplicity. However sometimes you just have to accept that things are complicated and to seek clarity you need to go back to principles that underlie the law and test the facts against those. That is exactly what I have done above, so you now have clarity - but not simplicity.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Find Boats For Sale

to
to