3rd Party Damages My Yacht Why Claim On My Insurance?

[BrianH]

When anchored in Croatia I was hit by another yacht that dragged down on me in a gale and I sustained damage. I immediately called my insurance, Yachting24, who sent a local surveyor for damage assessment, for which I went into a nearby marina. The company kept in regular contact to follow events, assured me they would cover the full cost of repairs but, at the same time, advised me that the best course would be a direct claim on the other yacht's insurance. This was accepted by them and, after quotations and negotiations, eventually paid directly into my account. The result is that my insurance company was not involved although they have all records but my premiums are not affected.

 

[savageseadog]

The bottom line is that in marine law, you are only liable if you have been negligent. So often collisions in marinas between boats, one moored, one moving are settled generally 'knock for knock' by insurers. Hence why it's often to get no excess or no loss of Ncb in some insurance contracts for marina based claims.

A 60ft mobo collided with us causing £1000s in damages - he offered to pay straight away out of his own pocket and repairs started the followin day (he was a decent guy) but his insurnace probbably wouldn't have paid because he accidentally hit but wasn't doing anything wrong - my insurance told me you can't assume just because there has been a collision it has resulted from negligence...

 

[bedouin]

I'm the OP.

The offending yacht has been on the finger pontoon next us for at least 3 years, I've never seen her move and, although a reasonable modern Hanse 32, looks absolutely s**t covered in algae, loads of growth on the hull etc... Owners are never there when I have been in the marina.

Saw marina staff taking her sails off a couple of weeks ago - seems a bit of a co-incidence that shortly after the mast collapses.

So it was a windy night - surely a properly maintained boat in a secure harbour with no sails up should not suffer a mast failure?

I may know nothing about the legalities of insurance but I would have thought that if my mast collapsed and damaged a neighbour - common decency would be to apologise, accept liability and get things sorted out!

Does the other boat owner even know what has happened?

You really need to take this matter to your insurers - that is what they are for. If people from the marina were on the boat recently then it may be that they are responsible, not the boat owner, or it may be that no one is. Trying to get to the bottom of what happened, and who (if anyone) is liable, is going to be a complex and time consuming business. If I were you I would claim on your own insurance to the the work done. They may be able to recover the costs from someone else - but even if they don't and you are out of pocket you can still chase the other party to recover your additional losses. If you don't contact your insurance company now they would be quite within their rights to have nothing to do with it if you wanted to claim later.

 

[Birdseye]

Given that I am totally the innocent party does this seem a fair way to ask me to proceed?

They can ask whatever they want to ask of you. Its up to you to decide what to do. And the basic principle is fairly clear. Someone else's failure to maintain their boat has caused you financial loss which you are entitled to recover from them. Make a claim in writing directly on the owner of the other boat - its up to him whether he then claims off his own insurance or pays you out of his own pocket since his insurance covers him against his liabilities. His insurance company does not insure you against your damage.

Doubtless the marinas contract terms excludes liability for anything whatsoever, but you would need a lawyer to discover whether this can be effective.

As for your own insurance company, they can load your premium to reflect the facts you hyave had an accident whether or not you claim off them. This is fairly common in car insurance - I dont know whether marine companies do the same thing.

One final word. My boat insurance includes legal cover. If the other guy gets awkward you might need that legal cover in which case you might have to claim on your own insurance. With car insurance, recovery of your excess ( the lawyer does that) usually keeps your no claims bonus.

3k for a sprayhood and a few stanchions sounds excessive.

 

[davidej]

When anchored in Croatia I was hit by another yacht that dragged down on me in a gale and I sustained damage. I immediately called my insurance, Yachting24, who sent a local surveyor for damage assessment, for which I went into a nearby marina. The company kept in regular contact to follow events, assured me they would cover the full cost of repairs but, at the same time, advised me that the best course would be a direct claim on the other yacht's insurance. This was accepted by them and, after quotations and negotiations, eventually paid directly into my account. The result is that my insurance company was not involved although they have all records but my premiums are not affected.

In very calm conditions, I tied up to another boat in a manner I considered satisfactory. An almighty squall came through and my boat caused minor damage to the other boat.

When I reported it to my insurer (a very reputable one) they said "don't worry you are not liable - we can resist this".

In the event, the repair cost was small and I paid it from my own pocket.

 

[sarabande]

T
Doubtless the marinas contract terms excludes liability for anything whatsoever, but you would need a lawyer to discover whether this can be effective.
.

I've always understood that an unenforceable or unrealistic key clause in a contract can invalidate the whole contract. I can see no way in which a marina could disclaim responsibility for everything.

Have we heard back from the OP if the marina has taken over the offending boat for any reason ?

 

[BrianH]

In very calm conditions, I tied up to another boat in a manner I considered satisfactory. An almighty squall came through and my boat caused minor damage to the other boat.

Was this at anchor and you were both hanging on his anchor? Or was it a mooring that the other was secured to? Or perhaps a crowded harbour with no other place to lie than to raft up?

When I reported it to my insurer (a very reputable one) they said "don't worry you are not liable - we can resist this".

I cannot conceive how that can be sustained in any of the above scenarios. Especially in the light that you are admitting your boat caused the damage.

In my case, the other yacht, which had left the anchorage to seek refuge in the nearby marina, returned in his rib when the gale had decreased, to give his insurance details and admit liability. A German insured with a major, reputable Hamburg-based company.

 

[KellysEye]

>you will have to prove that the other boat owner is liable. That means that you have to show that the owner should have foreseen that the mast would fall and could cause damage. That might not be that easy.

No, how could the owner foresee that the mast would fall down it was an accident just like a car crash. As said get the other party's insurance details, pictures of the damage and the quote for repair also notify your insurer with the same information.

 

[l'escargot]

...As said get the other party's insurance details...

There's you first hurdle. There is no legal requirement for him to have insurance and even if he has, he cannot be required to give the details of such insurance to anyone.

If the OP has insurance himself, his two options are to claim from his own insurers or claim against the owner of the other boat. The second can prove difficult - that is why he has insured himself against such risk.

 

[sarabande]

>you will have to prove that the other boat owner is liable. That means that you have to show that the owner should have foreseen that the mast would fall and could cause damage. That might not be that easy.

No, how could the owner foresee that the mast would fall down it was an accident just like a car crash. As said get the other party's insurance details, pictures of the damage and the quote for repair also notify your insurer with the same information.

But we know that the offending boat is badly maintained. It is not too difficult to be of the opinion that such neglect also occurs in the rigging, and it would be easy enough to take pictures of the chain plates and turnbuckles to prove the neglect, and hence the foreseeability of the consequences.

 

[sarabande]

There's you first hurdle. There is no legal requirement for him to have insurance and even if he has, he cannot be required to give the details of such insurance to anyone.
.

Again, we are coming up with an unhelpful lack of information from the OP. If the offending boat is in the marina, it may well be a condition that it is insured. The question has already been asked, but answer came there none.

It may be that the offending boat owner has not put the required insurance in place. Then it's oops, and the OP has to claim on his own, and let the insurance co chase the other owner for the money. One might argue that the marina is negligent if they have allowed the boat to continue to be moored without proof of insurance, and that they then take on the risk.


All lots of hypothesis, but until the OP comes back with info, we are guessing.

 

[bedouin]

But we know that the offending boat is badly maintained. It is not too difficult to be of the opinion that such neglect also occurs in the rigging, and it would be easy enough to take pictures of the chain plates and turnbuckles to prove the neglect, and hence the foreseeability of the consequences.

If it was foreseeable then of course the OP would have raised concerns with the marina before the incident; and the marina staff who had been on the boat just a couple of weeks earlier would also have been very concerned about the risk.

Either the OP or the marina must have tried to contact the owner to point out the danger of the mast collapsing - and if the owner ignored that warning then you may be able to prove he was liable. If the OP can't prove that he raised those concerns then he will really struggle to show the accident was genuinely foreseeable. If the OP had foreseen the risks and done nothing then of course he is himself negligent and could in theory invalidate his own insurance.

 

[sarabande]

I take your point, B, about the OP (possibly) needing to speak with the marina if he thought the mast boat was dangerous as part of his risk management of his own boat, but does that duty of care really extend to other peoples' boats around you in a marina village ?

If the risk is patent (perhaps a shroud that is flapping free, or a mooring line that is worn through) a call to the marina is understandable, but what do you suggest is the practical extent of checking other boats in your vicinity ?

I note elsewhere that jfm always keeps a full log of his visits to his mobo, and records what he does, and both Bilbo and I did the same on a Rival we sailed off a fore and aft mooring.

I suppose I am trying to tease out, from the long list of possible actions, what is realistic for a boat owner to do, in order to satisfy his insurance co that he is looking after his boat.

My view, before this thread, would have been that one's responsibility stopped at the pontoon end of my own mooring lines.



I still feel there is more to the offending boat story than we have heard thus far.

 

[bedouin]

I take your point, B, about the OP (possibly) needing to speak with the marina if he thought the mast boat was dangerous as part of his risk management of his own boat, but does that duty of care really extend to other peoples' boats around you in a marina village ?
...

My view, before this thread, would have been that one's responsibility stopped at the pontoon end of my own mooring lines.



I still feel there is more to the offending boat story than we have heard thus far.

No - I don't think there is much in the way of duty of care to other marina users except to report things that are manifestly unsafe. The real point I was trying to make was that you would have trouble proving that the loss was foreseeable if you hadn't yourself foreseen it and taken steps. If you take the line that the condition of the boat was so poor that there was clearly a danger then the OP would have a duty - not to others in the marina but to his insurers to minimise the risk of damage to his own boat.

I also think there is more to this than meets the eye - however poorly maintained it is hard to understand why a mast should collapse on a GRP boat in a marina without there even being any sails on the mast.

 

[KellysEye]

>If it was foreseeable then of course the OP would have raised concerns with the marina before the incident; and the marina staff who had been on the boat just a couple of weeks earlier would also have been very concerned about the risk.

Either the OP or the marina must have tried to contact the owner to point out the danger of the mast collapsing - and if the owner ignored that warning then you may be able to prove he was liable. If the OP can't prove that he raised those concerns then he will really struggle to show the accident was genuinely foreseeable. If the OP had foreseen the risks and done nothing then of course he is himself negligent and could in theory invalidate his own insurance.

Precisely.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I also think there is more to this than meets the eye - however poorly maintained it is hard to understand why a mast should collapse on a GRP boat in a marina without there even being any sails on the mast.

Someone once nicked two of the rings from the clevis pins on my shrouds. I am quite sure they were nicked, because I am careful about checking them: they were there when I left the boat and gone a couple of days later. The things people will do to save a quid or two, eh?

 

[ripvan1]

Do we know that there is an owner around ? If non contactable or non existent then boat should have been on the hard (graveyard corner) thus opening up a berth.
To suggest that it's any way it's the OP's fault for not realising the mast was going to land on his very expensive sprayhood is quite honestly plain daft.

May I politely suggest that after asking a question on here and receiving helpful or otherwise replies, the OP comes back to answer some of the questions posed.

 

[Birdseye]

maybe he has realised that all he gets on here is a dozen or more conflicing pieces of advice from non-lawyers.. He could be here for a week and be none the wiser.