Advice please. Insurance claim rejected

J

JohannaMaria

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2008
Messages
29
Location
East Sussex and Windsor
Visit site
Dear Forum members

Any advise would be very welcome please. It was recommended by a Thames Forum member that I post this question here as well as the Thames forum so here goes....

Back in September we had an terrifying 'incident' when the bow thruster jammed full on as we turned to port in very strong current on the Thames.

The insurance company decided to send an assessor to inspect the damage to the bow thruster (which burnt out, having run for almost 10 minutes) and electrical cables (which melted all along the length of our 20 metre barge) In total more than £5000 will be needed to make all the repairs.

It transpired that the wiring was faulty (the positive cable was connected to the wrong terminal on the battery isolating switch - this was not picked up by the surveyor in Holland or the UK boat safety examiner!) and intially the insurance company rejected the claim completely. After 'discussions' the insurance company appear to accept that there was a latent defect which we could not have know about in the boat. A latent defect is covered under the terms of the policy but the insurers continue to deny our claim on the basis that although all the AC and DC cables melted (and filled the whole boat with smoke at the time) the damage was not caused by an insured peril, namely fire....

Our local fire brigade have commented that fire can take many forms, including electrical flash, chemical burning and smouldering but cannot offer any advice that would support the claim.

If anyone else has had to fight something like this and won we would be grateful for any advice on how to proceed.

Many, many thanks for any thoughts
H and B on Johanna Maria

P.S warned we might get 'flack' re the use of bow thrusters....at 45 tonnes we do, occassionally, need a bit of help up front. Especially around other peoples' pride and joy!
 
Perhaps you may be able to argu better if you canget them to give you their definitionm of 'Fire'. You could then for example seek legal opinion as to whether their definition could stand up in court.
 
I think you need some legal advice. Try Ward & McKenzie . If they can't help you, they should be able to point you in the direction of someome who can
Why didn't you disconnect one of the battery terminals when the bow thruster jammed on?
 
Hi
Thanks for that - we'll contact them. To answer your question. We did. What we did not know was that the BT was ALSO wired to the starter batteries in the stern. We could not get to them until we managed to stop the boat and get into the engine room. All a bit of nightmare at the time...
 
Have you asked your broker if your policy is written on a perils basis (Fire) ?

Mine is not a cheap policy but it is written on an 'All Risk' basis which would not allow them to use that reason.

My Policy would exclude the faulty part and I would hope my broker would argue the faulty part is the wiring crimp £2.50p

Does anyone think you should ask your Broker if your Insurers are FSA approved and ask for the complaints procedure ?

Do you think the FSA complaints are most likely to have a better chance of success than a solicitor as FSA will lean toward the side of the Policy Holder should there be any ambiguity ?

Legal action is always there should the FSA not help.
 
This is tricky. You seem to be insured for named perils not all risks, as Daka said. Fire is often understood to mean reaction with oxygen where the necessary heat for the reaction is generated by the burning of the material. In your case the heat came from the electic current in the cables, and there's a resonable argument that that isn't fire. It would be fire if the boat furniture next to the cables caught fire, but if the damage was just the melting fo the cables and the resulting smoke damage, then you are on a sticky wicket.

It's hard to comment more without seeing all the policy wording. Do you want to post it here? A solicitor can help you but he/she will insist on seeing the policy words. Likewise the legally types here need to see the contract

Good luck anyway
 
Hi JFM and DAKA
Thank you both very much for the constructive advice. To aswer your questions: yes the policy is on a named perils basis, it was not a 'budget' policy tho' and yes it is reputable FSA registered company. We arranged the insurance directly with them (so no broker to mediate unfortunately)
The relevant section of the policy specifies fire as a peril but does not, in the plain language document we have, define 'fire'.
We do understand that there is a fine line between melting wiring and an out and out blaze but the wiring was smoking hot and only very quick action on our part stopped all the timber lining scorching. We feel the insurance co is taking a very hard line....
 
Do a "Gludy" on them!
In other words tell said Co that you intend on advertising the poor decision on a well known boating forums website and the knock on effect will do them far more harm than good.
 
Alas though, and sorry to be negative but I'm saying it as I see it, that line was probably not crossed. The wire got hot becuase the electricity was passing through it. There was no self sustaining combustion. That, probably, means it wasn't fire. I know that's not what you want to hear but you might be better biting the bullet and not wasting money on legal fees fighting them
 
I would be taking steps to sue the surveyor and the bss examiner as quite rightly the insurers can reject the claim based on the boat not complying with the bss examination and standards that should be adhered to forthwith.

Sorry that sounds harsh but I was only talking to a surveyor yesterday about bss standards and insurance companies, qute rightly if the boats to be used inland it has to comply, and to comply has to be checked, passed to the exacting standards, clearly this has been missed by the bss examiner, his indemnity insurance should cover your loss, I would contact the autorities he is governed by, clearly he has not done his job.

I think thats your only way out of this, its not really down to your insurers as his negligence has caused your fire/ smoke damage.
 
I dont know the details of bss but I'd doubt the bss examiner owes a duty of care to the boat owner, does he? I would have thought his "client" is the licensing authority, not the boat owner, becuase he is checking the boat is bss compliant for them, isn't he?

I know nothing about bss so I'm very happy to be corrected on this!
 
You might have problems pursueing the surveyor for not noticing the fault in the wiring, they have even more clauses to escape liability than insurance companies! Was the relevant wiring at the switch clearly labeled or identified, or was a wiring diagram available for inspection? Generally, a surveyor will only comment on the physical condition of wiring, he cannot be expected to trace each wire on the boat to ensure its connected to the correct terminal. Did he test the bow thruster during the survey, and had the thruster worked correctly beforehand.
Finally, ''no smoke without fire''- even a judge will have heard that one!
Good luck.
 
Well jfm, I thought that too but the surveyor I was talking to is actually in a fight with a boat owner over a similar purchase in that he is acting for the purchaser against a boat yard/dealer who sold a boat to his client.

After the deal things went wrong with the boat, as it was bought from a dealer he was covered by the sale of goods act.

The boat was sold with a new bss cert it was also surveyed by another surveyor that was recomended by the seller.

The new surveyor (my friend) has been bought in to advise the boat owners barrister and to advise on the back claim against the seller.

Out of this was raised the conversation of bss compliancy which in turn has helped his claim.

I know sea based boats dont have a bss, but ill give you a safety example.

Joe publics 25 years old turbo 36 has never been inland, therefore its fuel lines, gas lines wiring etc so its potentially a hazard for fire etc.

If you decided to take this boat inland it would have all flexible fuel lines changed to ISO7840 spec hoses, gas test point, correct vents, the list goes on!.

So the moral of the compliance cert is to provide better safer boats on a more confined waterway, though to be fair you still get explosions in locks and people filling petrol from cans in stupid places.
 
Yes, we think once we have the final decision letter that's the route we have to go.
The issues seem to be:

1.the definition of 'fire' which the policy is silent on. We await further comment from the Claim Assessor.

2. the policy wording which says that damage to machinery (wiring and the BT) on the vessel is limited to named perils. In effect the insurers include latent defect in the cover but then limit it by excluding any and all damage UNLESS the defect causes one of the named perils.
We do not think that any policy holder would nomally appreciate that point. In effect the insurers are saying that there is no damage unless your vessel burns, or sinks, or one of the other named perils happens as a result of a latent defect.
Not sure that's fair. Maybe we should ALL take legal advice before entering into a Contract of Insurance!

Anyway, thank you all for your thoughts and some encouragement!

H and B
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we should ALL take legal advice before entering into a Contract of Insurance!



[/ QUOTE ]

Could that be why some take advice from a Broker who may have already come across such situations and be in a possession to provide examples of cover differences.

You could be barking up the wrong tree at the BSS examiner.

A Broker may direct you toward the Complaints procedure of your provider which must be compliant with FSA guidelines and will ultimately result with the FOS, they could be your best chance of success.
FOS are regarded by some in the Industry as clueless idiots.
Do they have any respect or knowledge of English Law ?
 
Thanks for the additional input....not 'going' for either the BSC inspector OR the surveyor. Until disaster struck there was nothing to see re the wiring. We are all human. Not even really 'going' for the insurance co - just want a bit of fairness and a reasonable contribution towards the costs rather than a complete stone wall approach!
What/who are FOS? (sorry for the ignorance....)
 
All fair enough, but I don't see how that shows the bss surveyor has a duty of care to the boat owner. The case you refer to doesn't (as I read what you've written) involve a boat owner suing the bss surveyor.
 
[ QUOTE ]
- just want a bit of fairness and a reasonable contribution toward the costs
What/who are FOS? (sorry for the ignorance....)

[/ QUOTE ]

You have been very vague and it is incredibly difficult to help.
Your Insurers name and link to a policy wording would have been helpful.
jfm would be ideal for spotting weaknesses in wordings.


Could some insurers which include direct in their title may actually be brokers ?

Do you have a terms of business document that spells out the relationship for example some brokers will act for the Insurers and not you in the event of a claim, others will look after your interests.

Could you ask about your providers complaints procedure they may have one which complies with FSA requirements and they may provide you with details of the FOS, Financial Ombudsman service.
Are you weeks away from being able to approach them at this stage as you have not started the complaints procedure ?

A broker (one that acts in your interests in the event of a claim ) may well approach a company pointing out any policy wording weakness and request a contribution toward your cost in order to save challenging the wording via the FOS who have been known to make some odd decisions that would not have the same outcome in an English court or any other court of law !

What do you think your chances of success in a court are....... 1% ?


Threat of FSA complaints and finding a dummy to agree 50% contribution
....................10% increasing to 70% if your broker gets behind you ?


Another FOS weired decision,............20% ?
 
DAKA
Don't mean to be vague - just reluctant to name names on an open forum. I will PM you the link to the policy document which also explains the relationship between the insurer and the policy holder.
To answer your other questions:
No broker is involved. We don't have a final decision yet so not able to go any further until then. No idea what chance we have - in or out of court - have never made an insurance claim before. Obviously anything we can do strengthen our case at this point is sensible. A lengthy formal complaint proceedure is not a great option! That's why we asked about advice/help....
In the meantime thanks for your interest.
H
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top