Advice please. Insurance claim rejected

I cant be seen to read your policy and give you advice or recommendation on it.

If you had posted the link including your terms of business document I might have been able to ask you directed questions about it.

Please do not send it to me personally as doing so will effectively gag me.
 
Hi
I do pop up now and then.

My advice is IF you have exhausted all normal routes of resolution and are only left with the legal route then at that point warn them you are going to publish the story complete with documents on the web. They will probably ignore that so then you must publish and post them the link.

As long as you 1. tell the truth 2. can prove its the truth, then you are legally OK.
 
The link did not work my laptop crashed twice so I am reluctant to try again, I have not had the opportunity to read your policy.
I am not in a position to be able to offer any advice or recommendation.

Is it correct that some companies with direct in their names call themselves 'servicing agents' for Lloyd's insurance syndicates ?
I am not sure if I could explain the difference between a Servicing Agent and a Broker ? Save that in some cases a servicing agent may say that their duty during a claim is to act in the Insurers interest and not yours. This is somewhat different to how I would expect some brokers to act , I would like to think that some brokers would try to look after their clients interests.

I dont see any point in copying my posts above again, but I have re read them and I feel I benefited from reading some of the content again.

Does a policy holder have a duty to mitigate a loss ?
If a policy holder mitigates a loss and in doing so manages to render cover inoperative should the Insurers lend a sympathetic ear and consider an exgratia payment toward the loss ?

Do you think a broker acting for a client and not for the insurers may well consider that along with the complaints procedure ?
 
If that is the policy wording without special endorsements then it appears to be an "All Risks" policy. Certainly as a layman used to handling complex contracts that would be my interpretation.

However: damage to machinery is excluded except as caused by:

[ QUOTE ]

3. to the Vessel's machinery unless caused by:
(i) accidental incursion of water into the Vessel but not the engine alone; or
(ii) the stranding or sinking of the Vessel or the Vessel being on fire; or
(iii) impact between the Vessel and any substance including ice (but not water); or
(iv) theft or malicious persons; or
(v) freezing providing the machinery has been protected by appropriate anti-freeze mixed and inserted in accordance with the manufacturers specification.


[/ QUOTE ]

My layman's interpretation would be that a bow thruster is "machinery". although the term most commonly means the mechanical propulsion system. Under this they are clearly not liable unless the cause was one of those listed above, and as the "Fire" refers to damage caused by the vessel being on fire rather than the machinery being on fire, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I am not a legal professional and this does not constitute any form of professional advice, just a layman's interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top