Am I paying for other people's navigation errors?

[tonytoller]

Talking to an engineer in Southampton the other day he said he was on his way to sort out a boat that had ripped a drive leg off. Apparently the owner had sold the boat and was taking it out for a final run, when he hit an underwater object. The lifeboat was called and he was towed into Lymington with an engine room full of water. A specialist company was engaged to minimise the damage and they were in attendance until 2.00am, lifting the boat, cranking water out of the engines, rinsing the engine compartment with fresh water etc. This little exercise ran up a bill of £3,000. The owner appeared unconcerned as he would be "covered by his insurance". When I questioned the engineer a bit more closely, he said that the boat owner had hit the Varvassi wreck just off the Needles.

My point is this. The wreck in question has been there for over 60 years and is clearly marked on charts. I don't claim to be a perfect navigator, but I do look at my charts and avoid such obstructions. Surely to do anything different is negligent. The final bill for repairing this damaged boat will be vast (the electrics alone will cost thousands) and I don't see why I should contribute to it through higher insurance premiums, when, to my mind, the skipper was to blame for hitting the wreck.

Or am I being a scrooge?

Oh, and by the way, the owner has yet to tell his buyer there is a problem. So if you're waiting to take delivery of a second hand, twin engine 30+ footer, I'd check it rather carefully.

 

[kid's inheritance]

Only in the same way that I have never had an accident that was my fault in boat or car for over 20 years but my car insurance increased by almost 50% due to "whiplash" claims. This when all (?) cars have head rests.
Rob

 

[jimmcgee]

they have been doing it for years , if you could get a break down of insurance claims , I bet a large part would be for outdrive accidents ,
when i first joined this forum I was shocked by how much it was going on .

 

[enterprise]

Who's to say he definitley hit the wreck?, just supposition?

The premiums reflect the risk so we pay anyway, regardless if you claim or not, there doesn't apear to be any NCB incentive so why wouldn't you make a claim for hitting a submerged object?

Is this a wind up (it's not April 1st again is it?).

Why should I pay taxes towards education, single parents and stuff like that when we dont have kids?, the list is endless.

 

[Searush]

Who's to say he definitley hit the wreck?, just supposition?

The premiums reflect the risk so we pay anyway, regardless if you claim or not, there doesn't apear to be any NCB incentive so why wouldn't you make a claim for hitting a submerged object?

Is this a wind up (it's not April 1st again is it?).

Why should I pay taxes towards education, single parents and stuff like that when we dont have kids?, the list is endless.

But the risk is significantly less for intelligent people is the OP's point I believe. Most car insurers have "No Claims" bonuses, this is often not the case for Marine Insurers. Maybe in the past it has been less of an issue, but as more & more people buy big (& expensive) first boats because they think a MoBo is "just like driving a car, but you can go anywhere" then maybe No Claims Discounts will be the way it goes.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

If there was an element of contributory negligence to this accident, then the insurance co would seek to deny the claim anyway. As for complaining about the effect on your premium, I would say that you are tempting fate big time here, mate. There for the grace of God go all of us and sods law now says you're next in line as punishment for posting this thread

 

[enterprise]

But the risk is significantly less for intelligent people is the OP's point I believe. Most car insurers have "No Claims" bonuses, this is often not the case for Marine Insurers. Maybe in the past it has been less of an issue, but as more & more people buy big (& expensive) first boats because they think a MoBo is "just like driving a car, but you can go anywhere" then maybe No Claims Discounts will be the way it goes.

I would agree, but intilligent people can still hit underwater objects, perhaps the unfortunate claimant was intelligent, we dont know which was my point.
It was assumed by the engineer and the op that the boat had struck a charted obstruction,
which doesn't actually matter if they cant prove it, could have been plenty enough clearance over the obstruction and still hit a submerged object floating just under the surface, who knows.

Lets hope the OP never has to make a claim, if the time comes then I hope they will dig deep so as not to put our premiums up.

 

[beejay190]

It would be interesting to know what stage the sale had reached. When i bought my current boat two years ago the broker told the seller he should not use it once the surveys had been carried out. This seems common sense to me and could/should be be included in contract terms.