An example of why you should choose the 'best' not the 'cheapest' insurer?

[petem]

I stumbled across a thread the other day on PBO (http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?511083-Insurance-Recommendations) that I thought might be of interest to you guys...

Interestingly I have a friend who's having issues with their relatives MOBO. The engine room fire extinguisher went off and smothered the engine with powder and damaged the engine. The insurers are refusing a pay out due to the fact there was no "fire".

From the context I believe the insurer is GJW whose policy (https://www.gjwdirect.com/media/1149/motor-cruiser-insurance-policy.pdf) states:

Subject to the Conditions Precedent, Limitations and the other terms of the Policy we shall cover you in respect of physical loss of or damage to the Vessel caused by:
(i) accidents (including fire, explosion, collision, stranding, grounding and heavy weather)
(ii) Latent defect, etc

My questions is, does (i) just give examples of the risks cover or is it the finite list? If the latter then are GJW justified in rejecting the claim?

As a comparison, "Y"'s "all risks" policy states...

Whilst ashore or afloat, being lifted, hauled out or launched, in transit by road, rail, air or car ferry the Vessel is covered for losses arising from:
1.1 all risks of accidental damage;

As this is undoubtedly an accident I assume that "Y" would honour the claim.

Pete

 

[burgundyben]

I was insured with Nav and Gen, a dry powder extinguisher went off, no fire, Nav and Gen paid for 2 rebuilt heads, turbo's and clean out the charge coolers, no questions asked.

 

[Momac]

The report on the other thread is unclear and second hand. It seems unclear who the insurer is and what the policy says
The GJW wording quoted above would suggest a claim for accidental damage should not be rejected.

 

[[70521]]

Y don't allow single handed sailing for more than 18 hours without stop, GJW does. Really depends on what you are looking for in a policy.

Personally I am changing the extinguishers to water mist this winter as they don't damage equipment and you can use them in confined spaces and breath.

 

[Bouba]

Personally I am changing the extinguishers to water mist this winter as they don't damage equipment and you can use them in confined spaces and breath.

This is a subject that comes up a lot and I’m very interested in it. Do you think the insurance company would be concerned if you did change the fire extinguishers for water?

 

[Eren]

My questions is, does (i) just give examples of the risks cover or is it the finite list?

To my best knowledge, all insurance policies have finite list. The issue is how wide is the scope of that finite risk. Plus I believe that many cases that fall to a gray zone is decided/concluded by other factors such as the faith to keeping the reputation at the market, the size of the claim, the financial status of the insurer, the approach from re-assurers.

 

[Bouba]

To my best knowledge, all insurance policies have finite list. The issue is how wide is the scope of that finite risk. Plus I believe that many cases that fall to a gray zone is decided/concluded by other factors such as the faith to keeping the reputation at the market, the size of the claim, the financial status of the insurer, the approach from re-assurers.

The other problem is how they define those risks. A non boaty example; after a flood in my town the tiles around the pool all lifted and cracked. The flood and the drying out had caused movement in the ground around the pool, but the insurance company wouldn’t pay out as they said the event was flooding not ground movement. Despite one causing the other only their definition held.

 

[jfm]

The word “including” would be taken in this case by UK court to mean the list is non exhaustive so the fire ext situation should be covered. Annoyingly imho plenty of lawyers are undermining this by including express contractual clauses saying “including” doesn’t limit what is included to the things listed, but they haven’t won yet.

Of course there may be more to this pbo case than we know.

Ref the flood thing above, it appears insurers were right. Proximate cause was the flood.

 

[Bouba]

Ref the flood thing above, it appears insurers were right. Proximate cause was the flood.

Yes, technically they were but it was a knock on effect. A bit like one car hits another car which causes it to hit the next as in a pile up. But it’s easy to be on the losing side of an argument with an insurance company

 

[petem]

Yes, technically they were but it was a knock on effect. A bit like one car hits another car which causes it to hit the next as in a pile up. But it’s easy to be on the losing side of an argument with an insurance company

I'm sure JFM would argue that its just as easy to be on the winning side of an argument with an insurance company. That's the law for you!

 

[petem]

The word “including” would be taken in this case by UK court to mean the list is non exhaustive so the fire ext situation should be covered. Annoyingly imho plenty of lawyers are undermining this by including express contractual clauses saying “including” doesn’t limit what is included to the things listed, but they haven’t won yet.

Thanks, does make we wonder what value the "including ...." words add in the case of a legal document like an insurance policy. Perhaps GJW think they're helpful to the customer (heaven forbid GJW might use them to try and incorrectly weasel their way out of paying a claim).

 

[rubberduck]

I noted a small increase in premium this year from Y which I was happy to pay for the cover offered.
IMO too many people trying to save pennies when it comes to boats, when I go out (if i ever do) I want all the T's crossed & I's dotted.

 

[Bouba]

I noted a small increase in premium this year from Y which I was happy to pay for the cover offered.
IMO too many people trying to save pennies when it comes to boats, when I go out (if i ever do) I want all the T's crossed & I's dotted.

Yes, I agree and by and large that is the ethos of this forum but I think this thread was lifted from PBO and it’s a different story there!
Ps get well soon RD

 

[jfm]

Thanks, does make we wonder what value the "including ...." words add in the case of a legal document ...

They are of immense importance. If you are covered for "accidental damage" (say) then the edges will always be a bit blurred but anything on the "including" list can never be rejected by the insurer. That is very important. The legal language puts the "including" items into a safe harbour.

 

[jfm]

But it’s easy to be on the losing side of an argument with an insurance company

Easy to be in an argument but you won't lose if you're right and know how to fight. Full support available on this forum .
Critical point is to have the right contract in the first place. You can't win ( other than by luck) if the contract doesn't say the insurer is liable. And there is a LOT of devil in detail here.

 

[petem]

They are of immense importance. If you are covered for "accidental damage" (say) then the edges will always be a bit blurred but anything on the "including" list can never be rejected by the insurer. That is very important. The legal language puts the "including" items into a safe harbour.

But doesn't selectively listing some risks undermine the argument for the non listed risks being covered?

 

[Bouba]

Easy to be in an argument but you won't lose if you're right and know how to fight. Full support available on this forum .
Critical point is to have the right contract in the first place. You can't win ( other than by luck) if the contract doesn't say the insurer is liable. And there is a LOT of devil in detail here.

Whenever we enter into a contract in France, my wife reads every word. It always amazes the seller as they try to shove the pen into her hand

 

[jfm]

But doesn't selectively listing some risks undermine the argument for the non listed risks being covered?

No. the meaning of the word "including" is clear and does not convey such a meaning. There is a legal canon of construction (in Uk and derivative laws) called ejusdem generis which sort of says that if you want a clause to apply to something not on the "including" list then that something must be of a similar kind to the things on the list. But that absolutely does not create the undermining that you mention - indeed it does the opposite. Plus, quite a few law firms are in the habit now (which I don't love btw) of inserting a clause that disapplies the ejusdem generis rule. (We're getting a bit heavy now).

 

[jfm]

Whenever we enter into a contract in France, my wife reads every word. It always amazes the seller as they try to shove the pen into her hand

Excellent! :encouragement: Respect to Mrs Bouba :encouragement:

 

[MapisM]

quite a few law firms are in the habit now (which I don't love btw) of inserting a clause that disapplies the ejusdem generis rule. (We're getting a bit heavy now).

I realize the subject ...heaviness (for lack of better wording), but you made me curious, because I never came across such disapplication, back in the days.
How do they formalize it, just by excluding ejusdem generis, or by stating that cuiuslibet generis applies instead?
I'm sure I don't need to explain the subtle difference to yourself...