An insurance question

snowleopard

snowleopard

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
33,645
Location
Oxford
Visit site
Hi folks, long time no see.

I have a request for advice on an insurance claim that I'm sure someone will be able to advise on despite the fact that it's a small boat.

I have a smart but elderly dinghy which was insured for its purchase price of approx 2K. Last summer it was in a dinghy park at a lake where the site owners had some kids' activities going on all summer involving rows of marquees. One night a brief gale blew up and several of the marquees took off. One wrapped itself round my mast and snapped it off at deck level. The next morning the local manager said 'It's our fault, we'll get you a new one, do it through your insurers'.

Now the mast was carbon fibre and a replacement costs somewhere North of 4K. OK, I thought, get a quote from the main importers and submit it through my insurers. As time has dragged on, I am told that the site's underwriters are saying the gale wasn't predictable so they weren't negligent in not securing the tents. My insurers are now asking what I want to do.

So do I
(a) Say 'over to you' to my insurers and demand a total loss settlement as the hull alone is worthless without a mast.
(b) Sue the site owners for the full £4K, citing Met office statistics that show peak winds in August average over 40 knots so a gale during the period was entirely predictable.

Any thoughts?
 
(b) site owner is liable it was his tent. There was public access I assume so just like a falling tree, or crumbling wall ( we had one land on our car) He is responsible even though it wasn't predictable.
 
In the case of a tree, if a gale toppled it and flattened a neighbour's car, the car owner will have no claim unless negligence is demonstrated.

In this case the site's owners appear to be trying to dodge liability on the basis that a marquee erected on their site was correctly installed and the gale unforeseeable. I suspect this argument is unlikely to 'fly'.

In the normal course of events, under subrogation rights insurers will be much better positioned to argue the toss over what is ultimately a small claim. However, given that only £2k of the £4k loss is insured, I would write to the site owners rejecting their argument out of hand and demand full settlement by a specified date. Put them on notice that if not settled you intend to instruct a solicitor which will incur additional costs.

Also bear in mind that the marquee Co. should have public liability insurance.
 
Last edited:
If I take the site owners to court and they use their financial muscle to defeat me, is that going to give my insurers an excuse to throw out the claim as well?
 
As you were somewhat under insured, 4 grand's worth of damage for 2 grand's worth of cover. Won't your claim be subject to 'averaging' and you'll get approx £500?
 
snowleopard said:
If I take the site owners to court and they use their financial muscle to defeat me, is that going to give my insurers an excuse to throw out the claim as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, it may, because you may have prejudiced their chances of subrogation. Therefore you need to tell your insurers what you propose to do and obtain their consent.
 
As I understand it you are , assuming their liability, entitled to be put back into the financial position you were before the accident. If the value of the boat before accident was say 3k then thats what you can claim maximum. The fact that a replacement mast is now £4k is hard luck - a new mast would involve betterment ie you would be better off after the claim that you were before it.

What you have chosen to insure for is between you and your insurer and nothing to do with the culprit.

So you have two possible routes:
1/ you are entitled to claim against the site owner for negligence but I am not qualified to comment on whether you will win. If you do, your claim is limited to your losses ie the value of the boat maximum. You can try the no win no fee route but I would be surprised if lawyers were interested at that size of claim.
2/ you can claim on your own insurance and seem to have done that in which case there will be a policy limit.
 
I would suggest looking for a replacement dinghy around the £2k mark and selling any bits left over.
Or, if the mast is 'only' snapped at deck level, it can be repaired.
Many masts are made in more than one section, spares may be available.
Alternatively, many classes have a bit of a market for used masts.
I think if you got out of your way to be 'reasonable' and stick to wanting the £2k your boat was insured for, you are more likely to be successful. If you are lucky you may end up with a few spare sails etc of some value.
A £2k boat needing a £4k mast is a write off, even if the hull is perfect.
 
If your boat is insured make a claim to your insurance company telling them what happened including the admisiof fault by the owner of the land.
Let the insurance companies deal with suing each other.
 
snowleopard said:
If I take the site owners to court and they use their financial muscle to defeat me, is that going to give my insurers an excuse to throw out the claim as well?
Click to expand...

Worth finding out if it would come under the rules of the small claims court. Much less productive for them to use financial muscle against you there. In fact, likely to cost them well over £4K.
 
Neil_Y said:
(b) site owner is liable it was his tent. There was public access I assume so just like a falling tree, or crumbling wall ( we had one land on our car) He is responsible even though it wasn't predictable.
Click to expand...

To successfully sue for negligence you have to show more than ownership or duty of care, there has to be a standard of behaviour below that expected of a reasonably competent marquee erector. The classic 'no negligence' example is an upper floor flat flooding that below due a washing machine failure. If there is no reason to believe the washing machine would fail then there is no negligence and no redress in law.
 
In my experience in insurance for over 20 years it is alway best to pursue the claim via your own insurers. Trying to chase Third Parties is a recipe for grey hair and early old age let alone the fact that you may be out of pocket in the end.
If the boat has a market value of £2K then your insurer will not pay more than £2K but the same will apply to the Third Party if you ever managed to pin them down.
Put the claim in to your own insurer without further delay.
 
colind3782 said:
Some insurers will deny the claim if you are underinsured. Insuring a £4K boat for £2K may influence their thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a £4k boat, just a £2k boat which could (and did) sustain damage costing £4k to repair - in much the same way that £500 car can easily sustain £2k's worth of damage. It's what economic write offs were invented for. The best he can hope for is £2k for the boat, or maybe they'd buy him another one in similar condition. Some boat insurers do, apparently, and the motor boat forum gets very, very upset about it.
 
Quiddle said:
To successfully sue for negligence you have to show more than ownership or duty of care, there has to be a standard of behaviour below that expected of a reasonably competent marquee erector. The classic 'no negligence' example is an upper floor flat flooding that below due a washing machine failure. If there is no reason to believe the washing machine would fail then there is no negligence and no redress in law.
Click to expand...

We're in almost precisely that situation at the moment, but it was a leaking drain connected to a shower and a washing machine. Proving negligence would be a pain, but by the time he finally sorted it properly - after six years of occasional leaks - the owner of the upstairs flat had £30k's worth of dry rot in his floor. Tee hee.
 
Small claims online application. You can't lose and you'll get your costs back and interest on the time passed since the incident at 8%.

I'd be surprised if it even gets to court or that the defendant shows up so you'll get a judgement in their absence.

I've won cases which we're much less clear.

Richard
 
Your insured for £2k the mast alone is £4k, In Insurance terms your boat is a write off
You cannot be put in a better position than you were prior to the incident as a couple of others have said, betterment.
I would pass all correspondance to your insurers and get them to sort it for you, thats what we pay them for.... At this rate you will not be back sailing till the Autumn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Anibal
New to the Thames
Replies
2
Views
1K
Anibal
Anibal

Share this page

Top