'anchors , Insurers and the courts

[volvopaul]

Hi Daka a very interesting experience, as you were in the Insurance game at one time I’d doubted you would loose from the start .



On the subject of insurance companies I am finding that a few of my customers this year have had a real battle getting legitimate claims settled , one of which had his 50 hour old outdrive claim totally rejected on the wording of a so called appointed expert witness engineer that to my knowledge has gone bust more times than I can count over the years , he stated that this brand new drive had been stripped down and rebuilt prior to the incident because he stated some of the securing bolts were different, the fact lies in that this was the latest type DPH drive that had only just hit the market which had some new style bolts instead of the old style torx heads , on that statement the claim was rejected , case closed with no further negotiations allowed even though I wrote endless emails explaining the differences.

 

[ylop]

At the risk of going off-topic: I'm a bit bemused by the comment from the TP that "...he didn't have any anchoring experience as he had previously owned RIBs ..."

Is this normal? Virtually all the ribs I've used have had anchors and they were regularly deployed. Mostly this would have been as part of safety cover at dinghy events, I would guess that fishermen and divers would often anchor, too. Is it common that people who've owned one or more ribs would not have anchored them?

I would say it is completely normal for a RIB to have an anchor. That doesn't mean he actually knew what he was doing with it it then either. He may well have preferred to beach, or been less concerned about bashing stuff with his soft tubes. I'd guess its likely he had no training (interesting point for the courts to ponder is whether anyone who doesn't get the basic training and then has an "accident" that training might have prevented is automatically negligent?) but anchoring is part of the PB2 course albeit that what to do when you foul someone else's anchor is getting a bit too in depth. Giving the TP the benefit of the doubt did he mean he had never used an anchor windlass? I'm not sure what mitigation that might offer but I guess if you have no appreciation for its strength you may not realise the potential to cause damage or injury.

 

[DAKA]

not wanting to re open old wounds on here and get subsequent abuse, something like in exclusions “ we will not pay out in the event of lack of seamanship , poor seamanship “ or words to that effect .

On a positive note you will be reassured to know that the TP Insurers paid me .


The expert witness specifically commented on the fouled boats seamanship ( it wasnt good)


It would appear despite me concluding that the Insurers claim's handler was a rouge they didnt appear to exclude indemnity on the basis of poor seamanship .

 

[DAKA]

Hi Daka a very interesting experience, as you were in the Insurance game at one time I’d doubted you would loose from the start .

Had you known there would have been a fight why didn’t you have one of your crew video the whole experience of you helping this so called professional skipper instructor? Most people video incidents these days .


On the subject of insurance companies I am finding that a few of my customers this year have had a real battle getting legitimate claims settled , one of which had his 50 hour old outdrive claim totally rejected on the wording of a so called appointed expert witness engineer that to my knowledge has gone bust more times than I can count over the years , he stated that this brand new drive had been stripped down and rebuilt prior to the incident because he stated some of the securing bolts were different, the fact lies in that this was the latest type DPH drive that had only just hit the market which had some new style bolts instead of the old style torx heads , on that statement the claim was rejected , case closed with no further negotiations allowed even though I wrote endless emails explaining the differences.

Hi Paul,

The expert witness was the real hero in this story , his written account was fantastic and even included sea-state / wind and our stationary position, he had transits of us to prove we were not dragging .

 

[DAKA]

I would say it is completely normal for a RIB to have an anchor. That doesn't mean he actually knew what he was doing with it it then either. He may well have preferred to beach, or been less concerned about bashing stuff with his soft tubes. I'd guess its likely he had no training (interesting point for the courts to ponder is whether anyone who doesn't get the basic training and then has an "accident" that training might have prevented is automatically negligent?) but anchoring is part of the PB2 course albeit that what to do when you foul someone else's anchor is getting a bit too in depth. Giving the TP the benefit of the doubt did he mean he had never used an anchor windlass? I'm not sure what mitigation that might offer but I guess if you have no appreciation for its strength you may not realise the potential to cause damage or injury.

May I just point out to Whaup that it was the 'anchor owner who said he hadnt got any experience of how to anchor and that he had only had RIBs previously

 

[DAKA]

Nice to speak to you all again , it's getting a bit side tracked now so I will leave before it gets nasty ( I only submitted estimates for damages from known professionals, I have no way of knowing if they were reasonable or not but they looked very reasonble to me).

Good to see a few of you still maintain a good sense of humor

 

[Poecheng]

I'd guess its likely he had no training (interesting point for the courts to ponder is whether anyone who doesn't get the basic training and then has an "accident" that training might have prevented is automatically negligent?

It isn't the way it works or at least not until they do something that is negligent and cause damage. Everyone is judged against the standards of the hypothetical prudent person. That means that an instructor is not judged by a higher standard and equally the novice doesn't get a free pass. Of course, the instructor can make a rookie error and be negligent and the rookie can, by a fluke, achieve a level of perfection .
What is the standard, how it applies in practice and whether someone is outside it (or in the grey area) are questions of judgment but often fairly easy to decide in real world examples such as the OP's circumstances.
The OP hasn't told us what kind of anchor he has - it seemed to come up a little readily for my liking

 

[Whaup367]

May I just point out to Whaup that it was the 'anchor owner who said he hadnt got any experience of how to anchor and that he had only had RIBs previously

Yes, I understood that and was bemused by it. As a rib owner and previously a regular user for several years, I was surprised that the Third Party stated his rib ownership history meant he had had no cause to use one previously. ylop's comment on lack of familiarity with a windlass is well taken, though.

My question was whether the readership would consider it normal for someone who's apparently owned more than one rib to have no anchoring experience... as that seemed strange to me.

 

[ylop]

It isn't the way it works or at least not until they do something that is negligent and cause damage. Everyone is judged against the standards of the hypothetical prudent person. That means that an instructor is not judged by a higher standard and equally the novice doesn't get a free pass.

I think you've misunderstood me. My point was that a hypothetical prudent person would get training before going afloat so if they have an accident then they seem to be negligent before you even consider the detail.

 

[Bigplumbs]

Done professionally and properly, it is an expensive operation requiring many visits.

Doesn't answer the question to be honest

 

[Bigplumbs]

The main issue I had with a large claim a few years ago was unlike a car insurance claim tge 3rd party aren't obliged to share or prove they have insurance.

Because boat insurance is not mandatory unlike Car insurance which is (in the UK of course)

 

[Bigplumbs]

Why do you wonder that? Do you have reason to believe that the OP is untrustworthy?

I was wondering what the costs involved were. I don't know the OP so have no idea if he is trustworthy or not. What I do know in situations like this is you are under a duty to mitigate the costs that are incurred

 

[Bigplumbs]

Yes, I understood that and was bemused by it. As a rib owner and previously a regular user for several years, I was surprised that the Third Party stated his rib ownership history meant he had had no cause to use one previously. ylop's comment on lack of familiarity with a windlass is well taken, though.

My question was whether the readership would consider it normal for someone who's apparently owned more than one rib to have no anchoring experience... as that seemed strange to me.

Well I know many rib owners who have owned ribs for many years who have never anchored. Ribs come in many sizes and many either more to a pontoon or mooring buoy or beach their Rib. For my own part I have used my smallish rib for many years and have only anchored 3 - 4 times.

I fear sometimes when people on here use the word Rib many others think 7 m + which is not so easy to beach

 

[ari]

I was wondering what the costs involved were. I don't know the OP so have no idea if he is trustworthy or not. What I do know in situations like this is you are under a duty to mitigate the costs that are incurred

Then why ask such an unpleasant and leading question?