beware when making insurance claims

clyst

clyst

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Aug 2002
Messages
3,233
Visit site
My boat is marina based and has been damaged three times in 12months by three different berth holders thro poor seamanship and inability to control their boat within the confines of the marina.I have moved berth twice and the third incident occurred in the new berth .

Each time I informed mine insurance Co ,Saga, and duly completed an accident form . Each time the third party admitted that they were soley at fault as my boat was secured in its finger berth .

Each of the claims amounted to approx £1500 and the damage has duly been repaired and the contractors paid .

However I have now been informed by my insurance underwriter that if a similar claim is made ,bearing in mind that I have been totally free from blame even to the extent that my NCB has been protected because my boat was in its marina berth ,that my insurance excess will increase from £250 to £2000 !!!! however discussions with the underwriters have indicated had I claimed direct from the third party' insurers my NCB would have remained the same!

So in believing that my insurance was there to help me could cost me £2000 in any future claims whether my fault or not so beware .
 
Shame we have to learn the hard way .

thats why there are offers of additional 3rd party claim insurance assistance when you take out policies now .

many years ago I had a boat written off when towing , when stationary indicating right , car ran into it , my third party claims co (car insurance ) took months to decide wether they could persue for me , in end said yes too late , I claimed through boat insurance , who in turn didnt persue 3rd party who had admitted blame as claim £1200 too low to seek back ! , this was 30 years ago , claim went on my record .

last 3rd party incidence i had was with car , hit by belgian lorry driven by croation on roundabout , persued haulage co personally in belgium who paid garage direct in uk to fix , no insurance involved on either part , haulage co didnt want claims either and coughed up cash .
 
clyst said:
My boat is marina based and has been damaged three times in 12months by three different berth holders thro poor seamanship and inability to control their boat within the confines of the marina.I have moved berth twice and the third incident occurred in the new berth .

Each time I informed mine insurance Co ,Saga, and duly completed an accident form . Each time the third party admitted that they were soley at fault as my boat was secured in its finger berth .

Each of the claims amounted to approx £1500 and the damage has duly been repaired and the contractors paid .
Click to expand...

Who paid - your insurers or the other boats'?
 
clyst said:
My boat is marina based and has been damaged three times in 12months by three different berth holders thro poor seamanship and inability to control their boat within the confines of the marina.I have moved berth twice and the third incident occurred in the new berth .

Each time I informed mine insurance Co ,Saga, and duly completed an accident form . Each time the third party admitted that they were soley at fault as my boat was secured in its finger berth .

Each of the claims amounted to approx £1500 and the damage has duly been repaired and the contractors paid .

However I have now been informed by my insurance underwriter that if a similar claim is made ,bearing in mind that I have been totally free from blame even to the extent that my NCB has been protected because my boat was in its marina berth ,that my insurance excess will increase from £250 to £2000 !!!! however discussions with the underwriters have indicated had I claimed direct from the third party' insurers my NCB would have remained the same!

So in believing that my insurance was there to help me could cost me £2000 in any future claims whether my fault or not so beware .
Click to expand...

they know that your boat is kept in a dangerous place and is therefore more expensive to cover

what about if you moved to a safer marina where people knew how to steer their boats

D

PS - yachties or stinkies?
 
dylanwinter said:
they know that your boat is kept in a dangerous place and is therefore more expensive to cover

what about if you moved to a safer marina where people knew how to steer their boats

D



PS - yachties or stinkies?
Click to expand...

apparently not so Dylan discussions with underwriters and sage claims such as mine is extremely rare in my marina . The marina has even said they would welcome a rep from the underwriters to visit the marina and inspect the berth/location .the underwriters have declined the offer .

BTY ...... 2 yachts 1 steel motor
 
Last edited:
clyst said:
My insurers and then presumable they claimed from the third parties since it was entirely their fault .
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on the latter bit. From the size of your new excess, it sounds as if they have paid themselves. As a matter of interest, why didn't you send your claim to the other owners and let their insurers handle it direct?
 
Assuming that all insurance companies have by now followed the car insurance model, your insurers would have agreed to split the cost with the perpertrator's insurers - they consider it to be cheaper and more cost effective than bothering at all with the concept of blame. This means, of course, that your three dings to your moored vessel make you a high risk and each of the twats who hit you are single accident low risks. And that's only if they don't manage to find a loophole to avoid paying at all!

Rob.
 
JumbleDuck said:
I wouldn't bet on the latter bit. From the size of your new excess, it sounds as if they have paid themselves. As a matter of interest, why didn't you send your claim to the other owners and let their insurers handle it direct?
Click to expand...

That is potentially risky and puts the onus on you to fight the third party. It is also covered by different area of law. Claiming on your own insurance is under contract - you have a contract with them to pay for your losses. Claiming off a third party you are claiming for negligence so you have to prove cause and negotiate for the damage to be repaired back to where you were. In theory you still get the same, but it can make a significant difference if the damage exceeds the market value of the boat, never mind the hassle of dealing with the third party. Remember also that a claim is a claim on your own insurance irrespective of blame, so the insurer as in this case is entitled to change future terms.
 
Tranona said:
That is potentially risky and puts the onus on you to fight the third party. It is also covered by different area of law. Claiming on your own insurance is under contract - you have a contract with them to pay for your losses. Claiming off a third party you are claiming for negligence so you have to prove cause and negotiate for the damage to be repaired back to where you were. In theory you still get the same, but it can make a significant difference if the damage exceeds the market value of the boat, never mind the hassle of dealing with the third party.
Click to expand...

All true, but for a fairly low cost claim such as these, going through one's own insurance may not be the best course of action. Write to the owner of the other boat, enclose an estimate for repair and hold them liable. They pass it to their own insurer and, all being well, it gets settled quickly.

Remember also that a claim is a claim on your own insurance irrespective of blame, so the insurer as in this case is entitled to change future terms.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Another reason to avoid a claim if possible. Car insurers are famous for this: "Your no-claims discount is protected, but because you made a claim your base premium is going up by 50%".
 
JumbleDuck said:
All true, but for a fairly low cost claim such as these, going through one's own insurance may not be the best course of action. Write to the owner of the other boat, enclose an estimate for repair and hold them liable. They pass it to their own insurer and, all being well, it gets settled quickly.
Click to expand...

I tried this some years ago when my boat was rammed when sitting on the mooring. No question of whose liability, the accident was witnessed and blame accepted by the perpetrator. In spite of which it took me the best part of 4 months to get the other insurers to accept liability and eventually, after a lot of correspondence, settle my claim in full.

The next time I had a claim, again entirely a 3rd party liability I simply informed my insurer (Navigators), they sent me a claim form, I got a quote for the repairs, and Navigators settled the bill direct less my £100 excess, once they had passed on the full bill to the other insurers and received payment they refunded the excess. Result being far less hassle plus repairs started immediately. That seems better than the direct claim route, but that is of course only my experience.

I can, I suppose, see that the OPs insurers faced with 3 similar claims taking the view that the risk was higher than normal and therefore increasing the premium/excess. Doesn't necessarily seem fair, but then life is never fair.
 
I assume the rationale for Saga to put a big excess on is because statistically they conclude the risk of a claim is high because of the claim history.The fact that all previous claims should have been settled by the third (guilty) party is not relevant because Saga are insuring against future risks,and next time there may be no evidence to persue a third party if they do a "runner".
 
JumbleDuck said:
I wouldn't bet on the latter bit. From the size of your new excess, it sounds as if they have paid themselves. As a matter of interest, why didn't you send your claim to the other owners and let their insurers handle it direct?
Click to expand...

When the contractor sent their estimate thro and saga approved the quote their letter expressed not to commence work for 7days to allow the third party insurers to inspect the damage , they never did, so they did claim from the third party .
I was naive to think my insurers would save me all the hassle . That's what I thought I had insurance for . Silly me .
 
Biggles Wader said:
I assume the rationale for Saga to put a big excess on is because statistically they conclude the risk of a claim is high because of the claim history.The fact that all previous claims should have been settled by the third (guilty) party is not relevant because Saga are insuring against future risks,and next time there may be no evidence to persue a third party if they do a "runner".
Click to expand...

I understand that but how can I ease the probability of preventing another incident ? Iv googled earth for other marinas and distances and length of pontoons seem much the same . It all seems unfair to me but hey ho that's like I guess .
 
clyst said:
When the contractor sent their estimate thro and saga approved the quote their letter expressed not to commence work for 7days to allow the third party insurers to inspect the damage , they never did, so they did claim from the third party .
I was naive to think my insurers would save me all the hassle . That's what I thought I had insurance for . Silly me .
Click to expand...
It depends on how you insure with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top