Boatyard damaged Boat.......insurance quandry

[sfellows]

A well known South Coast Boat Yard damaged our boat due to a failure in their equipment whilst taking her out for over-wintering (we were not present at the time and not involved). Damage was limited to a smallish hole in the hull and this has now been repaired, although this did involve dismasting and remasting.

We have now discovered that the £350 Tricolour light is missing, and the back-stay tensioner is leaking - and the (our) insurance company is saying this is a new claim, we will lose our no-claims (again) and there is an additional excess.

Two questions.
1) Why would our insurers not just claim against the boatyard. Using our insurance appears now to involve the loss of no-claims, excess etc.
2) Why would they consider this to be separate claim (apart from the fact it means they don't have to pay out so much).....

We just want the boat back as it was.

Any other experience of this and how to deal with it?

 

[robbieg]

Surely the issue is...

... you have to show that the missing tricolour and leaking backstay tensioner was caused by the original accident. If it was it should be covered under the original claim. If it wasn't (for instance the tri colour was nicked when the mast was down) it would seem to be a seperate claim wouldn't it?

 

[sailorman]

did the yard pay for the original damage repair
who are you insured with

 

[fuss]

... you have to show that the missing tricolour and leaking backstay tensioner was caused by the original accident. If it was it should be covered under the original claim. If it wasn't (for instance the tri colour was nicked when the mast was down) it would seem to be a seperate claim wouldn't it?

Well, I would argue that the tricolor was nicked because the mast was down. The mast was down due to the original accident.... therefore, the tricolor was nicked due to the original accident.

I would not see this as a seperate claim... but I'm not an insurance expert.

 

[A1Sailor]

Did the boatyard cause the tri-colour light to go missing, and the backstay tensioner to leak? It might be hard to prove that they did, in which case it is a simple claim by you to your insurance company. Your policy may not cover leaks from the backstay tensioner anyway. You will need to balance the size of your excess and the loss of your NCB when deciding whether to do so.

Good Luck!


A1

PS Out of interest, £350 for a mast head tricolour light! Is it a huge LED one?

 

[Seajet]

I'd suspect a surveyor will be required to give an opinion as to how the damage occurred; may not be simple as he/she might want to keep friendly with the yard ?!

 

[Dave_Seager]

Have you signed off the original repair? If you signed to say that you were satisified that the claim was settled then it may be difficult to add any new items to the job.

 

[pteron]

It doesn't seem fair if the tri-colour went missing when the mast was down.

In principle, the boatyard should be responsible for putting the boat back to the state it was in before they damaged it.

 

[davidej]

It doesn't seem fair if the tri-colour went missing when the mast was down.

In principle, the boatyard should be responsible for putting the boat back to the state it was in before they damaged it.

I agree with this -your first line of attack should be against the boatyard and their insurers, not yours.

 

[Chrissie]

I'd suspect a surveyor will be required to give an opinion as to how the damage occurred; may not be simple as he/she might want to keep friendly with the yard ?!

Strange comment Seajet, it was already established as to how the damage was done, the yard took responsibility in the end, they should have just sorted it without the owners insurance company having to pay out, loss of no claims etc.
So why would a surveyor have been needed?, and why suggest a surveyor would ever compromise their reputation in order to keep on side with a boat yard? none that I know ever would.
Not wanting to cause thread drift, but why a comment like that,

 

[Seajet]

Hello Chrissie,

sorry for the delay, I've only just seen your reply.

I don't doubt for a second that you and 99% of your colleagues have high standards.

I'd think a surveyor may be required to give a professional estimation for the repairs required.

However I was once contacted by a surveyor with a large 1960's boat who wanted me to work for him for buttons as a charter skipper; I began to think things may not be ideal when he guided me to a spot in a marina - " the CCTV doesn't cover here, so I avoid charges ! " - when we got to the boat she was falling apart with no safety kit, so I declined.

He mentioned that the surveying profession ( which I'd put money on not including him now ! ) was a pain as he had to juggle reports between the wishes of owners and boatyards.

If you recall I did ask you what it takes to become a surveyor ( and didn't have the confidence or health to take it on ), that was long after meeting this character and I certainly don't judge all surveyors as being like that, sorry if that's how it appeared, I should have worded it better.

It's just the experience with him was memorable for all the wrong reasons !

Andy

Strange comment Seajet, it was already established as to how the damage was done, the yard took responsibility in the end, they should have just sorted it without the owners insurance company having to pay out, loss of no claims etc.
So why would a surveyor have been needed?, and why suggest a surveyor would ever compromise their reputation in order to keep on side with a boat yard? none that I know ever would.
Not wanting to cause thread drift, but why a comment like that,

 

[Chrissie]

Thank you Andy, for explaining, things have moved on a great deal in the surveying world, these days, the sort of surveyor you met wouldnt last long at all.

With places like these, and other forum, sharing information, a surveyor's reputation can be made or broken by just a few words, and now with insurance companies being more keen than ever to not pay out, if they spot a mistake by a surveyor, they wouldnt pay out but go after the surveyor.

It might be time for people to start to realise that their surveyor is working for them, and will do their very best for them, not for the broker and not for the boat yard, but for them and the safety of their boat and their crew. I know my clients always know that.

 

[minkysailing]

Chrissie,

I agree with your comments.

In a situation such as this the intervention of a surveyor may be helpful, but to be effective a surveyor should be appointed immediately to document all damage and to allow a claim to be made against the party responsible. The problem now is to prove these additional findings are connected to the original claim.

 

[Woodlouse]

I'd have thought that if the faults in question are deemed by an insurance company to be worth the surveyors fee then the surveyor would be brought in by the insurance company to determine the cause and extent of the damage/loss. I don't think it's up to the boat owner to supply a surveyor for the insurance company.

 

[Chrissie]

To my mind the boat yard were negligent if the light went missing whilst in their care, and there is a leak after they put it back together. The boat owner should be pursuing the yard to put it right. It is conected to the first incident, because had the mast not been down for the repairs to the damage, the light would still be up there, but had the yard looked after the mast whilst it was in their care....

I dont think they should even bother trying to claim on their own insurance, they should go and speak to the yard owner, try and sort it out with him.