Haven Knox-Johnston nonsense

[andygc]

Aren't people arguing about two different things?

1. What your own insurer will cover.

2. Your claim against somebody who has damaged your boat and who is at fault.

The OP seems to be about #2.

If, as a result of somebody else's negligence you have suffered a loss you can make a claim against them for that loss. If the other party resists the claim you can either forget about it or take legal action. The argument is not between you and an insurance company, it's between you and the negligent party. The insurance company may be acting as his agent, but it is still him against whom you are making a claim.

(If the loss is less than £5,000 you can do it in the small claims track) If you end up in court you will need to prove your case and the judge will make a ruling. The other party will then have to pay you what the judge orders. The other party may then have a debate with his insurers, but that is not your problem. Presumably, if the other party is insured, his insurance includes third party cover. You are the third party, and the insurer's liability to the negligent party cannot exclude the third party's consequential loss if the judge has seen fit to include it in his judgement.

On the other hand, if the OP is about #1, then tough, because first party consequential loss is not usually covered.

 

[ripvan1]

I'm still interested in why repairs took so long - being generous, a week at most unless waiting for parts

 

[dylanwinter]

look on the bright side

look on the bright side

think of all the money you saved by not having the boat in the water

no petrol costs for getting to it

no calor gas

no diesel for the engine

you have saved all the time of driving to the boat

depreciation on the car

nearly enough saved to cover the costs of the repair

your garden was looking much neater and you saved the costs of paying some-one to paint the windows at thew back of the house

quids in I reckon

no wonder people like me can only afford third party

I pay to insure other peoples boats

so far....never made a claim in 45 years afloat

touch wood

D





Dylan

 

[TQA]

If you had rented or chartered a boat of similar size and value to your own AND made it clear to the other boat owner that you were doing so AND clearly used the boat then you would have a valid claim.

N.B. you claim is against him and not his insurance company.

Well established English common law.

 

[JerryHawkins]

Loss of use

This is a recognised, quantifiable figure in marine law. It is calculated on 2% of the pre-accident value of your vessel per year pro-rata'd for the period where you can't use your boat. Unless you have a very valuable boat and/or extremely long period of loss of use then this figure would normally be too small to worry about!

 

[shaunksb]

. You can't claim loss of pleasure etc.

I think you probably can.

But the insurance co are unlikely to offer anything unless you claim.

After I car accident I claimed for a "lost" sailing weekend that had been arranged with my family and got a few hundred quid.


___________

 

[ukmctc]

You have to specify what your insurance does, I use Bay Marine, They actually set out what you want covered, and for what, mine covers me for hotels and hire of another boat if mine is deamed unuseable.
RKJ didn't do the cover I wanted, but they were cheap if I wanted basic boat insurance.
My cover is what I would call Fully comp. Try Bay Marine when you renew.

Your insurance should pay out then claim it back from the other insurance coy, leaving you to enjoy your boat.

 

[Tranona]

You have to specify what your insurance does, I use Bay Marine, They actually set out what you want covered, and for what, mine covers me for hotels and hire of another boat if mine is deamed unuseable.
RKJ didn't do the cover I wanted, but they were cheap if I wanted basic boat insurance.
My cover is what I would call Fully comp. Try Bay Marine when you renew.

Your insurance should pay out then claim it back from the other insurance coy, leaving you to enjoy your boat.

Bay Marine are brokers who use a range of different underwriters. It is the underwriter who determines the level of cover offered. No doubt the premium you pay for the cover you have reflects the benefits. However, that type of cover is not normal in a typical leisure marine policy. Equally, similar cover for third parties is not normally offered - simply because the risks (and therefore premium) are too high. As suggested above, where such cover might be offered, the benefits are limited so that the insurer can limit their liability to controllable levels.

 

[bedouin]

I would say that there is no chance of claiming that from the other boat. Even if they were liable for loss of use (and argument in itself) there is no way that that liability would extend to 2 months.

The damage sounds like about one day's work to fix - that fact that it took the repairer 2 months to get round to it is not the other owner's responsibility

 

[Skylark]

Take a chill pill and move on. Sh*t happens, that's life. At least the boat has been repaired. There's more than a few cases of sustaining this sort of damage and the pertetrator fleeing the scene of the crime.

Alternatively, take Dylan's advice, extend it a bit and sell the boat to save even more money and be sure of having no further grief.

 

[xyachtdave]

After I car accident I claimed for a "lost" sailing weekend that had been arranged with my family and got a few hundred quid.


___________

Terrific, another couple of quid on our premiums.

(I may have to retract this remark if you suffer from any stress, anxiety or whiplash caused by it)

 

[ffiill]

Does suprise me what some people will claim for-but beware-some years ago my boat broke its mooring and did slight damage to an old glassfibre launch-to avoid loss of NCD offered to pay and got landed with a bill for £1000-probably more than boat was worth!

 

[shaunksb]

Terrific, another couple of quid on our premiums.

(I may have to retract this remark if you suffer from any stress, anxiety or whiplash caused by it)

Sorry - it wasn't my fault and i did loose out. (and I really did have whiplash too!)

Actually I also had a brand new S class merc delivered the next day while my car was being fixed.

So the OP could have chartered a boat to go sailing as norm and claimed for that surely?


____________

 

[The Third Man]

Thank you for your observations

I probably did not set out my thoughts and situation all that clearly.
There are too many points to respond to each but to pick up on what I think are the most frequent comments etc
I have no wish to fall out with the guy on the other boat. I merely wanted to ascertain whether or not he was covered for any form of compensation. He could well have been paying a premium that includes such a situation.
The ONLY reason Haven Knox Johnston gave for declining such a payment was that my boat was usable which I think is nonsense. Some of you have explained why you think such a claim would not be covered but if that were the case all Haven Knox Johnston had to do was say just that. They did not have to claim that I could have used my boat.
The length of time the work took was due to a) it took about one week to get estimates for the work to be done. b) it took just over one week for the insurers to approve these estimates c) a period of probably a week when it would have been difficult to remove the liferaft etc due to strong winds d) the insurers wanting to be advised if the costs exceeded the estimate regardless of how little the difference was. This cost me a week. e) Viking understandably did not want to order the necessary parts from Norway until they knew that the work would proceed. f) by then Viking had a large commercial vessel contract to fulfil. They had made me aware of this
at the outset and had I not lost the week while a modest increase was being considered by the insurers it would have been avoided.
Interestingly I have now had further correspondence from Haven Knox Johnston. They have totally dropped the argument that the boat was usable and instead are talking about an assumption they had made based on an e mail I sent to the other guy. I thought insurers worked on facts not assumptions. Frankly it is all more nonsense. But it is interesting, to me at least, that they are still NOT saying that my neighbour's policy does not cover this type of claim they are merely giving me more reasons why they do not think it appropriate. I would have thought that they could have killed the whole debate dead by just saying his policy does not cover it if that were the case.

 

[Jabs]

We had our RIB stolen and had to pay marina fees for an empty berth.

We then bought a new rib. The police had all the gear such as flares, charts, anchors, etc, etc.

I claimed for marina fees and the above and was told no.

Tried to say that the only way they knew that the police had all the kit was because I had told them and that if I had claimed it was still stolen, they would have paid, but to no avail. Tell me honesty pays!

This was with a different company but the bottom line is that we paid £400 a month for an empty berth and had to replace kit that we got back two years later.

We also had to travel 200 mile round trip to talk to the police four times and I lost a days work each time!

Draw your own conclusions!

Tony

 

[Tranona]

Frankly it is all more nonsense. But it is interesting, to me at least, that they are still NOT saying that my neighbour's policy does not cover this type of claim they are merely giving me more reasons why they do not think it appropriate. I would have thought that they could have killed the whole debate dead by just saying his policy does not cover it if that were the case.

It is irrelevant whether the other party's insurance covers consequential damage or not. Your claim is against the other party. Your insurance also only covers you for damage, and would have paid for it even if the other party was not insured. It would not however pay you any compensation for loss of use unless your policy covers it (which it probably does not, like most marine policies).

If you believe you have suffered an identifiable loss as a result of the other party's actions, then make a claim against them directly. However, doubt you will get anywhere because the principle in law is that he only needs to put you back in the situation you were before the accident. He cannot be responsible for delays from weather, lack of availability of parts, delays in having surveys etc. If you do sue him directly, the first thing he will do is pass it to his insurance company, then you will find if he is covered (unlikely) so you will have to pursue him direct.

Suggest the best course of action is to take legal advice on uninsured losses - easy if you have taken that option in your own insurance. They will tell you clearly whether they think you have a chance or not.

 

[bedouin]

If you do sue him directly, the first thing he will do is pass it to his insurance company, then you will find if he is covered (unlikely) so you will have to pursue him direct.

If he has third party insurance then that ought to cover him for any legal claim so you would always be dealing with his insurance.

However the chances of success are negligible.

 

[Tranona]

If he has third party insurance then that ought to cover him for any legal claim so you would always be dealing with his insurance.

However the chances of success are negligible.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. The other party does have insurance, but it is unlikely to cover the loss the OP is trying to recover. He can still pursue the other party direct, but I was suggesting he did this through his own legal protection policy (if he has one). Such policies are there to help you recover uninsured losses. However, the low cost suggests that the chances of a successful claim are small - reflecting the low probability of there being a reclaimable uninsured loss.

 

[bedouin]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. The other party does have insurance, but it is unlikely to cover the loss the OP is trying to recover. He can still pursue the other party direct, but I was suggesting he did this through his own legal protection policy (if he has one). Such policies are there to help you recover uninsured losses. However, the low cost suggests that the chances of a successful claim are small - reflecting the low probability of there being a reclaimable uninsured loss.

It is normal (in fact pretty much universal) that the boat policy will include "3rd party" cover - in fact most marinas require it.

3rd party cover will cover all legal responsibility that the owner of the boat may have - so if there is a lost recoverable in law from the owner then his insurance will cover it. If the owner is not legally liable then he can't be sued.

The details of an insurance policy normally only matter when you are claiming for damage to your own property. In all other instances (3rd party claims) what is and is not claimable depends purely on the legal liability, not the wording of the policy,

 

[Bosun Higgs]

My boat has been damaged as a result of my neighbour's boat colliding with it. My boat was berthed and I was not on board at the time so obviously I am the innocent party. My neighbour has admitted liability

The basics:
1/ Assuming the other guy was actually liable, then you can claim either of two way. He is liable to you ( him not his insurance company) so you can sustain a claim against him for whatever losses you have suffered and provided a court agrees. Alternatively you can claim against your own insurance in which case your claim is limited by whatever conditions there are in your contract of insurance.
2/ If you had to pay for a berth and was not able to use it, then that is legitimately part of your claim against him. If you had to cancel a holiday you had planned to take on board and then had to book a package, you could claim the extra cost involved. But how you could establish a £ value for simply not being able to use your boat to potter round, I do not know. No doubt one of the claim companies would advise you on this.

Personally I think its all a bit like whiplash or hiring a flash car after an accident - ripping off the insurance company for which we all pay in the end