Help - Insurance Problem

Hello Rafiki

Still not had a chance to read through all posts, just about to print them off, hence seeing your post. Unfortunately some receipts were not kept either paid in cash - never again and not our choice by the way - and some we didn't keep because at the time there seemed to be no point as they couldn't be used against either mine or my husband's business. Please, I don't want a rash of posts saying how stupid. That I know now and if had been left to me every scrap of paperwork would have been filed neatly away just in case but it wasn't left to me. I also want to say that when my husband took the boat out he was accompanied by the Cox of the Eastbourne Lifeboat so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be setting foot on a boat that he didn't think was in pretty good nick.
 
Medwaylady said:
Hello Rafiki

Still not had a chance to read through all posts, just about to print them off, hence seeing your post. Unfortunately some receipts were not kept either paid in cash - never again and not our choice by the way - and some we didn't keep because at the time there seemed to be no point as they couldn't be used against either mine or my husband's business. Please, I don't want a rash of posts saying how stupid. That I know now and if had been left to me every scrap of paperwork would have been filed neatly away just in case but it wasn't left to me. I also want to say that when my husband took the boat out he was accompanied by the Cox of the Eastbourne Lifeboat so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be setting foot on a boat that he didn't think was in pretty good nick.
Click to expand...

The fact you paid in cash and/or have lost the receipt doesn't mean you can't demonstrate that you had the work done. Do you have e-mail correspondence discussing the work, cash withdrawals on your statements matching the time and amount, or can you get the engineer/contractor to provide a signed schedule of the work? If paying in cash wasn't your choice, then you have some leverage over the (presumably tax dodging) supplier.
 
Medwaylady said:
Hello Rafiki

Still not had a chance to read through all posts, just about to print them off, hence seeing your post. Unfortunately some receipts were not kept either paid in cash - never again and not our choice by the way - and some we didn't keep because at the time there seemed to be no point as they couldn't be used against either mine or my husband's business. Please, I don't want a rash of posts saying how stupid. That I know now and if had been left to me every scrap of paperwork would have been filed neatly away just in case but it wasn't left to me. I also want to say that when my husband took the boat out he was accompanied by the Cox of the Eastbourne Lifeboat so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be setting foot on a boat that he didn't think was in pretty good nick.
Click to expand...
Couple of observations. It is not clear how the water got in. Gland packing does not normally come out on its own without some sort of action such as backing off the nuts and picking it out. Normally any leaks are slow and easily spotted. Difficult to see how having people working on the boat indicates good maintenance if leaks were not spotted. So perhaps you need to be more clear in making a case that the water ingress was outside your control.

As others have said the actual wording of the policy is key to deciding whether you have a case. Once an insurer has dug their heels in it is very difficult to shift them and you might find it useful to engage a surveyor used to dealing with insurance companies to look at your case.
 
Last edited:
Not sure where to start her without this post sounding like War and Peace. We bought our lovely Princess just over two years ago and it was given an A1 survey. It was moved from the Thames to Chatham and then from Chatham to Eastbourne in April/May 2012 where it has been ever since. The boat was visited on a weekly/fortnightly basis when the engines where turned over but she wasn't taken out to sea because various bits of upgrading we felt needed doing. A new solenoid and new batteries were fitted in June. We are not experienced boat owners so had no idea that every bolt and screw needed to be checked on a three monthly cycle to fulfil the insurance criteria and certainly it doesn't say in the insurance documents that this is the criteria for a fully maintained boat. She would definitely been lifted this autumn and hadn't been done before because in our ignorance we thought there was no need as she had so little physical use.

Five days before the incident the boat was taken out to sea by my husband (accompanied by the Cox of the Eastbourne lifeboat) for a short spin to check everything was in good order as my daughter and son in law were due to visit from Australia and we wanted to show off our 'prized possession'. Before my husband left the boat the every nook and cranny was checked and there was no sign of any leakage, spillage call it what you will into or from any compartment. Normally we would have been on the boat when it happened (evening of Sunday) but we had an early morning airport pickup for said daughter. If it hadn't been for the keen eyesight of two of our neighbouring berth holders who happened to be having a conversation on the pontoon the boat would definitely have sunk to the bottom of the marina with the next couple of hours. One of them noticed that she was low in the water, telephoned us and boarded her immediately but by this time the engine room was virtually flooded. We phoned for an emergency lift but luckily (some might say at this juncture unluckily) for us the Marina had an electric pump which they used and managed to keep the flow of water going out less than the water coming in. It was lifted out of the water on the Monday.

Award winning (for their customer service) HKJ is our insurance company and this is the company who took seven weeks to point out the offending clause in our policy when they must have known about it all the time and then refused to pay for the dry dockage time it had taken them to come to this conclusion. We asked for a fully comprehensive policy and assumed, wrongly, it worked the same way as vehicle insurance. If there's damage the insurance company will cover you. Does a car have to be in tip top condition? As I have said there is a clause in the policy which says they wont pay for 'ingress of water' unless a breach to the hull and I was interested to read the thread that said 'ingress' was defined as a 'slow seepage over several months'. It definitely wasn't that! It was sheer luck we weren't asleep in our bed at the front end of the boat at the time, we certainly would have woken up pretty darn quick. I think I can swallow the non payment on machinery and electrics because the clause was there (although after making several calls I haven't come across another insurance company so far who wouldn't have paid out under these circumstances but maybe they've not been put to the test) but what's sticking in my craw is the non payment of dry dockage and fixtures and fittings as well because of, guess what, poor maintenance of stern glands.

Anyway, enough of the rant but I just wanted a right of reply. The consensus of opinion seems to be 'tough' should have read the policy but with two busy businesses to run (how the hell could we afford to buy and run a boat anyway without them) who has time to read through the small print on a 25 page booklet especially when you've asked and are prepared to pay for an all in inclusive policy. We'll bite the bullet and write the cheque, but Ombudsman here we come!!

Good Luck to you all - and check those policies. X
 
Medwaylady said:
Not sure where to start her without this post sounding like War and Peace. We bought our lovely Princess just over two years ago and it was given an A1 survey. It was moved from the Thames to Chatham and then from Chatham to Eastbourne in April/May 2012 where it has been ever since. The boat was visited on a weekly/fortnightly basis when the engines where turned over but she wasn't taken out to sea because various bits of upgrading we felt needed doing. A new solenoid and new batteries were fitted in June. We are not experienced boat owners so had no idea that every bolt and screw needed to be checked on a three monthly cycle to fulfil the insurance criteria and certainly it doesn't say in the insurance documents that this is the criteria for a fully maintained boat. She would definitely been lifted this autumn and hadn't been done before because in our ignorance we thought there was no need as she had so little physical use.

Five days before the incident the boat was taken out to sea by my husband (accompanied by the Cox of the Eastbourne lifeboat) for a short spin to check everything was in good order as my daughter and son in law were due to visit from Australia and we wanted to show off our 'prized possession'. Before my husband left the boat the every nook and cranny was checked and there was no sign of any leakage, spillage call it what you will into or from any compartment. Normally we would have been on the boat when it happened (evening of Sunday) but we had an early morning airport pickup for said daughter. If it hadn't been for the keen eyesight of two of our neighbouring berth holders who happened to be having a conversation on the pontoon the boat would definitely have sunk to the bottom of the marina with the next couple of hours. One of them noticed that she was low in the water, telephoned us and boarded her immediately but by this time the engine room was virtually flooded. We phoned for an emergency lift but luckily (some might say at this juncture unluckily) for us the Marina had an electric pump which they used and managed to keep the flow of water going out less than the water coming in. It was lifted out of the water on the Monday.

Award winning (for their customer service) HKJ is our insurance company and this is the company who took seven weeks to point out the offending clause in our policy when they must have known about it all the time and then refused to pay for the dry dockage time it had taken them to come to this conclusion. We asked for a fully comprehensive policy and assumed, wrongly, it worked the same way as vehicle insurance. If there's damage the insurance company will cover you. Does a car have to be in tip top condition? As I have said there is a clause in the policy which says they wont pay for 'ingress of water' unless a breach to the hull and I was interested to read the thread that said 'ingress' was defined as a 'slow seepage over several months'. It definitely wasn't that! It was sheer luck we weren't asleep in our bed at the front end of the boat at the time, we certainly would have woken up pretty darn quick. I think I can swallow the non payment on machinery and electrics because the clause was there (although after making several calls I haven't come across another insurance company so far who wouldn't have paid out under these circumstances but maybe they've not been put to the test) but what's sticking in my craw is the non payment of dry dockage and fixtures and fittings as well because of, guess what, poor maintenance of stern glands.

Anyway, enough of the rant but I just wanted a right of reply. The consensus of opinion seems to be 'tough' should have read the policy but with two busy businesses to run (how the hell could we afford to buy and run a boat anyway without them) who has time to read through the small print on a 25 page booklet especially when you've asked and are prepared to pay for an all in inclusive policy. We'll bite the bullet and write the cheque, but Ombudsman here we come!!

Good Luck to you all - and check those policies. X
Click to expand...

Is this the policy?

http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/assets/pleasurecraft_policy.pdf

If so, I can't see any mention of the words 'sudden' or 'ingress'.

Section 3.15 would be enough to put me off this policy and would appear to be an issue for you.
 
That's the one!! The word 'ingress' was used in their first refusal letter to us dated 4th October (incident happened 18th August): They quote 3.15 on page 14 and say: "One of the two restrictions is concerning damage caused by water. It requires that there is water damage from ingress of water from ingress of water resulting from either accidental damage to the hull or from rare and extreme weather conditions. Neither of the two specific causes is operative here. This restriction relates only to machinery and to the other parts expressly referred to."

I have typed it exactly as written in their letter and it doesn't even make grammatical sense. In fact, call me biased, but all their letter are poorly worded and full of errors and usually a letter of response from them does not answer the question/s posed. They've got us by the throat on this one but of course this is why they're going hell for leather on the poor maintenance of stern glands because it then means they don't need to pay out on ruined fixtures and fittings either.

The ironic thing is that the stern glands were looked at and tightened en route to Eastbourne in Dover Marine which would have been about 18 months ago but we have absolutely no way of proving it. A marine engineer there gave the boat a once over, tightening the glands, charged forty quid cash. Needless to say his card is has currently been turned to mush through water damage so cant even trace him not that I'm confident he would put his hands up or even remember now.

Regards
 
You can ignore the specific words "ingress of water from ingress of water resulting from" in their letter as they're not in the policy but that's not the main issue. Others may disagree, but 3.15 is pretty clear to me (i.e. the exclusions). Attention is even drawn to the clause at the start of the document. If anyone has a the same policy they should cancel it immediately.

So you're left with the issue of 3.5.1. The fact that you have proof of the work 18 months previously isn't a big deal as long as you're willing to stand by that claim. The question for me is whether your maintenance can classified as reasonable or not. As we've already seen in this thread that's going to be a lot harder to argue.
 
petem said:
You can ignore the specific words "ingress of water from ingress of water resulting from" in their letter as they're not in the policy but that's not the main issue. Others may disagree, but 3.15 is pretty clear to me (i.e. the exclusions). Attention is even drawn to the clause at the start of the document. If anyone has a the same policy they should cancel it immediately.

So you're left with the issue of 3.5.1. The fact that you have proof of the work 18 months previously isn't a big deal as long as you're willing to stand by that claim. The question for me is whether your maintenance can classified as reasonable or not. As we've already seen in this thread that's going to be a lot harder to argue.
Click to expand...
AS jfm has been saying for some time. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...al-via-email&p=4445242&highlight=#post4445242
 
Stork_III said:
AS jfm has been saying for some time. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...al-via-email&p=4445242&highlight=#post4445242
Click to expand...

The OP should look at this post...

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...t-Ins-renewal-via-email&p=3994793#post3994793

I would write John McCauley and remind him of his post. At the same time I'd take the opportunity to ask him why he has not followed through on his promise to amend the wordings and more importantly why his company are still using the exclusions to refuse claims.

Pete
 
Medwaylady said:
The boat was visited on a weekly/fortnightly basis when the engines where turned over ... Five days before the incident the boat was taken out to sea by my husband to check everything was in good order ... Before my husband left the boat the every nook and cranny was checked and there was no sign of any leakage ... Normally we would have been on the boat when it happened (evening of Sunday) ... HKJ is our insurance company .... 'slow seepage over several months'. It definitely wasn't that!
Click to expand...

All this stuff could be relevant, but you're making the classic mistake of drip feeding information. There are people on here who may be able to really help you, beyond even just giving good advice, but they can't do it with half the story.
 
Good Morning

Thanks Pete. I will certainly study this particular post at length as there is maybe something we can use. With regard to the issue of what is considered to be proper maintenance every marine engineer has a differing opinion - and believe me we have tried a few and some have even contact us because they are horrified that such a clause could be put in a policy (and before anybody posts, yes I know we should have picked up on it). The majority say if the boat is static there is no necessity to lift it every season. Princess recommend 'frequent' inspection of the stern glands but when we phoned them one of their engineers - I don't want to give his name but it is noted just in case - said if the boat is static the 'frequent' comment is like how long is a piece of string. Needless to say, and I cant blame him, he wouldn't commit the words to paper. In our (humble) opinion we think the stern gland packing came loose because when the boat was lifted a piece of rope had obviously twisted itself around one of the propellers and bedded itself in quite deeply, enough to need a new propeller, which we think must have cause a vibration when we took the boat out on its ill fated jaunt into the bay. This was not picked up by the insurance surveyor and what does it matter anyway because we still didn't have 'a breach of the hull'.

Our argument has always been if they are refusing to pay out on poor maintenance then they should itemise what they consider this to be. It would be quite helpful for total boat ignoramuses such as us.

I suspect that once our boat is back in the water we will put her up for sale. I feel so strongly that we just don't know enough about boats to be able to keep and finance one. Its such a shame because I loved spending time on her it was such a solace to me for various personal reasons.

They've not beaten us yet. If I can get out of them the cost of the dry dockage (£1392)whilst they pontificated over the policy knowing full well the outcome, that will be a bonus and go some way towards the £14,000.

Thank you for your comments, its great reading them and I'm only sorry I wasn't aware of them from the beginning because I would love to have responded immediately to some of them.

Take care.

I will fight on
 
Hi Nick_H

I've just noticed your post. It had got lost amongst the welter of stuff I seem to be posting. I've worked on the basis of if you're going to have a moan/complain keep it as short and concise as possible or people might die of boredom before they get to the end. I think maybe my last post brought things up to date (rope around the propellor).

At the moment we're currently drafting our fifth letter to CEO of Amlin (underwriters to HKJ) and still they haven't answered queries from the first letter! If nothing else I'll drown them in paperwork.

Regards
 
Medwaylady said:
Hi Nick_H

I've just noticed your post. It had got lost amongst the welter of stuff I seem to be posting. I've worked on the basis of if you're going to have a moan/complain keep it as short and concise as possible or people might die of boredom before they get to the end. I think maybe my last post brought things up to date (rope around the propellor).

At the moment we're currently drafting our fifth letter to CEO of Amlin (underwriters to HKJ) and still they haven't answered queries from the first letter! If nothing else I'll drown them in paperwork.

Regards
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the negative responses you got at the start of this thread were based on the incomplete information you provided. You basically said "We checked the boat once in two years and, guess what, it sank". The updated information is that you checked the boat regularly, including 5 days before the incident when the bilges were dry (and you have a high calibre witness in the RNLI guy), and you have a possible cause of failure with the rope entrapment. These things are kind of relevant!
 
I agree with you on that one nick, I too posted my opinion from what the op gave us, I wasn't the only one either to give negative feedback.

I'm amazed at HKJ level of bad attitude over this claim , but what I would of done as the owner of this mess was to have quotes for the work from 3 different sources, present to insurer and then go ahead with the work after its been approved, not just plough on regardless then wince about the bill when its not going to be paid by the insurer.

I come across this often in my business and ONLY go ahead ordering parts for any insurance job after I have it in writing where the payment is to come from.

To the OP, what did you actually have done for 14k? Sounds a lot of money in hours taken or parts supplied to fix up a flooded engine room.
 
I think our problems are in two parts. Firstly the non payment on machinery and electrics - the major part - and there is the clause as large as life. The second part is proving our boat was properly maintained - as far as our limited knowledge allowed - so that they will pay out on fixtures, fittings and dry dockage. I reckon about another £4000. So far we haven't even put in any paperwork for and in a phone call with HKJ when they phoned to ask if they could have a face to face meeting to tell us they would not be increasing their £700 offer - this understandably became heated - their employee told us we were 'too late' to do this as we hadn't included this on our original claim form. To be honest we were so concerned about the larger damage the 'incidentals' hadn't even come into equation at the time.

As I've said even with the rope + propellor we still come back to uninsured hole.
 
Medwaylady said:
As I've said even with the rope + propellor we still come back to uninsured hole.
Click to expand...

HKJ have made certain assurances on here that go beyond the policy wording. I don't want to raise your hopes, because I can't remember whether they would be relevant to your particular case, but i'd certainly do a search on here and read through all the threads that discuss the weaknesses of the HKJ policy.
 
I'm certainly going to do that. I have traced the thread and read through it but I really need a long period of peace and quiet to do it again to see if it's applicable to our situation. I SO hope so.

Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
How much does re-upholstery cost?
Replies
15
Views
580
Mr Googler
Mr Googler
C
Sealine SC42/450
Replies
9
Views
300
Momac
Momac
D
Stern drive KAD32p - water dripping, any tips?
Replies
4
Views
258
James jameson
J
cyberkryten
We finally bought a boat - Merry Fisher 895s2
2 3
Replies
41
Views
1K
Cathy*
C
S
Antares leak
Replies
9
Views
264
oldgit
O

Share this page

Top