hartcjhart
Active member
that is the big legal situation,BF can argue about osmosis BUT at the time of the 'accident' it is not relevant ,BF have to either pay the op to repair or pay the repair bill to the way the boat was BEFORE damage
Help! Thje Insurance 'Nazis' are trying to write her off?
- Thread starter pongoglo
- Start date
TradewindSailor
Active member
..... and don't forget the 'loss of perceived value' too.
You should get your own survey done, by a surveyor that would be able to act as a professional witness if needs be.
You should get your own survey done, by a surveyor that would be able to act as a professional witness if needs be.
bedouin
Well-known member
The OP does not have the legal right to have the boat repaired, he as the right to compensation to make good his financial loss. His maximum financial loss is the true market value of the boat, so if the osmosis reduces the value of the boat it reduces the maximum amount BF have to pay.
sailorman
Well-known member
Not necessarily, he may have "Agreed Value"
bedouin
Well-known member
Not as far as the liability of BF is concerned. I don't know if his insurance co would pay out an "agreed value" if BF were clearly liable and the agreed value was above the market value of the boat.
Jim@sea
Well-known member
With respect, the first thing you should have done is get a Chartered Loss Assessor to argue with the Insurance Company,s Loss Assessor. If you havent got one you should get one now.
At the moment you are playing by their rules and being pithed about.
Change the rules to how you want to play.
Inform them that you want the cost of repairs paying to you directly, and that you want the money within 14 days and failing that you will issue a claim in the Small Claims Court.
I would argue that the two small areas of osmosis are de-minimis (perhaps wrong spelling but it means that it is so small to be inconsequential) and that you will pay for the effected area yourself)
At the moment you are playing by their rules and being pithed about.
Change the rules to how you want to play.
Inform them that you want the cost of repairs paying to you directly, and that you want the money within 14 days and failing that you will issue a claim in the Small Claims Court.
I would argue that the two small areas of osmosis are de-minimis (perhaps wrong spelling but it means that it is so small to be inconsequential) and that you will pay for the effected area yourself)
Tranona
Well-known member
You are missing the point. A claim against your insurer is covered by contract whereas a claim against a third party is for negligence and the rules are different. The OP has decide, with expert advice which sort of claim will give him the best payout. Almost certainly against his own insurer.
BrianH
Active member
I was involved in a similar insurance situation when I was hit and damaged by another boat in a Croatian anchorage. My insurer was informed and sent a local surveyor who reported that my damage was genuinely caused by the collision. My insurers then informed me they would cover the repairs but that I should really proceed with a claim directly to the other party's insurer, who admitted liability.
When I sent an estimate from my local Italian yard after cutting short my cruise, they (the other party's insurer) contested as too expensive, that the surveyor sent by my insurer - whom they appeared to have retained - quoted about half of my estimate (of course, for work in Croatia). I demurred, citing my extra costs to have remained in Croatia to have the work done there, and so the insurer offered a cash payment of about 20% less than my estimate, for immediate settlement. I thought that fair and accepted it.
In the event, doing some minor repairs myself while local companies completed the major work, I kept well within the payment. What I wasn't compensated for was my aborted cruise. However, the immediate settlement was worth a lot rather than dragging on.
When I sent an estimate from my local Italian yard after cutting short my cruise, they (the other party's insurer) contested as too expensive, that the surveyor sent by my insurer - whom they appeared to have retained - quoted about half of my estimate (of course, for work in Croatia). I demurred, citing my extra costs to have remained in Croatia to have the work done there, and so the insurer offered a cash payment of about 20% less than my estimate, for immediate settlement. I thought that fair and accepted it.
In the event, doing some minor repairs myself while local companies completed the major work, I kept well within the payment. What I wasn't compensated for was my aborted cruise. However, the immediate settlement was worth a lot rather than dragging on.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-known member
There seems to be some misunderstanding here about the nature of insurance. The insurance on the boat is intended to compensate the owner for any loss covered by the insurance up to the value of the boat. The contract will show what that value is. The third party liability is to put the boat owner back in the same position as before. There is no contract as the claim is for negligence.
The importance of the osmosis is that it diminishes the value of the boat, so lowering the value to the point where it is lees than the cost of repairs. The emotive term writing off is misleading. It just means the cost of repairs exceeds the market value.
The objective now is to maximize the value of the payout, and that is likely to come from the insurer not the third party. This will likely be enough to cover the cost of repairs and the attraction for the insurer is that he no longer has any liability nor a wreck to dispose of. Worth employing a surveyor with experience to argue for the best payout.
The importance of the osmosis is that it diminishes the value of the boat, so lowering the value to the point where it is lees than the cost of repairs. The emotive term writing off is misleading. It just means the cost of repairs exceeds the market value.
The objective now is to maximize the value of the payout, and that is likely to come from the insurer not the third party. This will likely be enough to cover the cost of repairs and the attraction for the insurer is that he no longer has any liability nor a wreck to dispose of. Worth employing a surveyor with experience to argue for the best payout.
pongoglo
New member
Thanks guys (and gals?) for all your input. Most valuable indeed. I have read your comments suggestions through in detail and it would appear that i might indeed have a number of options and some cards I might play. I have also had a night to sleep on it, downed a couple of ales in the pub and the situation might not be as dire as at first it might have seemed.
I think Beduin has probably summed it up nicely;
'Note that as you are dealing with their insurer they cannot insist that the boat is written off, and they cannot force you to sell her. You are entitled to compensation for your losses but that cannot (normally) exceed the market value of the boat.'
From this I read, that even if the cost of repairs exceeds her market value the boat is still mine. As she is still seaworthy I could sail her away tomorrow and we could make our escape, and neither they, BF's Insurer, nor mine can insist I write her off. However they, BF's Insurer probably do have to pay me up to her market value fror the damage they have caused, but prob not more. I should not have to purchase the 'wreck' as 'It/She' remains my property. Unlike say in the case of a car as long as the vessel is rendered safe I am not required to have her scrapped. Can anyone confirm?
Best option might therfore be to take the market value for her 'before incident' state, sail her away, and find a small local boatyard ( I have one in mind) who might do the work more cheaply, poss cash in hand? It goes without saying that I only want her restored to the state she was before, not as new, which would be untenable to say the least. A lot of the work I can and hopefully will do myself, but some most definitely not!
M
yoda
Well-known member
The phrase 'buy the wreck' means they deduct the value of what remains from the market value that they offer in settlement. In my case the value was what the insurer was offered by a third party. You are quite right the boat remains yours until you transfer title.
Yoda
pmagowan
Well-known member
Hope you get it all sorted. It is really a pain when these things happen and all you want is to have things put right. It might be worth going to citizens advice simply to find out what your rights are.
Tranona
Well-known member
Your understanding is correct. You may do better with your own insurer depending on the value you have insured. They should waive the excess as the boat was on its own mooring but you may suffer an increase in premiums in the future. Much will hinge on the value of the boat,so you will need to get support for the highest value you can.
Suggest you get your own surveyor, both to advise that your proposed repairs are doable and help you negotiate with the insurer. You will also probably need a survey before you get it back in operation after repairs. You may well find, although there will be hassle, you end up with a better boat because you have control of what is done to it rather than be dictated to by the insurer. This is exactly how I dealt with a claim after the 1987 storm.
Stemar
Well-known member
In a similar situation with a car many years ago, I was offered £500 as a write-off value. I counter-offered an agreed cost of repair of £475 and I would make my own arrangements for the repairs. They accepted, I replaced a wing and a bumper and the car lasted me another couple of years before the brown moth got it.
The figures are made up as I can't remember the exact amounts, but the principle stands. I'm sure they'd far rather write a cheque and be done with it than have to faff around with the paperwork involved in buying it off you and selling it on.
The figures are made up as I can't remember the exact amounts, but the principle stands. I'm sure they'd far rather write a cheque and be done with it than have to faff around with the paperwork involved in buying it off you and selling it on.
itchenseadog
Member
I cannot stress highly enough that you should appoint a surveyor experienced in handling insurance claims (not many good ones around now) to represent your interests. You should be able to claim the cost against BF's insurers.
pandos
Well-known member
Also entitled to any reasonable costs involved in obtaining repairs/replacement and compensation for loss of use....
But the best outcome will be obtained with reducing the amount of paperwork and hassle all around, it is not just down to Pounds shilling and pence...
Loss adjusters often are strange animals, and may act counter intuitively, for example allowing works that were strictly not caused by the collision which makes themselves seem generous but in fact this increases the size of the claim, introduces an element of fraudishness/error... which may be explored at a trial of an action,,,,and increases the chance that an uneconomic repair will be created....
Similarly they will talk down the scrap value because if you say "ok write it off " they have to obtain that value or better.
If you negotiate with them, ideally face to face, on the basis that nothing is agreed until all is agreed and all negotiations are without predjudice, pending a final agreement you can possibly get them to pay you up to their max, less their minimum scrap value. (their first offer will sometimes be derisory)
The key to this is to agree from the outset that there will be no other bits and pieces to pay, no surveyors on your side etc.
this lets them put the matter to bed and claim their own fee and to move on.
You always have the right to institute legal proceedings against them seeking your repair costs etc... and provided you get the boat repaired at a reasonable cost and less than the likely value of the boat then you have a good case, just be aware that if this route is chosen, they will probably make an offer to cover themselves with regards to legal costs and this will be less that the best figure which is obtainable now, and you will be on tender-hooks until the case is settled incl any appeal.
But keep in mind " S..T happens, sailing is about pleasure, unless you like court you are best to settle for a lower amount, if funds are tight get a cheap but sound repair and get back on the water.. Do not let pride or a sense of justice or moral outrage cause you to dig your heels in.
Most importantly of all do not be seen to fail to mitigate your losses or be seen to be taking the P..S with regards to the damage done.
I agree osmosis is often a thing of nothing but it has become big business and is a factor in many peoples minds....
Best of Luck.
Tony
pappaecho
New member
This same situation occurs regularily in the automotive market.
You have the legal right to force Brittany Ferries to put you in the same state before the accident happened.I suspect a " loss adjuster" being lazy and trying to write off the boat to give you a low pay off, rather than stump up with money to renew the damaged components.
Perhaps the way forward is to indicate to your insurance company who presumably is involved that you will not accept a cash settlement, and require either the boat to be repaired asap, or alternatively for a replacement boat to be sourced at their cost, which is acceptable to you. Also indicate that it is the start of the season, and that unless a prompt decision is made, you will have to rent a boat at their cost, because you are missing the sailing season, with no fault on your behalf.
I think that if you paint a very black picture regarding, costs hiring boat etc, you will force them to take the easiest line, that it repair the boat.
Alternatively if the repairs are not too costly you can just indicate that the settlement is not acceptable, that you will have the boat repaired and then sue in the county court, citing the fact that it has taken months to reach the decision, and that you are not prepared to lose half the sailing season.
If your boat is in a marina, you should also check their insurance against third party damage
You have the legal right to force Brittany Ferries to put you in the same state before the accident happened.I suspect a " loss adjuster" being lazy and trying to write off the boat to give you a low pay off, rather than stump up with money to renew the damaged components.
Perhaps the way forward is to indicate to your insurance company who presumably is involved that you will not accept a cash settlement, and require either the boat to be repaired asap, or alternatively for a replacement boat to be sourced at their cost, which is acceptable to you. Also indicate that it is the start of the season, and that unless a prompt decision is made, you will have to rent a boat at their cost, because you are missing the sailing season, with no fault on your behalf.
I think that if you paint a very black picture regarding, costs hiring boat etc, you will force them to take the easiest line, that it repair the boat.
Alternatively if the repairs are not too costly you can just indicate that the settlement is not acceptable, that you will have the boat repaired and then sue in the county court, citing the fact that it has taken months to reach the decision, and that you are not prepared to lose half the sailing season.
If your boat is in a marina, you should also check their insurance against third party damage
Tranona
Well-known member
Some confused thinking here. There is no dispute about liability. It is the value of the claim in relation to the value of the boat that may be in dispute. The third party is only required to replace the boat, but the boats insurer may be liable for a higher amount. There is unlikely to be any basis for a consequential loss or loss of usage claim.
Would guess the size of claim is in the £10 - 20k region so way outside any small claim. Indeed no reason for any court action as neither the third party nor the insurer are avoiding their liabilities. The only dispute is about the level of compensation and this can almost certainly be resolved by negotiation.
Would guess the size of claim is in the £10 - 20k region so way outside any small claim. Indeed no reason for any court action as neither the third party nor the insurer are avoiding their liabilities. The only dispute is about the level of compensation and this can almost certainly be resolved by negotiation.
robmcg
Well-known member
Lots of good advice here but I can't help thinking that you are being shown some smoke and mirrors by Brittany Ferries. The fundamental issue was that their ferry damaged your boat. It is therefore their responsibility to put right that damage, no more, no less. The smoke and mirrors element is them using their insurance company as a blunt tool to minimise the financial outlay (which is to be expected) don't be drawn into it, state the facts clearly with no opinion to them in writing. I certainly wouldn't accept what they have offered thus far ( speaking as someone who was told by an insurance company that my first boat was worth less because it had a blue rather than white hull - no rational given).
[3889]
...
There seems to be a lot of focus in this thread on market value. If the claim was for a personal injury - say the loss of an eye - no one would be interested in the market value of the eye. The compensation awarded is for the loss suffered. If the OP can convince a court that his loss requires the boat to be repaired, and the argument for this seems robust, then that is what should happen in accordance with the tort of negligence. Insurance contracts are irrelevant in this case.