TradewindSailor
Active member
I understand this to mean that if you reject an offer that the court later agrees was reasonable, you will be liable to costs for both sides ..... ?
Help! Thje Insurance 'Nazis' are trying to write her off?
- Thread starter pongoglo
- Start date
I understand this to mean that if you reject an offer that the court later agrees was reasonable, you will be liable to costs for both sides ..... ?
Jim@sea
Well-known member
In hindsight I would also start looking for another mooring. The chances are that following this accident BF will have complained to Portsmouth Harbour Authorities that due to restricted space they are unable to manoeuvre safely in bad weather. The BF Portsmouth run has ferries which are supposed to go across in all weathers whereas the Condor ferry appears to be restricted to a force 6 and if it is 6 and rising they cancel the crossing.
Also was it a BF Ferry which also collided with the HD Lines ferry in St Malo and the ferry never ran again. Perhaps because they lost their mooring/parking spot.
Also was it a BF Ferry which also collided with the HD Lines ferry in St Malo and the ferry never ran again. Perhaps because they lost their mooring/parking spot.
Tranona
Well-known member
Not necessarily. The OP has an insurance contract. He should claim against that, not the third party. The insurers recovers from the third party. That iwhy you pay insurance. He needs a surveyor to put his vase for three maximum payout possible within his policy. The market value is important because it sets the upper limit of claims for damage unless the insurer has agreed a higher amount. Inevitably values are partly subjective so you need good evidenced arguments.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
In the case of cars the repair cost doesn't have to exceed market value, just a certain proportion of market value. I think that's typically 40%, on the basis that it's normally not worthwhile spending £400 to repair a £1,000 car.
doug748
Well-known member
As partly indicated in an earlier post; there may be a point when you suggest to the Brittany Ferries insurers that you are willing to settle.
The associated costs of a claim rise at an alarming rate and provided you are willing to oversee the remedial work and are sure of the extent of damage, there are real advantages to this. Some folk simply want to screw out the maximum amount of cash and are willing to put their life on hold in order to get it, even if they end up failing.
Make you offer without prejudice to your case and limit the time frame. Explain that you are willing to accept a relativly modest payment in order for both parties to bring the matter to a swift conclusion. The amount of the suggested settlement is a matter of nice judgement because there is no going back for more. The insurers will give you a bit of leeway because they will want it signed off, time is money, however if you try and see them off they will go to the wire.
The associated costs of a claim rise at an alarming rate and provided you are willing to oversee the remedial work and are sure of the extent of damage, there are real advantages to this. Some folk simply want to screw out the maximum amount of cash and are willing to put their life on hold in order to get it, even if they end up failing.
Make you offer without prejudice to your case and limit the time frame. Explain that you are willing to accept a relativly modest payment in order for both parties to bring the matter to a swift conclusion. The amount of the suggested settlement is a matter of nice judgement because there is no going back for more. The insurers will give you a bit of leeway because they will want it signed off, time is money, however if you try and see them off they will go to the wire.
Last edited:
Fantasie 19
Well-known member
I agree... insurable value is only of importance if the damage was due to your fault (??)and this is not the case...? I think you need to take advice... I'm guessing the issue may be complicated by the fact that BF is a French registered company??
Euphonyx
Well-known member
Heres the thing. Loss adjusters mainly work "No Win No Fee". If they dont settle it they dont get paid. First check to see how yor adjuster is being paid. Have they advised you to get legal advice?? They should because it sounds like you have the basis of a good legal action and you may well be entitled to damages on top of your financial loss. The material damage aspect of your case is only one element. As pointed out earlier this process is not governed by an insurance contract because you are dealing with the Ferry Company (who happen to be insured). You are talking about a legal action for negligence against the ferry Company (the fact that they are insured is irrelevant to you). So you are only dealing with their insurance company as a courtesy to them. You may be entitled to the cost of repair or the replacement cost (whichever is less). On top of that you may be entitled to damages for loss of use and if they are misleading you about your legal entitlements you could get compensated for that too.
Get onto the RYA solicitor pronto!!!
Tranona
Well-known member
The value of the boat limits the value of the claim however the damage happened. There is no need to deal with BF or their insurers, but with the Ops insurer. That is what you pay insurance for. They then claim from BF. If it had been my boat I would not have let BF or their insurer anywhere near it.
The OP must put in his own claim against his insurer, not allow them and the third party to dictate what happens. Sensible to engage a professional to fight his case for him. Somebody experienced who understands the issues.
Birdie
New member
If you have access to free legal advice its worth taking advice. Likewise with your own insurer's claims department.
As someone who has dealt with insurance claims for many years, sadly not marine, my feeling is that ultimately, the most you are likely to receive is the market value or the repair cost, whichever is less. You maybe able to negotiate a loss of use payment with BF. It would be interesting to know how they are calculating the market value for your boat, it would be worth doing your own research and presenting this to them if they are trying to offer you less.
I would suggest checking carefully before appointing an independent assessor as you may have to pay them yourself based on a percentage of what you receive.
Good luck
Simon
As someone who has dealt with insurance claims for many years, sadly not marine, my feeling is that ultimately, the most you are likely to receive is the market value or the repair cost, whichever is less. You maybe able to negotiate a loss of use payment with BF. It would be interesting to know how they are calculating the market value for your boat, it would be worth doing your own research and presenting this to them if they are trying to offer you less.
I would suggest checking carefully before appointing an independent assessor as you may have to pay them yourself based on a percentage of what you receive.
Good luck
Simon
Euphonyx
Well-known member
Tranona
Well-known member
It is only the damage that is being considered, not any other loss. If his own insurance covers his losses he has no need to pursue the third party. From what he says there is no dispute about liability, only about the amount and that may not be an issue either. The original concern was that he thought he was going to lose his boat. It may well be that he can achieve a settlement that enables him to repair his boat. There are not enough facts to determine the best way of achieving this, but best to avoid getting into a dispute with the third party. After all he has paid insurance to avoid this.
Last edited:
pongoglo
New member
I had no choice but to get in touch with BF's insurers. I contacted my insurer in the first instance of course, and they instructed me to email BF's insurer stating that I held them ' formally liable for all damages incurred' . This I subsequently did and their loss adjuster contacted me and informed me that under French law he was required to attend the vessel when my insurers representative inspected the boat. My vessel was also listed as one that had been damaged in the incident when the marina manager contacted BF to state their claim.
Of one thing I am certain, there is certainly negligence involved. Without putting to fine a point of it a gross error in seamanship and judgement and it was only luck that prevented the incident being far , far worse. Granted the incident happened in high winds and Mont Saint Michel is a large high sided vessel, so tricky indeed, however that is precisely for what professionals are paid. Their liability is not in doubt for as they exited the harbour they informed QHM on Channel 11 that they thought they 'May have turned a couple of yachts'. In fact I understand that BF performed a similar fiet a few years ago again when exiting Portsmouth in high winds, and when they damaged HMS Chatham to the tune of several Million quid. Following this incident it is widely reported that they were instructed that when the wind exceeded a certain speed they had to use tugs, but over the years this requirement would appear to have slipped.
I am going down to the vessel today and will snap some pics, both of the damage incurred and the osmosis alleged. I probably would concede that there was some osmosis, as when I had an out of water survey done in 2007 to satisfy my current insurer it was noted then, and her then value stated included this fact, however I'm not sure if technically it was formally accepted as 'agreed value' between them and I. I have to say I have anti-fouled many times since, and spent time on my back between her keels and have yet to notice it myself! However - will report to you back.
M
Tranona
Well-known member
Pretty sure they are pulling the wool over your eyes with their legal bit. You are claiming off your insurer under your contract with them. They deal with BF to recover what they can. BF only objective is to minimize their costs, they don't care about you.
The osmosis bit is a red herring. They are only using it to try and reduce their payment. You need to put in a well evidenced claim for all the damage. If you get into an argument about constructive total loss then you need academic to maximize the value of your boat if that is likely to determine the settlement. You may well find the cost of a professional a good investment. If it comes to any format of dispute resolution you will be arguing against their professional opinions, so useful to have one of the same on your side.
The osmosis bit is a red herring. They are only using it to try and reduce their payment. You need to put in a well evidenced claim for all the damage. If you get into an argument about constructive total loss then you need academic to maximize the value of your boat if that is likely to determine the settlement. You may well find the cost of a professional a good investment. If it comes to any format of dispute resolution you will be arguing against their professional opinions, so useful to have one of the same on your side.
Euphonyx
Well-known member
Boiled down... here's the thing:
If you route this through your insurer, you will limit the value of any potential recovery to the limit of liability under your contract. Look at your contract. That could be open market value which could be much less than the repair costs. This route may put you at a disadvantage from the word go.
If you claim against the ferry company you do not limit their liability. This route will put the ferry company on risk from the word go.
Before doing anything.... get advice and pay for it. The advice here costs nothing and that's what some of it is worth in spite of good intention
If you route this through your insurer, you will limit the value of any potential recovery to the limit of liability under your contract. Look at your contract. That could be open market value which could be much less than the repair costs. This route may put you at a disadvantage from the word go.
If you claim against the ferry company you do not limit their liability. This route will put the ferry company on risk from the word go.
Before doing anything.... get advice and pay for it. The advice here costs nothing and that's what some of it is worth in spite of good intention
Tranona
Well-known member
Claiming off the third party in this case will probably result in a lower settlement. They have already indicated they will only pay to market value so it will end up with a fight over what this is. BF probably self insure for relatively low level claims like this.
The insurers already has a survey saying the boat has osmosis so has greed a value and been charging a premium based on that value. This insured value will almost certainly be higher than the market value proposed by the third party.
Pursuing third parties direct is not the best way. If it was there would be no need to insure your boat all risks.
The insurers already has a survey saying the boat has osmosis so has greed a value and been charging a premium based on that value. This insured value will almost certainly be higher than the market value proposed by the third party.
Pursuing third parties direct is not the best way. If it was there would be no need to insure your boat all risks.
lw395
Well-known member
I had a slightly similar situation with a bike, it was all getting bogged down in paperwork until I spoke to the 'guilty' party's insurer, who was very reasonable and happy to settle quickly for a sum which I suggested.
I suggested a sum based on a well evidenced market valuation, a little bit of loss of use, a little bit of my time. I kept ownership of the remains at a sensible, justifiable figure.
I got the impression that being seen to be very reasonable paid dividends.
I hope the OP can sort something out. I would suggest perusing the used boat market and thinking about what boat he might get if the existing is written off.
Remember that repairs can easily exceed estimates, or other problems can be found.
Also when arguing the value, remember that most boats more than a few years old are at risk of osmosis, so do not assume that all the boats you are comparing with are perfect. Many may be worse than the OP's.
If the OP had had the osmosis treated and got a warranty, that would have some value to offset a little of its cost.
Good Luck.
The key is not whether you talk direct to BF's insurers, but making a clear valuation of the the boat as was.
lw395
Well-known member
Another thing to think about is the value of the remains.
If it can be scrapped cheaply and parts such as engine, mast sails etc are readily saleable, then the remains may have significant value.
Alternatively, the cost of disposal may well exceed the salvage value.
In the case of my bike, the value of the parts would probably have been a lot more if I'd sold them piecemeal.
If it can be scrapped cheaply and parts such as engine, mast sails etc are readily saleable, then the remains may have significant value.
Alternatively, the cost of disposal may well exceed the salvage value.
In the case of my bike, the value of the parts would probably have been a lot more if I'd sold them piecemeal.
pandos
Well-known member
Yes, its called a Calderbank offer/Letter.
They are very effective and whilst often will be formal and legalistic, they need not be couched in terms of being " without prejudice save with regards to costs" in particular where the other side has already conceded liability.
Madness to go near own insurer if BF have conceded liability, a claim against ones own insurer will damage no claims bonus or ability to shop around in future.
Regards
Tony
Euphonyx
Well-known member
I've read alllllllllll of that and have to say... legal advice taken in a pub... Or on a street corner.. Or on this forum ..costs nothing and is worth the same. Practical advice.. taken in the same way... can be instructive.. but not if the fella expressing an opinion doesn't quite know whether to scratch his watch or wind his bum... It leaves you in the same state of confusion.. scratching your timepiece... and wondering why.. and at the end of the day you still have an itchy bum... Take legal advice is my tuppence worth
Last edited:
BrianH
Active member
This was exactly my case above (post #28) when my insurer assured me I was covered for all repairs by them but to be 100% sure of no future adverse effects a direct claim on the other's insurance would be a best first step. In the event that proved good advice in my opinion, as the matter was settled swiftly and amicably with a cash transfer to my account and no claim record with my insurer.
Other threads that may be of interest
