insurance claim refused !

[Steve Clayton]

Just my thoughts on this:

The wiring loom failed and caught fire.

WHY did a fuse not blow? Something is not protected properly.

Dave,

note the date on this:
http://www.pat-testing.info/recallnotice/dishwashers.htm

and now the date on this:
http://www.pat-testing.info/recallnotice/zanussi-dishwasher.htm

Appalling, isn't it?

Wiring loom problems chafing as the door is opened and closed. Ours caught fire and did circa £20K damage

 

[jhr]

My view of insurers is, I'm afraid, jaded and cynical. If they can possibly use small print to get out of a claim, however tortuous the logic, then they will try their hardest to do so. I had a policy claim refused on the grounds that a third party had been negligent and was advised that I should use my legal cover (included as part of the insurance) to sue them. Suprise, suprise, the legal insurer refused to take on the claim, on the grounds that the negligent party had a "contract" with me, to perform a particular task, had failed to do so properly and all contractual claims in excess of £5,000 were excluded in the small print.

Insurers are very good at taking your money, less so at paying out when you make a claim.

This wasn't a fly-by-night operation, it was one of the best known marine insurers and the legal insurer is also a well-known name (notoriously so, according to one forumite who works as a broker).

I've named the insurer on several occasions, so I'm not going to waste my time doing so again, but if you want to know who it was, PM me. Generally they have a good reputation, but I wouldn't use them again if they were the last insurer left on Earth....

 

[Steve Clayton]

OP; is this in your "Key facts" statement?

Cover extends to include direct loss or damage caused by latent defect, wear
and tear or mechanical breakdown resulting in FIRE.........

 

[viago]

latent defect is basically an insurance legal term for an hidden flaw, weakness or imperfection which cannot be discovered by reasonable inspection.

As previously said, you need to read the small print in the policy, but latent defect is usually a clause in ther somewhere. You must obtain the insurers precise reasons as to why they have repudiated this claim and get someone involved who knows what they're talking about.


IMHO if my assumption is correct as to the cause, the insurers should be responsible for the resultant damage, but not the cause, i.e. you would be responsible for the wiring loom. Good luck with this, if necessary, get the insurance ombudsman involved, insurers don't like that as it costs the money wether they're right or wrong.

firstly, your father was incredibly brave, and the insurers should recognise this and not quibble. the consequences of their refusal in this case is bad for them as similar latent defect fires in the future may lead to owners letting the boat burn.(they are unlikely to send an assessor to the bottom of the sea to save a grand on a wiring loom)
secondly, if they are aware of specific latent defects with a particular product when they cover it then surely they have a duty of care to point out those known defects prior to your acceptance of the contract. they clearly have failed to do so in your case.
thirdly, as all insurance premiums are based on estimated risk then surely the increased risk due the known latent defects had been taken into account when setting your premium.
fourthly, i would argue that their failure to inform you of the latent defect makes them responsible for the cause too.
point these issues out to them in writing and give them 14 days to respond favourably and, should they fail to do so, go directly to the ombudsman.
should that fail then shout from the highest tree tops.

 

[Steve Clayton]

latent defect is basically an insurance legal term for an hidden flaw, weakness or imperfection which cannot be discovered by reasonable inspection.

As previously said, you need to read the small print in the policy, but latent defect is usually a clause in ther somewhere. You must obtain the insurers precise reasons as to why they have repudiated this claim and get someone involved who knows what they're talking about.

IMHO if my assumption is correct as to the cause, the insurers should be responsible for the resultant damage, but not the cause, i.e. you would be responsible for the wiring loom. Good luck with this, if necessary, get the insurance ombudsman involved, insurers don't like that as it costs the money wether they're right or wrong.

Phil.

I'm with you on this one: it's all in here (I'm not saying that this is the OP's insurance company)
http://www.yyachtinsurance.com/YPolicyBooklet1_web.pdf and point 1.1.2

(but note the reference to Section 3.14 and the cop-out in 3.14.2)
I'll go so far as to say that the Latent Defect wordings and their various placements within the document is designed to confuse the reader

 

[Philiz]

firstly, your father was incredibly brave, and the insurers should recognise this and not quibble. the consequences of their refusal in this case is bad for them as similar latent defect fires in the future may lead to owners letting the boat burn.(they are unlikely to send an assessor to the bottom of the sea to save a grand on a wiring loom)
secondly, if they are aware of specific latent defects with a particular product when they cover it then surely they have a duty of care to point out those known defects prior to your acceptance of the contract. they clearly have failed to do so in your case.
thirdly, as all insurance premiums are based on estimated risk then surely the increased risk due the known latent defects had been taken into account when setting your premium.
fourthly, i would argue that their failure to inform you of the latent defect makes them responsible for the cause too.
point these issues out to them in writing and give them 14 days to respond favourably and, should they fail to do so, go directly to the ombudsman.
should that fail then shout from the highest tree tops.

Not sure why you've quoted me in your response

 

[Philiz]

I'll go so far as to say that the Latency Defect wordings and their various placements within the document is designed to confuse the reader

I'll go a little further and say that's the case with the majority of documents written in 'legalese'

 

[jfm]

if they are aware of specific latent defects with a particular product when they cover it then surely they have a duty of care to point out those known defects prior to your acceptance of the contract. they clearly have failed to do so in your case... i would argue that their failure to inform you of the latent defect makes them responsible for the cause too.

That is a fanciful analysis of how English law works

It's also a misunderstanding of the phrase "duty of care". Any statement where "duty of care" is followed by the words "to do [something]" is a misundersntading of the meaning of duty of care. You either have a duty of care or you don't. You don't have a duty of care to do something specific.

 

[rafiki_]

For what it is worth, I have had incredibly good service from my Marine Insurers. I'm currently with Haven K-J, and very pleased to date.

 

[mattysupra]

For what it is worth, I have had incredibly good service from my Marine Insurers. I'm currently with Haven K-J, and very pleased to date.

Like i say, im not going to name them yet.

We have had a claim in the past and they was fine. Seems that if you claim gets into the thousands there is a issue!

 

[mattysupra]

how many times do you have to wait for posts to get approved on this forum? coming upto 3 days to get 3 posts approved?

Does every post have to approved?

 

[Steve Clayton]

For what it is worth, I have had incredibly good service from my Marine Insurers. I'm currently with Haven K-J, and very pleased to date.

Your profile indicates you are on inland waterways (apols if I'm wrong) so here's your generic insurance: http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/assets/inland_policy.pdf
Look at 3.14.2

 

[rafiki_]

Your profile indicates you are on inland waterways (apols if I'm wrong) so here's your generic insurance: http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/assets/inland_policy.pdf
Look at 3.14.2

Correct, plus sorties into the Bristol Channel.

 

[fergie_mac66]

Your profile indicates you are on inland waterways (apols if I'm wrong) so here's your generic insurance: http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/assets/inland_policy.pdf
Look at 3.14.2

I like this one
!3.12.4 the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous or
contaminating properties of any radioactive matter. The
exclusion in this sub-clause does not extend to radioactive
isotopes, other than nuclear fuel, when such isotopes are being
prepared, carried, stored, or used for commercial, agricultural,
medical, scientific or similar peaceful purposes.

So if you have some plutonium and you planning a war and you have an accident your covered !

Guess there will be another santa clause covering war but

 

[jfm]

I like this one
!3.12.4 the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous or
contaminating properties of any radioactive matter. The
exclusion in this sub-clause does not extend to radioactive
isotopes, other than nuclear fuel, when such isotopes are being
prepared, carried, stored, or used for commercial, agricultural,
medical, scientific or similar peaceful purposes.

So if you have some plutonium and you planning a war and you have an accident your covered !

That's a good illustration of why you need to read these things very carefully. There is a double negative - an exclusion from an exclusion. It's 180degrees from what you said: under the policy in question you are NOT covered if your plutonium is related to war or is fuel, and you ARE covered if it is for peaceful use

 

[fergie_mac66]

That's a good illustration of why you need to read these things very carefully. There is a double negative - an exclusion from an exclusion. It's 180degrees from what you said: under the policy in question you are NOT covered if your plutonium is related to war or is fuel, and you ARE covered if it is for peaceful use

Oh yes i missed that "other than " did only glance though !

 

[lenseman]

. . . . SO Fire is out! We have a quick clean up its not to bad. It was the engines wiring loom (factory installed) that had set fire. There is no internal damage to the boat.

Damaged is -

Starter motor
Alternator
Wiring loom (engine)
Some electrical ecu for the engine

We get a marine mechanic to come quote on repairs.

The quote comes in at just over £5000. . . . . . Comments please!

I think you also have an issue with the 'mechanic'. He is having a laugh!

For £5000 I would probably fly anywhere in the world to fix all the faults that you describe including parts! That quote for the faults you have stated, assuming no cosmetic damage apart from smoke which you could probably sort out yourself, is completely ridiculous!

Starter motor probably £300, almost certainly less, (I have just replaced mine for £180 inc VAT)
Alternator possibly £300 maximum
ECU maximum £1000 (working on the price of these units for cars and vans being £800)
Cost of wire and connectors £400 (assuming boat length not exceeding !5 metres)

The rest is labour . . . . . . £3000 REALLY?

 

[mattysupra]

The rest is labour . . . . . . £3000 REALLY?

Part Dismantle engine to get to damaged parts. Rebuild the dismantled engine , remove interior of boat (seats , panels, roof lining, dashboard, etc) Boat is 11 meters and fly-bridge so over 2 floors.


The cost of the claim is not in dispute, the engineer who came out to inspect after the quote was submitted agreed that the labour / time needed is correct.


But ye, if you can do that much cheaper you can do the work if your qualified to do so?



Loads of room if you fancy doing the work without taking the engine apart ?

 

[petem]

Still waiting for the OP to post the precise wording of the exclusion, however I suspect the insurer is trying it on (a bit naughty I think).

However some observations from me in the mean time...

1) I'd hazard a guess (>60%) that a large proportion of the motor yacht fires (I've seen quite a few new and used Sunseekers reported hereabouts over the years) were caused by latent defects. Have the insurers really refused to pay out in these cases?

2) Latent defect exclusions are there to prevent insurance policies from becoming surrogate manufacturers warranties. IMHO the purpose of them in leisure insurance is not to excluded fire risks.

3) Can a latent defect become a patent defect? If the OP's father discoverd the electrical fault immediately before the fire is is a latent or patent defect (doesn't really matter due to 1) and 2) above)?!?!

Pete

 

[mattysupra]

Still waiting for the OP to post the precise wording of the exclusion, however I suspect the insurer is trying it on (a bit naughty I think).

However some observations from me in the mean time...

1) I'd hazard a guess (>60%) that a large proportion of the motor yacht fires (I've seen quite a few new and used Sunseekers reported hereabouts over the years) were caused by latent defects. Have the insurers really refused to pay out in these cases?

2) Latent defect exclusions are there to prevent insurance policies from becoming surrogate manufacturers warranties. IMHO the purpose of them in leisure insurance is not to excluded fire risks.

3) Can a latent defect become a patent defect? If the OP's father discoverd the electrical fault immediately before the fire is is a latent or patent defect (doesn't really matter due to 1) and 2) above)?!?!

Pete

the exact wording is posted up on the first page ? (in photo) or do you mean the whole policy ?

Problem with linking to whole policy is the insurance company name is on the download that im not going to name at the moment.



as for latent defect and boat specific, i believe that all models of boat the same as my dads have never suffered from fire damage before. I think all are still in service with no issues.