petem
Well-known member
Sorry, missed the screen shot due to viewing on iPod!
insurance claim refused !
- Thread starter mattysupra
- Start date
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
It's because you are a new user, so your posts are held for the mods to review and release. They don't work on the weekends so your posts aren't being reviewed until the next working day. I imagine you won't have to post many more times to get to the end of the manual moderation.
Cheers
Jimmy
maby
Well-known member
I guess that part of your problem is that you managed to extinguish the fire before it destroyed the boat!
Compare your sitution with an equivalent event in a car - the alternator overheats and catches fire, you quickly manage to pop the bonnet and blast it with a fire extinguisher, putting it out and leaving you with a charred alternator and some damage to the attached wiring loom. Would your insurance company pay out? Probably not - they would say that it was a mecanical fault and was between you, the manufacturer and, possibly, the garage that conducted the most recent overhaul. If, on the other hand, you had not managed to extinguish it and the car had burned out, then they would have paid up.
Compare your sitution with an equivalent event in a car - the alternator overheats and catches fire, you quickly manage to pop the bonnet and blast it with a fire extinguisher, putting it out and leaving you with a charred alternator and some damage to the attached wiring loom. Would your insurance company pay out? Probably not - they would say that it was a mecanical fault and was between you, the manufacturer and, possibly, the garage that conducted the most recent overhaul. If, on the other hand, you had not managed to extinguish it and the car had burned out, then they would have paid up.
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
Some folks might have missed your photo of the letter because of the manual moderation issue.
What's the boat and the engine?
Cheers
Jimmy
Thepipdoc
New member
Th engine looks like a Volvo KAD32.
Boat? No idea!
Last edited:
Thepipdoc
New member
Then again...... maybe not!
mattysupra
Member
Last edited:
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
Kad42,
boat, ......lets no worry about make of boat just yet
Aha. It looks like the mods have taken the brakes off your posts. Welcome to the forum.
Cheers
Jimmy
mattysupra
Member
daft really, you save the insurance company a fortune and they do this poop to you.
What do you think the outcome would of been if the boat burnt and sank, they lift boat out of water and trace the fault back to same problem? does that mean that i would have a totally destroyed boat now?
jfm
Well-known member
Having now read the insurer's letter and the relevant clause in the policy (see above), and assuming the description of the fault as given in that letter is broadly accurate (I have nothing else to go on and haven't seen the boat myself!) the insurers are correct and you are not covered.
The damage is only to the engine and electrical gear; had there been damage to other parts of the boat you would be covered for that damage. But you are not covered for damage to the engine and electrics
The damage is only to the engine and electrical gear; had there been damage to other parts of the boat you would be covered for that damage. But you are not covered for damage to the engine and electrics
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
Kad42,
boat, ......lets no worry about make of boat just yet
Looks more like a KAMD42 to me...
Cheers
Jimmy
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
Do you have any more detail about what actually caused the loom to catch fire - chafed or badly routed conductor or something?
Cheers
Jimmy
petem
Well-known member
Not sure I agree JFM. What made the feed to the starter motor suddenly become live (may not be a Latent Defect). Also to take your post to a logical extreme, should the boat have sunk due to a Latent Defect with the hull would the damage to the engines be excluded?
mattysupra
Member
ye, im now a post master LOL
mattysupra
Member
what would be the point in having insurance ? everything can be blamed on a latent defect?
petem
Well-known member
JFM I note that Pantaenious Policy wording would not exclude the OP's loss.
mattysupra
Member
now i can post with out a Mod que, like to say thankyou to all that has helped with info. Reading through all the posts and some great help. thanks.
This forum needs a 'Thanks' button !
This forum needs a 'Thanks' button !
jfm
Well-known member
So what? He has the policy that he has
jfm
Well-known member
Eh? Are you for real?
jfm
Well-known member
Perfectly true. If the proximate cause was not a latent defect then he's covered. But I specifically said in my reply that I was taking the insurer's statement of facts as correct, because we have nothing else to go on. (As usual with these posts we only get half the facts).
