insurance claim refused !

[jfm]

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?

Yes. The clause is clear. If the proximate cause is LD to these parts of the boat then insurance cover for damage to electrics and engines is within the exclusion in that clause. Whether the policy pays out is another matter - I'm only talking about the clause we have seen on this thread.

There's no point complaining at this stage in the proceedings. You have to read the policy then decide if you're happy with the risk transfers stipulated in it. You've already said that there is at least one product on the market (Pantaenius) who don't make this exclusion, so one pays ones money and takes ones choice. As you know I insure with Pantaenius, pay the extra, and don't have all this tomfoolery. You can't pay lemonade prices and expect champagne

And as you know Pete I'm coming from the side of the consumer. There's no love lost between me and insurance companies and I have personally extracted literally millions of pounds out of them on disputed claims for myself and other forumites. As a general comment, I've found them to be shysters. But the clauses are the clauses and in some cases insurers are right to reject claims.

 

[petem]

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).

The classification of the cause as a Latent Defect is not a fact it is an opinion made by the insurer based on their surveyors report.

 

[[2068]]

The classification of the cause as a Latent Defect is not a fact it is an opinion made by the insurer based on their surveyors report.

I think you'd need another (your own) surveyors report to find an infestation of "loom boring caterpillars" to challenge that.

 

[Steve Clayton]

I think you'd need another (your own) surveyors report to find an infestation of "loom boring caterpillars" to challenge that.

OOhhhh NNOOOO!!

Exclusion:
3.4.5 damage caused by insects or marine life

 

[[2068]]

OOhhhh NNOOOO!!

Exclusion:
3.4.5 damage caused by insects or marine life

Ye gods, what DOES this policy cover?

 

[Steve Clayton]

Ye gods, what DOES this policy cover?

As a sailing vessel then if racing you are not insured if you collide with any object other than water

 

[ari]

So what are your thoughts about this? Does that mean none of you have insurance if there is a fault on board that causes the fire? after all its all factory fitted wiring, the boat is maintained by a marina , If you was to have a new fridge installed and a fault came and it set fire does that mean your not insured?


Comments please!

I thought the point about latent defects was that the actual defect isn't covered, but normally consequential damage is.

So for example, if the engine in your car seizes one day whilst ticking over on the drive, you wouldn't expect your insurance company to pay for it to be fixed because it's a mechanical fault.

However if it seized suddenly on the motorway and you crashed as a result, you'd expect the car to be repaired. But not the engine that seized as they don't cover mechanical failure (as above), just the results of a crash.

So in the situation of the electrical fire, if the wiring failed that's not really the insurances job to pay for. However the damage that it causes is (clearly if the boat had burned to the waterline you'd expect a payout cos that's what insurance is for).

I'm no expert, but that's how it was explained to me.

 

[fireball]

I thought the point about latent defects was that the actual defect isn't covered, but normally consequential damage is.

So for example, if the engine in your car seizes one day whilst ticking over on the drive, you wouldn't expect your insurance company to pay for it to be fixed because it's a mechanical fault.

However if it seized suddenly on the motorway and you crashed as a result, you'd expect the car to be repaired. But not the engine that seized as they don't cover mechanical failure (as above), just the results of a crash.

So in the situation of the electrical fire, if the wiring failed that's not really the insurances job to pay for. However the damage that it causes is (clearly if the boat had burned to the waterline you'd expect a payout cos that's what insurance is for).

I'm no expert, but that's how it was explained to me.

The OP's insurance has the following clause:

3.14 loss or damage to engine(s), gearbox(es), electrical machinery, electrical equipment, batteries and connections resulting from:
<snip>
3.14.2 Latent Defect in the Vessel

So - no matter the Latent Defect - if it has caused damage to engine, gearbox, electrical machinery, electrical equipment, batteries or connections - that damage is not covered under the OPs insurance. I would take that to include water damage due to flooding from a failed seacock - so long as the failure could be described as "Latent Defect" ...

I think the OPs best course of action (assuming he wishes to be insured for the 5k cost!) would be to find a way of proving that the cause wasn't "Latent Defect"

 

[ari]

Wow, interesting. Speaking as someone who never actually reads the small print (yes, I know I should), that's an eye opener..!

 

[Thepipdoc]

I thought the point about latent defects was that the actual defect isn't covered, but normally consequential damage is.

So for example, if the engine in your car seizes one day whilst ticking over on the drive, you wouldn't expect your insurance company to pay for it to be fixed because it's a mechanical fault.

However if it seized suddenly on the motorway and you crashed as a result, you'd expect the car to be repaired. But not the engine that seized as they don't cover mechanical failure (as above), just the results of a crash.

So in the situation of the electrical fire, if the wiring failed that's not really the insurances job to pay for. However the damage that it causes is (clearly if the boat had burned to the waterline you'd expect a payout cos that's what insurance is for).

I'm no expert, but that's how it was explained to me.

This makes sense to me!

This is a dreadful situation that could have been disasterous.
I'm off to checlk my policy document now!!

 

[maby]

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?

true, but it is common to many insurance policies. If your washing machine catches overheats and is damaged beyond repair, your household policies probably do not apply. If it catches fire and, in the process, triggers the destruction of the house, then you are covered. Your case is a little more complex - one item in the engine bay failed and, in the process, caused damage to a limited number of other items. I'm sure you cannot claim for the original failure - you may be able to claim for the other components that went down in the process...

 

[petem]

IMHO there are two courses of action open to the OP.

1) Prove that the Latent Defect was not a Latent Defect. As I said earlier, if there had been a defect for many years, what made the wire to the starter motor suddenly become live? This might still be a proximate cause argument but I would be interested to know the answer.

2) Demonstrate that the exclusion in the contract is unreasonable. I would argue this on three points..
a) The purpose of Latent Defect exclusions is to prevent the insurance policy from becoming some king of manufacturers warranty. It is the norm for damage to other parts of a vessel to be covered in the event of a claim arising from a Latent Defect (you'd need to check a few other insurers policy wordings to illustrate this.
b) As I said earlier the notion that damage to engines, wiring and machinery is ecluded due to Latent Defects that are completely unrelated to these components is ridiculous.
c) The key features document does not make any mention of Latent Defect exclusion (which taking the policy literally would mean that a large propotion of the vessel (the engines and machinery) is not covered if the claim was due to a Latent Defect (which I would argue is an extremely common risk).

 

[ari]

Your case is a little more complex - one item in the engine bay failed and, in the process, caused damage to a limited number of other items. I'm sure you cannot claim for the original failure - you may be able to claim for the other components that went down in the process...

Which was my thinking, but it's been pointed out that the policy says differently.

 

[Steve Clayton]

I think the OPs best course of action (assuming he wishes to be insured for the 5k cost!) would be to find a way of proving that the cause wasn't "Latent Defect"

...and to question the representation made by the insurance co's surveyor that the fire was caused due to a Latent Defect. If the wiring loom is burnt-out then how can this be confirmed as such without reasonable doubt?

 

[benjenbav]

I might have missed something - I've only skimmed this thread - but I haven't seen any reference to how old the boat is or when and from whom it was bought. For example, if the boat is a six month old fairprinseeker bought direct from the manufacturer, an immediate alternative to an insurance claim springs to mind.

I think I may be moving my insurance to Haven Knox Johnson when I take delivery of my next vessel as that is likely to be nuclear-powered.

 

[neale]

If it's got a KAMD42 engine it is not going to be 6 months old. I would guess more like 10+ years.

 

[Steve Clayton]

If it's got a KAMD42 engine it is not going to be 6 months old. I would guess more like 10+ years.

The piccie in post #38 (woodwork and the corner brace) supports your guess

 

[fireball]

If it's got a KAMD42 engine it is not going to be 6 months old. I would guess more like 10+ years.

In which case I would ask if there was a date/time limitation to Latent Defects claims against the builder - or installer if the boat has been re-engined.

I suspect that the initial fault was caused by vibration wearing away some insulation - resulting in an electrical short that was not protected by any fuse - resulting in the overheating and melting of more insulation and eventual fire.
Should this be the case (and it's only a guess) then would it be reasonable to regard this as a "latent defect" ... ? All it would require is for a cable tie or anti-chaff material to fail for the subsequent "fault" to occur ... at this point is it reasonable to define that failure as latent defect?
Surely there is (practically) nothing in this world designed to last forever - so it will (without preventative maintenance) fail at some point ...

 

[Philiz]

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.

That's a different situation, mechanical failure rather than latent defect. The insurers would (should) pay for any resultant damage, but not for the item which caused the fire. I say should, because in many such situations, whilst there is a lot of smoke during such an event, there isn't actually a fire. Many insurers motto is 'no flame, no claim'

 

[Philiz]

I don't quite understand why this matter is such an issue, from the letter they sent they seem to be under the impression the damage is limited to the wiring loom which caused the 'fire'. From the estimate provided this doesn't seem to be the case. As previously stated, the insurers are not liable for the cause, be it latent defect or component failure, but they may well pay for the resulting damage. Unfortunately, in this particular case, the majority of the repair costs appear to relate to the wiring loom and the labour invloved in replacing it.

However, I would press the insurers surveyor to state precisely what the fault was within the wiring loom which caused the feed wire to become live. It may well be the initial fault arose within an electrical component, solonoid, relay etc. thereby causing the wire to become live and overheat the loom. Definite proof is needed, as previously said, get someone in who knows what they're talking about, preferable a consultant engineer with phorensic expertise.