Iron filings all over Play d'eau

[jfm]

Marine & General came to inspect Play d'eau today after speaking with Fleming's GRP specialist. They've tested one area and want to wait to see if any further rust staining returns by Monday. After this, they will complete an estimate.

I'm guessing that M&G are either your insurer or the marina/anglegrinderguys insurers. Don't make the mistake of letting the potentially limited terms of any insurance contract get in the way of your potentially wider tortious claim against the anglegrinderguys and your combined contractual/tortious claim against the marina. In other words it may be appropriate not to give much of a damn what the insurance bod says. Good luck anyways.

 

[petem]

I'm guessing that M&G are either your insurer or the marina/anglegrinderguys insurers. Don't make the mistake of letting the potentially limited terms of any insurance contract get in the way of your potentially wider tortious claim against the anglegrinderguys and your combined contractual/tortious claim against the marina. In other words it may be appropriate not to give much of a damn what the insurance bod says. Good luck anyways.

Remind me not to hit your boat!

 

[CLB]

I'm guessing that M&G are either your insurer or the marina/anglegrinderguys insurers. Don't make the mistake of letting the potentially limited terms of any insurance contract get in the way of your potentially wider tortious claim against the anglegrinderguys and your combined contractual/tortious claim against the marina. In other words it may be appropriate not to give much of a damn what the insurance bod says. Good luck anyways.

M&G will be a maintenance type company, possibly one that Piers will use to rectify the issue. I would imagine that they will be providing a quote for the job, which Piers will use to beat someone around the head with

 

[jfm]

M&G will be a maintenance type company, possibly one that Piers will use to rectify the issue. I would imagine that they will be providing a quote for the job, which Piers will use to beat someone around the head with

ok fine if they're nothing to do with insurance. As I said, I was guessing.

 

[henryf]

Someone mentioned using a clay bar. Not sure I would recommend for this type of contamination. Ultimately the metal filings will stick in the clay bar and gouge the top surface. Clay bars are best used on contamination which "sands" away (all be it extremely finely), such as tree sap.

I would be extremely surprised if the metal filings have melted into the surface. They were carried by the wind whilst being blown cold. What will happen is that rust forms which sticks the filings to the surface and rust continues. Any of the proprietary anti rust potions should help loosen bond twixt filing and shiny surface and you can then wash away the filings.

I very much doubt the teak will be an issue as the filings can't bond to the wood in the same way they do a smooth surface.

Henry

 

[Marine Reflections]

An expensive mistake for the angle grinder guys.

I've often thought there was a product or system opportunity there.
In the same regard where an extraction unit catches dust particles, there doesn't seem to be a system/tool available for when using an angle grinder, other than tenting off the cutting location.
Any thoughts, invention ideas on how to catch/retain the particles?

Regards to the contamination on surfaces:

Iron x will indeed be an excellent product to dissolve particles; however, before moving onto polishing, you should check the surface for any particles that have been missed or are too well bonded or are difficult to see.

To do this, place your hand inside a plastic freezer type sandwich bag and feel the surface. Fingertips will become hyper-sensitive, and you would feel any bonded contaminants that are remaining.

For the reasons Henry pointed out, I wouldn't dive in with the clay bar first, although once safe to do so the use of a clay bar would be beneficial, as the follow-on is going to be polishing.

Any particles (including ones that are not iron) that are not dissolved by the Iron X may get caught up in the polishing heads, so as a last measure, a clay bar will 'pull' particles that are bonded from the surface. The risk is there, but as the particle recedes into the profile of the clay only a small percentage of the particle is allowed to mark. As being polished, it is a lesser evil than attempting to wipe with a cloth or agitate out.
That said the method to use to first and foremost would be dissolving and without agitation.
Complete removal may mean several attempts, checking using the sandwich bag method, before proceeding to the next stage.
Complete one test area first.

It may be a precautionary measure to photograph the surface reflection defect level currently, to ensure the finished reflection meets the mark.
By doing this, you will ensure that the polished surface hasn't micro scratches or marring due to not following the above.
Take a picture at night, with a torch pointed directly at the surface. The light will hit any defects and run along them like a spider's web.
There will probably be some, even if the surfaces are near perfect now, but at least you will have a before and after and can gauge a difference.

Tony

 

[Piers]

I'm guessing that M&G are either your insurer or the marina/anglegrinderguys insurers. Don't make the mistake of letting the potentially limited terms of any insurance contract get in the way of your potentially wider tortious claim against the anglegrinderguys and your combined contractual/tortious claim against the marina. In other words it may be appropriate not to give much of a damn what the insurance bod says. Good luck anyways.

The current position is that Traffords have yet to hear from the insurers. Furthermore, I am told that if the insurers do not want to pursue the claim against the third party, I will lose my excess even though I am the innocent party. Really?

 

[Portofino]

Depends on your policy.
Mine states any claim arising when the boats in its marina home port berth I have no excess .
Also got a protected NCD .like a car policy sales pitch .
I have been with Coleman’s in Poole and have a Martello policy ,which I think is a derivative of the Sunseeker shield for ex Sunseeker owners .
I think they Coleman’s are big enough to write there own policies? Or have enough trust from the master underwriter s to not have to keep going to and throw with questions- something like that .
Ie not just flogging a repacked policy off the self from a 3rd party -
JFM will no dought know the technical term to what I have ( poorly? ) described
No connection.

 

[ari]

The current position is that Traffords have yet to hear from the insurers. Furthermore, I am told that if the insurers do not want to pursue the claim against the third party, I will lose my excess even though I am the innocent party. Really?

I\m possibly being a little naive/confused, but why are your insurers even involved?

Should it not be the case that you ask Beaucette Marina to fix/pay for fix of issue, and they can choose to claim off their contractor, and that contractor off his insurance (or not - but makes no difference to you either way).

And even if you have gone through your insurer and there is an excess to pay, shouldn't the guilty party be paying it?

Short version, you've done nothing wrong, the marina need to be making sure that you are not out of pocket and resolving the issue that is their responsibility surely?

 

[Piers]

The current position is that Traffords have yet to hear from the insurers. Furthermore, I am told that if the insurers do not want to pursue the claim against the third party, I will lose my excess even though I am the innocent party. Really?

...and I'm now told I'll lose my no claims bonus as well! This surely cannot be right.

 

[CCJ]

...and I'm now told I'll lose my no claims bonus as well! This surely cannot be right.

PM to JFM pdq

 

[Pinnacle]

PM to JFM pdq

+1

 

[Poignard]

I\m possibly being a little naive/confused, but why are your insurers even involved?

Should it not be the case that you ask Beaucette Marina to fix/pay for fix of issue, and they can choose to claim off their contractor, and that contractor off his insurance (or not - but makes no difference to you either way).

And even if you have gone through your insurer and there is an excess to pay, shouldn't the guilty party be paying it?

Short version, you've done nothing wrong, the marina need to be making sure that you are not out of pocket and resolving the issue that is their responsibility surely?

That makes sense. The yard has a duty of care and they are in breach of it.

 

[Portofino]

I,am guessing Piers has dicided to go through his own insurer.
Guessing because of the daisy chain of contractors- marina + add as many others as you wish , it’s gonna take too long and the Piers sees via his insurance a quick solution so the boat can be active ASAP .
I doubt ( no doubt JFM will correct me :encouragement it’s worth after settling and repairing through your own it’s worth pursuing some sort of civil action from which ever ONE you think you can lay the blame for a few bucks of excess or lost NCD ,because given time and process the others would have coughed up - if given a chance .
I await to be shot down

 

[CCJ]

I,am guessing Piers has dicided to go through his own insurer.
Guessing because of the daisy chain of contractors- marina + add as many others as you wish , it’s gonna take too long and the Piers sees via his insurance a quick solution so the boat can be active ASAP .
I doubt ( no doubt JFM will correct me :encouragement it’s worth after settling and repairing through your own it’s worth pursuing some sort of civil action from which ever ONE you think you can lay the blame for a few bucks of excess or lost NCD ,because given time and process the others would have coughed up - if given a chance .
I await to be shot down

Surely thats what the OPs insurers would do , chase the claim to where it belongs

 

[Portofino]

Surely thats what the OPs insurers would do , chase the claim to where it belongs

Agree for the bulk payout portion the repair , to put back there loss , for there client Piers ,but not so sure for the excess or reinstalling the NCD ,unless the policy says so .

That’s somtimes the dilemma instructing your own ins Co to deal with it on your policy ,then your policy terms kick in .
You end up stumping up the excess and may suffer a loss re NCD later down the line @ renewal time .

As I said I think I,am coverd on my policy on a claim ( excess is waived as is any fall back on NCD ) while the boats perched on its nominated home berth .Buts that not helpful here .
Think that’s if any damage by unknown 3 rd parties -

Sounds like Piers excess applies here .
It’s those losses your excess and what ever if you can calculate it - your loss of NCD ,Piers will be out of pocket ,that’s what I mean,t he would have to seek redress through civil action ,if he can or his legal team can figure out who’s the softest target of the offenders ..Not worth it imho .

Or he just guns for the angle grinder guy or the marina , who settle and then seek redress from there insurers - if they want ! - That’s not Piers problem .
Perhaps keeping his Co informed if he wants , or even not bothering them at all in the first place .If the “ offender “ comes clean and expeditiously deals with it quickly to Piers time scale .

Happy to be slaughtered by JFM on this

 

[petem]

Porto, I'm sure JFM is loading his gun as we speak.

In Piers' case, I suspect it will boil down to whether he is happy for someone else to be organizing and overseeing the repair work. With such a fine and meticulously maintained boat as his, I would be surprised if he let someone else do this.

Plus he still has the hassle of recovering his uninsured losses.

 

[jfm]

I think I listed my views above. As ever with threads like this, there is quite a lot of mixed up thinking and random insertion of completely misunderstood points. Eg the statement "duty of care" above - how on earth can Twisterowner possibly know that there exists a DoC when he has not read the marina berthing contract ffs? It's just total cr@p as you find on internet forums.

This is the logical analysis imho:

1. Form a view whether the Marina is liable to you in tort or in contract or both. I'd expect this contract will be at least as relevant in terms of how it limits their obligations (including tortious ones) as it will be in establishing their obligations. No-one can comment sensibly without reading the contract.
2. Piers has no contract obviously with the steelworks firm so they can be liable for negligence in tort only. Form a view whether they are - it sounds like they are but devil is in detail as regards negligence.
3. Then claim from one or both of 1+2 as the case may be, provided you form a view that they have liability to you. First by letter, then by letter before action, then issue proceedings. Don't faff - this is what you should do with any claim situation like this. Realise you are taking risks with regards to costs in any case like this that proceeds to litigation, but Guernsey's equivalent of the UK small claims track, called the "petty debts" court, offers downside risk protection on costs quite similar to the UK small claims track and has the same £10k cut off.
4. Inform your own insurers but tell them the claim against them will only materialise if #3 fails
5. Be courteous to the insurers of 1+2 if they want to inspect, but cut off anyone who suggests that the terms of 1+2's 3P liability insurance is even remotely relevant - it isn't. Don't negotiate or correspond with their insurers - they are nothing to do with Piers
6. Throughout, remember you're under Guernsey law, but on the above points it is pretty similar to England+Wales law (enforcement of debt is rather different, if it comes to that)

In general, people dance to much too the tune of insurers in these cases, imho. Someone else has busted your boat, they might be liable, decide whether they are (by reference to the contract in the case of the marina), and if yes pursue them robustly. If that fails or you decide not to do it, then claim on your own insurance but understand that will, if the terms of the insurance contract that you freely entered into so provide, result in loss of NCD, payment of excess, etc.

 

[Portofino]

Phew a reprieve

 

[Blue Sunray]

I think I listed my views above. As ever with threads like this, there is quite a lot of mixed up thinking and random insertion of completely misunderstood points. Eg the statement "duty of care" above - how on earth can Twisterowner possibly know that there exists a DoC when he has not read the marina berthing contract ffs? It's just total cr@p as you find on internet forums.

This is the logical analysis imho:

1. Form a view whether the Marina is liable to you in tort or in contract or both. I'd expect this contract will be at least as relevant in terms of how it limits their obligations (including tortious ones) as it will be in establishing their obligations. No-one can comment sensibly without reading the contract.
2. Piers has no contract obviously with the steelworks firm so they can be liable for negligence in tort only. Form a view whether they are - it sounds like they are but devil is in detail as regards negligence.
3. Then claim from one or both of 1+2 as the case may be, provided you form a view that they have liability to you. First by letter, then by letter before action, then issue proceedings. Don't faff - this is what you should do with any claim situation like this. Realise you are taking risks with regards to costs in any case like this that proceeds to litigation, but Guernsey's equivalent of the UK small claims track, called the "petty debts" court, offers downside risk protection on costs quite similar to the UK small claims track and has the same £10k cut off.
4. Inform your own insurers but tell them the claim against them will only materialise if #3 fails
5. Be courteous to the insurers of 1+2 if they want to inspect, but cut off anyone who suggests that the terms of 1+2's 3P liability insurance is even remotely relevant - it isn't. Don't negotiate or correspond with their insurers - they are nothing to do with Piers
6. Throughout, remember you're under Guernsey law, but on the above points it is pretty similar to England+Wales law (enforcement of debt is rather different, if it comes to that)

In general, people dance to much too the tune of insurers in these cases, imho. Someone else has busted your boat, they might be liable, decide whether they are (by reference to the contract in the case of the marina), and if yes pursue them robustly. If that fails or you decide not to do it, then claim on your own insurance but understand that will, if the terms of the insurance contract that you freely entered into so provide, result in loss of NCD, payment of excess, etc.

:encouragement::encouragement::encouragement: