Legal : marina liabilities???

[Billjratt]

Anyone out there any experience of marina insurance claims?
If a boat suffers damage directly due to failure of poorly maintained pontoons, chains etc, is it right that the owner should be told to claim his own insurance?
Why should he/she lose no-claims bonus, have to pay first £500 (or whatever) and go through all the hassle involved.
surely, if we are paying for a service, it has to be fit for purpose, and failure is the responsibility of the provider.
Would the additional effect of extreme weather be taken into consideration?

Yours in anticipation,

 

[puddock]

Anyone out there any experience of marina insurance claims?
If a boat suffers damage directly due to failure of poorly maintained pontoons, chains etc, is it right that the owner should be told to claim his own insurance?
Why should he/she lose no-claims bonus, have to pay first £500 (or whatever) and go through all the hassle involved.
surely, if we are paying for a service, it has to be fit for purpose, and failure is the responsibility of the provider.
Would the additional effect of extreme weather be taken into consideration?

Yours in anticipation,

Ordinarily I would imagine there would be a "fit for purpose" liability - but as you ask about extreme weather...... god knows, I haven't a clue I am afraid. (though, what are "extremes" of weather in Scotland?).
Where your own warps etc good and fit for purpose? Was it damage to your own boat - and only yours? Did your boat damage someone elses? Did someone elses damage yours?

It's an excellent question and I will be following this thread.

 

[Bilgediver]

Anyone out there any experience of marina insurance claims?
If a boat suffers damage directly due to failure of poorly maintained pontoons, chains etc, is it right that the owner should be told to claim his own insurance?
Why should he/she lose no-claims bonus, have to pay first £500 (or whatever) and go through all the hassle involved.
surely, if we are paying for a service, it has to be fit for purpose, and failure is the responsibility of the provider.
Would the additional effect of extreme weather be taken into consideration?

Yours in anticipation,

Check the mooring contract?Terms and Conditions...I just received a copy of a contract where the boat owner was responsible for just about everything.

 

[Tranona]

Not surprising that the marina suggests you claim on your own insurance rather than theirs. Woudn't you?

Two strategies. First claim on your own insurance and let them fight the marina. Second ignore your insurance and claim direct on the marina. For the latter you have to be sure of the terms of your contract and that the damage was the direct result of their negligence.

Easy way out is the first as you don't have the hassle, but may have to pay the excess and suffer an increase in future premiums. However, you have paid for insurance so that your boat is covered and it is up to your insurers to recover from the marina.

Suggest you talk to your insurers as they will want the best outcome for you and them - not the marina.

 

[sarabande]

if you point out your concerns to the management, perhaps informally at first until they don't do anything about it, then by letter) they have responsibility, and hence liability (unless there is something terribly small in the contract.

I know of a marina where the new pontoons have a stainless screw in the middle of each plank. About 1 in 5 of these works loose, and could rip open your bare foot. The marina goes round tightening them up, but heat and movement undoes them. They know there's a problem, try to fix it, but it is a known, and unmitigated risk. If someone trips over the screw, or slashes a foot open, the marina will have to call on its insurance.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Surely he'd only lose his no-claims if his insurance company couldn't recover all their costs from the Marina or Marina's insurance company? I'm questioning rather than contradicting I hasten to point out.

 

[puddock]

So. where does duty of care come into this?

 

[wotayottie]

Surely he'd only lose his no-claims if his insurance company couldn't recover all their costs from the Marina or Marina's insurance company? I'm questioning rather than contradicting I hasten to point out.

It's no claim not no blame - and in any case they may well put up the gross premium even if they allow the ncb to continue. That's the pattern with motor insurance.

 

[Beadle]

I would guess its down to your contract with the marina.

You need to read all the small and very small and extra tiny print.

At a guess the contract will exclude any possible event short of abduction by aliens.

Trouble with such claims is that you get drawn into an upward spiral of cost of legal charges that lead into a sort of diminishing return situation.

Like Jerome K Jerome's man - who said if someone tried to steal his watch he would fight them to the death, but if someone threatened to sue him for the watch he would hand it over at once and think he had gotten of lightly.

Or words to that effect

 

[Fr J Hackett]

My berthing contract and agreements for lift out place all liability on my insurance, I discussed it once with them raising the issue of their liability in the case of their negligance and was effectivly told if you don't like it go elsewhere. However they moved my boat once moored it poorly and as a result I lost two fairleads and some toerail, they paid for the repairs! So I dont really know how they interpret their terms and conditions and have often (annually) thought whether they would stand the test of unfair contract.

 

[photodog]

I wonder if in fact that has established some sort of legal precedent....... did they make you sign anything acknowledging the repairs as "a goodwill gesture" or somesuch??

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I wonder if in fact that has established some sort of legal precedent....... did they make you sign anything acknowledging the repairs as "a goodwill gesture" or somesuch??

Nope, I arrived as is my want late one Friday night with a stinking cold in early January not having been to the boat for several weeks only to find that there was no pontoon or boats where they used to be quick enquiry of the night staff got me to the boomdocks to find the boat "tied up" with no springs surging several feet and sans fittings. Next morning found Mr Angry on his high horse at the desk berating the staff with you know who keeping her door firmly shut. Lots of pseudo legal threats from me got one of the yard staff down pics taken etc. A couple of days later got a phone call to say they had appointed someone to do the repairs, I went down the following week to make myself known to the contractor and "discuss" just what was required to put me in the position that I was in befor the incident and low and behold a couple of weeks later job done no more said no doccumentation. It was several years ago when I had the 27.

 

[photodog]

Next morning found Mr Angry on his high horse at the desk berating the staff with you know who keeping her door firmly shut. Lots of pseudo legal threats from me got one of the yard staff down pics taken etc. QUOTE]


I would have liked to seen that!

 

[Tranona]

That is different from damage caused when you have moored the boat. The marina was negligent because it moored your boat and you were right to claim from them. They will have third party insurance against negligence of their staff.

 

[clyst]

Next morning found Mr Angry on his high horse at the desk berating the staff with you know who keeping her door firmly shut. Lots of pseudo legal threats from me got one of the yard staff down pics taken etc. QUOTE]


I would have liked to seen that!

We have to talking PYH here and one celt and she who has left --------- Right ???

 

[Fr J Hackett]

That is different from damage caused when you have moored the boat. The marina was negligent because it moored your boat and you were right to claim from them. They will have third party insurance against negligence of their staff.

Yes as I say I am not sure where the dividing line is because the lift out agreement clearly puts the liabillity on the boat owner when there is little in reality that he has any control or responsibillity for. ie it would be defective workmanship or equipment if there was damage on liffting out for which it appears the liabillity is mine if I accept the contract. Unfair or what? That is why I am allways present when the marina lifts or requires my boat to be moved.

 

[Billjratt]

I am talking about various instances of poor/insufficient maintenance causing pontoons to break up in bad weather (but other newer pontoons survived) with boats attached...
and riser chains snapping in calm weather allowing boats to come ashore.
So definately a lack of investment in the preventive maint dept.
Will see what the documentation reveals.

 

[Tranona]

I am talking about various instances of poor/insufficient maintenance causing pontoons to break up in bad weather (but other newer pontoons survived) with boats attached...
and riser chains snapping in calm weather allowing boats to come ashore.
So definately a lack of investment in the preventive maint dept.
Will see what the documentation reveals.

I think the marina would almost certainly be liable for any damage caused to third parties by a failure of any of their fixtures or equipment. They cannot avoid that liability but you would have to prove that they were negligent in either failing to maintain it or using inadequate equipment.

If you have damage to your boat you should discuss with your insurance as to the best way of recovering your damage.

 

[Tranona]

Yes as I say I am not sure where the dividing line is because the lift out agreement clearly puts the liabillity on the boat owner when there is little in reality that he has any control or responsibillity for. ie it would be defective workmanship or equipment if there was damage on liffting out for which it appears the liabillity is mine if I accept the contract. Unfair or what? That is why I am allways present when the marina lifts or requires my boat to be moved.

As in my reply to the OP I do not think the yard can avoid liability for damage caused by their actions. They are just trying it on. The reality is that they are providing a professional service and if it goes wrong, sue them. Not only must their lifting equipment meet H&S requirements and be certified, so must the operators. They cannot get insurance unless they do so, never mind breaking the law.

Whatever you do, never interfere with the operator, give advice or dare I say it appear to be giving instructions to their employees, otherwise if things go wrong it will be difficult for you to claim against them successfully.

However, I think most marine policies cover when the boat is being hauled or lifted (mine does), so the first approach is to your insurer, who will in turn recover from the yards insurer if the yard was negligent.

 

[Billjratt]

I think you're assuming an annual/long term bertholder relationship when you mentiion small print.
I have been on many berths and moorings since setting off in May, and none of the receipts had indemnity clauses. I assume I am entering into a short-term contract when I pay for a night?