Marina collision

[WoodyP]

It is up to them to show that you were negligent and caused the damage. ask for evidence and in the meantime prepare your "defence" by writing up an account including any illustrations of your position.

You may well find robustly putting the onus on them will stop them in their tracks.

Remember a third party claim is against you, not your insurer - the insurer is there to indemnify you against the claim, but first the third party has to prove you were negligent and caused the damage.

I don't think negligence is an issue. The only question is did you cause the damage. I freely admitted that I had stove in a plank when trying to manoeuvre in a fast flowing river. I felt awful, but the owner of a beautiful classic repaired it and charged me the princely sum of £60. Some years ago, but I have never forgotten the lesson, both in terms of boat handling and in being honest. Up till then I had dealt with numerous compensation claims as a valuer, and doubted everything.

 

[Tranona]

I don't think negligence is an issue. The only question is did you cause the damage. I freely admitted that I had stove in a plank when trying to manoeuvre in a fast flowing river. I felt awful, but the owner of a beautiful classic repaired it and charged me the princely sum of £60. Some years ago, but I have never forgotten the lesson, both in terms of boat handling and in being honest. Up till then I had dealt with numerous compensation claims as a valuer, and doubted everything.

The word "negligence" is not used in the everyday sense but means that you caused the damage which would not have happened if you had taken a different course of action. So you were negligent because your action caused you to hit the other boat and damage ensued.

 

[WoodyP]

The word "negligence" is not used in the everyday sense but means that you caused the damage which would not have happened if you had taken a different course of action. So you were negligent because your action caused you to hit the other boat and damage ensued.

I think it is an absolute liability regardless of intent or cocking up.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Just maybe the 'other boats' owner is just trying to make something of it all, to his financial rewards ?

Guess if the 'other boat owner' wants a dry dock paid for by someone else then he just might be trying it on

Guess that Photographic evidence is require all the way through this saga , of possible deceipt ?

 

[xyachtdave]

How did you get off the powerboat that you were pinned on by the tide?

Sounds like a messy/difficult manoeuvre to extract the boat with some potential for damage to the other vessel.

 

[Quadriga]

Tide eased so backed out of berth. Possible horizontal scuff which will probably polish out.

 

[[3889]]

I think it is an absolute liability regardless of intent or cocking up.

Not in English law. You are only liable under the tort of negligence, which is the only route to a legal remedy in this instance, if a) you owe a duty of care to the injured party (b) the injured party suffered a loss and (c) your actions were below the standard of a reasonably competent person in that situation.
Classic case is a washing machine flooding the property below: Conditions a & b are met but there is no claim for negligence as condition c cannot usually be proven to the civil standard.

 

[Tranona]

Well put. A relevant example that came up here (and in the press) a few years ago involved a boat breaking free of its mooring in a storm and causing damage to another boat. The damaged boat was not insured all risks .so claimed from the owner of the wayward boat. Claim failed, again on (c) as the mooring was laid according to the harbour authority's standard, had recently been inspected and the strop was new and of appropriate type. In other words the owner had done everything he could to keep the boat secure.

Important lesson is think carefully before insuring third party only. However, difficult call when many boats have low monetary value (as in this case) and even relatively minor repairs can exceed the value of the boat. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to insure all risks on lower value older boats without a survey, rig replacement etc. When claiming on a third party the only obligation is to put you back in the position you were before the event whereas all risks usually offers more under the policy which is covered by contract law. Often the third party insurer will offer a cash settlement rather than pay for the repairs.

 

[dom]

Well put. A relevant example that came up here (and in the press) a few years ago involved a boat breaking free of its mooring in a storm and causing damage to another boat. The damaged boat was not insured all risks .so claimed from the owner of the wayward boat. Claim failed, again on (c) as the mooring was laid according to the harbour authority's standard, had recently been inspected and the strop was new and of appropriate type. In other words the owner had done everything he could to keep the boat secure.

Important lesson is think carefully before insuring third party only. However, difficult call when many boats have low monetary value (as in this case) and even relatively minor repairs can exceed the value of the boat. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to insure all risks on lower value older boats without a survey, rig replacement etc. When claiming on a third party the only obligation is to put you back in the position you were before the event whereas all risks usually offers more under the policy which is covered by contract law. Often the third party insurer will offer a cash settlement rather than pay for the repairs.

Indeed, and it’s why a person is only liable for damage caused by a tree falling from their property onto a neighbour’s to the extent that the damage was caused by poor maintenance or other negligence.

However, smack another vessel in a marina while in command of one‘s boat and I’d have thought it quite tricky to avoid a claim. Except in some pretty extravagant circumstances?

 

[lustyd]

smack another vessel in a marina

OP said they lay alongside the other vessel. That’s very different to smacking something, especially when the claim is for damage to the stern!

 

[Blue Sunray]

OP said they lay alongside the other vessel. That’s very different to smacking something, especially when the claim is for damage to the stern!

I feel that might be a term the the other boat owner would dispute.

 

[Tranona]

However, smack another vessel in a marina while in command of one‘s boat and I’d have thought it quite tricky to avoid a claim. Except in some pretty extravagant circumstances?

Then condition (b) applies - that the damage was caused by the third party action. The OP does not dispute that there was contact between the two boats, nor that it was his fault. His dispute is that the claimed damage to the engines and drives was caused by this contact.

 

[lustyd]

I feel that might be a term the the other boat owner would dispute.

They can dispute it all they like, the simple fact is that they have to show that damage was done by the OP if they'd like the conversation to go anywhere, otherwise they're just harassing someone needlessly.

 

[dom]

They can dispute it all they like, the simple fact is that they have to show that damage was done by the OP if they'd like the conversation to go anywhere, otherwise they're just harassing someone needlessly.

You may be missing the play here

 

[Bristolfashion]

Don't enter into any negotiations or discussion. Don't admit any liability or discuss the incident. Refer the lot to your insurer with a full description, diagram, witnesses and so on.

 

[lustyd]

You may be missing the play here

How so? Our society doesn't allow for people to make unsubstantiated claims against others, and we're under no obligation to respond to such allegations.

 

[dom]

How so? Our society doesn't allow for people to make unsubstantiated claims against others, and we're under no obligation to respond to such allegations.

If you are notified of a claim — in this case a fairly serious one encompassing a boat lift for inspection and alleged engine damage — it is sensible and possibly a policy requirement to inform the insurance company.

Legal eagling around with notions of natural justice is frankly nuts!

The OP should just explain to his ins co. what happened, including the claim, while making crystal clear that no liability is accepted.

 

[lustyd]

Only if the claim comes with some kind of justification. I certainly wouldn't speak to my insurance company just because someone wanted me to pay for their boat repairs. Step one is to get them to explain how a boat alongside theirs managed to cause damage to their stern. It's entirely possible that the OP did cause the damage, and if that's the case someone should be able to explain how. If they can't then there's nothing to answer so no point in calling the insurance co who will increase premiums just at the mention of an incident.

 

[dom]

Only if the claim comes with some kind of justification. I certainly wouldn't speak to my insurance company just because someone wanted me to pay for their boat repairs. Step one is to get them to explain how a boat alongside theirs managed to cause damage to their stern. It's entirely possible that the OP did cause the damage, and if that's the case someone should be able to explain how. If they can't then there's nothing to answer so no point in calling the insurance co who will increase premiums just at the mention of an incident.

Not as much as if you hide it or attempt some DIY defence!!

Read the policy and comply with the terms is the only sensible advice here.

Which almost certainly means reporting the mishap.

 

[Capt Popeye]

OP said they lay alongside the other vessel. That’s very different to smacking something, especially when the claim is for damage to the stern!

I feel that might be a term the the other boat owner would dispute.

Surely the Boat leaving and the boat moored up BOTH had their fenders out, as is wise plus almost obligatory I would have said if berthed up or starting any movements or possitioning

A simple reasoning is this - not wearing fenders when moored up, is just asking for trouble