Who's talking about hiding or defending? Unless and until there is a credible claim do nothing. Once the other party explains why there is a real case then contact insurance. Until they can sensibly explain themselves there's nothing to actually report.
As far as I can tell the OP didn't believe any damage was caused and doesn't think there's a reasonable claim, so this clause doesn't apply. If you think this means call the insurer every time your boat touches something other than water you'd be very busy indeed!
Not at all, it's perfectly normal for boats to rest against other boats. If the OP had stoved in the topsides with an anchor I'd agree. If the claim was damage to the topsides I might agree. The damage is to an area they could not have reached to cause it, that deserves some explanation before it's taken seriously.
My thoughts as well. The fact that the OP is "being pursued for damaging the powerboat" must constitute an 'event that may give rise to a claim'.
Dom is correct. See Section M Claims in the attached. As you can see you should notify your insurer IF there is a likelihood of a claim. That is clearly the case in the OP's situation, but of course not in all situations where an incident occurs.
Yes I know Dom was correct that the clause is there. The interpretation of it is overzealous though. If you perform a manoevre which requires you to rest against another boat and you do not cause damage, that does not imply there may be a claim. If some nut decides they will use the excuse of you touching their boat to pursue you for a repair you have nothing to do with, again no reason to speak to insurer.
Yes, but if there is no basis for being pursued then a claim isn’t likely. That should be established first.
That is your opinion, and I leaned towards it initially. However the other party has indicated that he is investigating the damage which will incur costs, so in my view this moves it from a being just an incident to one where there is a likelihood of a claim. The OP has nothing to lose from advising his insurer - unless he proposes to meet any claim himself.
The other party is quite free to investigate the damage to their boat. Unless they can explain how that damage might have been caused by a third party though, there is no potential claim. I'm not saying anyone should argue, I'm just saying that before there is a chance of a claim there needs to be an explanation as to how the OP might have been involved. The damage was to a part of the boat that was not accessible, and there doesn't seem to be evidence of when the damage occured. That rings some very loud bullshit alarm bells for me. Once an explanation is forthcoming, then of course you'd want to contact your insurance.
Yes I can see that, thanks. Unless there is an explanation of how the OP caused the damage though the answer is still the same. A claim may be brought if there is a possibility that OP caused damage. Currently there is not. I could throw all kinds of unfounded accusations at you, that's no reason for you to willingly raise your own premiums!
Well if you was driving a car , you did a hit and run , WHY DID YOU NOT GO BACK.
If a motor boat hit you , what would you want.
I scraped a small amount of topside paint off an old wooden yacht (I wouldn't have called it a classic but it was obviously well-loved) during a badly thought-out manouvre. I traced the owner, wrote to him apologising and asked him to inspect his boat and let me know what damage there was. I received a charming reply saying the damage was too trivial to worry about.