akegustavson
New Member
The patient died because the doctor had a party
or Perils of a small Pleasure Boat Insurance.
A small (< 8 m.) Swedish pleasure boat stranded, after receiving rig- and engine-breakdown, on a beach on Ibiza in a local and sudden thunderstorm, which even stranded 4 more boats during a few dramatic night hours. The accident was reported immediately to the proper authorities and to her Spanish Insurance Company MAPFRE, which in 1998 had valued the boat at the sum insured, in agreement with the boat owner.
MAPFRE promised immediate salvage operations.
Salvage operations were then delayed 6 days during which the boat bumped against the rocks on the beach by every wave and received more damages and also formed an evident danger to children and others playing on the beach.
Ibiza is a small island where you can get by car to any beach within 1 hour. MAPFRE´s surveyor was delayed 32 hours and startled by, immediately and without explanation, saying that the boat was insured at a very low value. The insured value for the 30 year old boat was well equivalent to the price of similar boats on the Spanish boat market and on Internet.
The delay was blamed on “fiestas y permisos”. Fax and telephone calls were in vain.
Not until a lawyer gave it a push did MAPFRE move its behind and set about the salvage.
The salvage was done incautiously and the transport was downright unprofessional. The boat then received additional damage. In spite of many accessible boat yards nearby, the boat was then transported from the far east end of the island to the western part and laid up in a boat yard, choosen by MAPFRE.
MAPFRE could now be sure that the repair costs would exceed ¾ of the insured value of the boat, and therefore could be declared by MAPFRE as a “total constructive loss”. The policy-holder asked for a professional survey to determine what damages were caused by the stranding and what damages were caused by the delay and the bad transport, beyond the control of the boat owner. MAPFRE only promised to submit a tender for the repairs the following day. Nothing more.
When the tender finally arrived, 24 days later, it was impudently high priced, and contained a claim for more than 1500 € for making the tender!
A comparison later with a well reputed boat yard on the mainland showed that the repairs could be done there with a 5 year guarantee for much less than half the price offered by the boat yard choosen by MAPFRE, and for under ¾ of the insured value. That tender was free.
54 days after the accident MAPFRE offered indemnity for “total constructive loss”. However, with very excessive deductions for salvage and transport. MAPFRE also informed the policy-holder that he still was owner of the boat and responsible for all present and future claims from the expensive boat yard.
MAPFRE had now managed to put the policy-holder in a real fix, without giving the policy-holder the slightest opportunity of choice. Powerless and shocked, but still in good faith, the policy-holder accepted MAPFRE´s stingy offer. A number of questions regarding the responsibilities for the damages caused by the delay and by those involved were sent to MAPFRE a couple of times.
Up to now nothing but a shameful silence is heard.
The policy-holder then consulted the consumer organisation OMIC in a futile effort to at least reduce the absurd tender. Various efforts were also made to sell the boat in existing condition.
On a visit to the island by car a few weeks later to pick up personal items from the boat, the boat-yard manager did not admit the policy-holder access to the boat.
A presumptive buyer was also not admitted to value the boat.
Taught by these experiences the policy-holder now offered the boat as a donation to the island´s local authorities as a training object for a trade school or other public institution.
Around 3 months later a retired insurance broker and friend told the policy-holder that he had probably been cheated by MAPFRE. In his opinion MAPFRE ought to be considered legal owner of the boat since the date of the accident and thus responsible for all subsequent costs, because the policy-holder had accepted and received indemnity for “total constructive loss”.
This seemed logical and a complaint was sent to MAPFRE, which resulted in a small sum of consolation, called “miscalculation”. It was rejected by the policy-holder.
A new complaint was then sent to “Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones” (DGS) together with copies of photos and all documents and a very detailed report of the course of events in broken Spanish.
The dreary answer from DGS showed that MAPFRE can legally classify a small pleasure boat insurance as a “high risk insurance” by the interpretation of the Spanish Law 50/1980, Art. 107.2. Thereby preventing the policy-holders from access to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes that have been developed across Europe.
Some other European insurance companies, obviously more reliable than MAPFRE, classify a small pleasure boat insurance more ethical as a common “damage insurance”, for instance as a vintage car insurance. The wording “high risk” is also hard to accept since most insurance companies are reinsured in a P & I Club. (Incidentally, more accidents happen to cars than to small pleasure boats, and the insured values are often comparable.)
By means of this Law interpretation MAPFRE can force the policy-holders to solve their disputes before a Court of Law, which can be very expensive, lengthy and tiring. Most people give in and pocket their pride.
In addition it seems like these boat owners also are prevented from access to “legal aid”, usually included in a common “damage insurance” (Dir. 87/344/CEE) The accident stricken, money worried and judicially untrained policy-holders are also in this way unconsciously prevented from access to the fast, efficient and economical arbitrary system (ADR) created by EU for consumer protection, and which also includes translation services.
To make matters worse MAPFRE also denies reimbursement of already paid insurance premium for the time after a total loss.
No wonder if MAPFRE tops the insurance companies´s League of Reclamations.
Is it systemized by MAPFRE?; to all of a sudden consider an accident stricken small boat as subvalued, to deliberately delay salvages and settlements of claims and to aggravate damages with the intent to force unforeseeable expenses upon the policy-holders???
In that case it obviously exists an urgent necessity of making the rules clearer!!!
A complaint with this intention has been sent to the EU-commissions concerned.
Or, is it the economical relations between the MAPFRE-employed surveyors and their picked salvage operators and boat yard owners that ought to be scrutinized???
Boat owners and other readers ought to be able to draw their own conclusions from this authentic story and may receive more details from the author through the Editor of this publication.
Awaiting response the author has cancelled all his insurances with MAPFRE.
Well, what happened to the boat after that?, some reader might wonder.
The boat was donated to a Navigation School on the mainland in exchange for taking over the running expenses and the absurd tender cost from the expensive boat yard.
Besides these expenses and the damage repairs, the boat will now also receive a total renovation, an osmosis treatment and a total survey for a Spanish Boat Registration. From a reliable source, these total expenses will by far not come up to the costs demanded from the policy holder - for the repairs alone.
Don Quijote del Mar.
or Perils of a small Pleasure Boat Insurance.
A small (< 8 m.) Swedish pleasure boat stranded, after receiving rig- and engine-breakdown, on a beach on Ibiza in a local and sudden thunderstorm, which even stranded 4 more boats during a few dramatic night hours. The accident was reported immediately to the proper authorities and to her Spanish Insurance Company MAPFRE, which in 1998 had valued the boat at the sum insured, in agreement with the boat owner.
MAPFRE promised immediate salvage operations.
Salvage operations were then delayed 6 days during which the boat bumped against the rocks on the beach by every wave and received more damages and also formed an evident danger to children and others playing on the beach.
Ibiza is a small island where you can get by car to any beach within 1 hour. MAPFRE´s surveyor was delayed 32 hours and startled by, immediately and without explanation, saying that the boat was insured at a very low value. The insured value for the 30 year old boat was well equivalent to the price of similar boats on the Spanish boat market and on Internet.
The delay was blamed on “fiestas y permisos”. Fax and telephone calls were in vain.
Not until a lawyer gave it a push did MAPFRE move its behind and set about the salvage.
The salvage was done incautiously and the transport was downright unprofessional. The boat then received additional damage. In spite of many accessible boat yards nearby, the boat was then transported from the far east end of the island to the western part and laid up in a boat yard, choosen by MAPFRE.
MAPFRE could now be sure that the repair costs would exceed ¾ of the insured value of the boat, and therefore could be declared by MAPFRE as a “total constructive loss”. The policy-holder asked for a professional survey to determine what damages were caused by the stranding and what damages were caused by the delay and the bad transport, beyond the control of the boat owner. MAPFRE only promised to submit a tender for the repairs the following day. Nothing more.
When the tender finally arrived, 24 days later, it was impudently high priced, and contained a claim for more than 1500 € for making the tender!
A comparison later with a well reputed boat yard on the mainland showed that the repairs could be done there with a 5 year guarantee for much less than half the price offered by the boat yard choosen by MAPFRE, and for under ¾ of the insured value. That tender was free.
54 days after the accident MAPFRE offered indemnity for “total constructive loss”. However, with very excessive deductions for salvage and transport. MAPFRE also informed the policy-holder that he still was owner of the boat and responsible for all present and future claims from the expensive boat yard.
MAPFRE had now managed to put the policy-holder in a real fix, without giving the policy-holder the slightest opportunity of choice. Powerless and shocked, but still in good faith, the policy-holder accepted MAPFRE´s stingy offer. A number of questions regarding the responsibilities for the damages caused by the delay and by those involved were sent to MAPFRE a couple of times.
Up to now nothing but a shameful silence is heard.
The policy-holder then consulted the consumer organisation OMIC in a futile effort to at least reduce the absurd tender. Various efforts were also made to sell the boat in existing condition.
On a visit to the island by car a few weeks later to pick up personal items from the boat, the boat-yard manager did not admit the policy-holder access to the boat.
A presumptive buyer was also not admitted to value the boat.
Taught by these experiences the policy-holder now offered the boat as a donation to the island´s local authorities as a training object for a trade school or other public institution.
Around 3 months later a retired insurance broker and friend told the policy-holder that he had probably been cheated by MAPFRE. In his opinion MAPFRE ought to be considered legal owner of the boat since the date of the accident and thus responsible for all subsequent costs, because the policy-holder had accepted and received indemnity for “total constructive loss”.
This seemed logical and a complaint was sent to MAPFRE, which resulted in a small sum of consolation, called “miscalculation”. It was rejected by the policy-holder.
A new complaint was then sent to “Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones” (DGS) together with copies of photos and all documents and a very detailed report of the course of events in broken Spanish.
The dreary answer from DGS showed that MAPFRE can legally classify a small pleasure boat insurance as a “high risk insurance” by the interpretation of the Spanish Law 50/1980, Art. 107.2. Thereby preventing the policy-holders from access to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes that have been developed across Europe.
Some other European insurance companies, obviously more reliable than MAPFRE, classify a small pleasure boat insurance more ethical as a common “damage insurance”, for instance as a vintage car insurance. The wording “high risk” is also hard to accept since most insurance companies are reinsured in a P & I Club. (Incidentally, more accidents happen to cars than to small pleasure boats, and the insured values are often comparable.)
By means of this Law interpretation MAPFRE can force the policy-holders to solve their disputes before a Court of Law, which can be very expensive, lengthy and tiring. Most people give in and pocket their pride.
In addition it seems like these boat owners also are prevented from access to “legal aid”, usually included in a common “damage insurance” (Dir. 87/344/CEE) The accident stricken, money worried and judicially untrained policy-holders are also in this way unconsciously prevented from access to the fast, efficient and economical arbitrary system (ADR) created by EU for consumer protection, and which also includes translation services.
To make matters worse MAPFRE also denies reimbursement of already paid insurance premium for the time after a total loss.
No wonder if MAPFRE tops the insurance companies´s League of Reclamations.
Is it systemized by MAPFRE?; to all of a sudden consider an accident stricken small boat as subvalued, to deliberately delay salvages and settlements of claims and to aggravate damages with the intent to force unforeseeable expenses upon the policy-holders???
In that case it obviously exists an urgent necessity of making the rules clearer!!!
A complaint with this intention has been sent to the EU-commissions concerned.
Or, is it the economical relations between the MAPFRE-employed surveyors and their picked salvage operators and boat yard owners that ought to be scrutinized???
Boat owners and other readers ought to be able to draw their own conclusions from this authentic story and may receive more details from the author through the Editor of this publication.
Awaiting response the author has cancelled all his insurances with MAPFRE.
Well, what happened to the boat after that?, some reader might wonder.
The boat was donated to a Navigation School on the mainland in exchange for taking over the running expenses and the absurd tender cost from the expensive boat yard.
Besides these expenses and the damage repairs, the boat will now also receive a total renovation, an osmosis treatment and a total survey for a Spanish Boat Registration. From a reliable source, these total expenses will by far not come up to the costs demanded from the policy holder - for the repairs alone.
Don Quijote del Mar.
