Rope round prop - notify insurer?

D

DaveKnell

New Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
15
Visit site
I'm currently having discussions with our insurer regarding damage to our boat which occurred when we had a rope round the prop last year, but only became apparent when the boat was hauled out in the spring. They're taking the view that, had I notified them at the time, they'd have had the boat hauled out for inspection there and then - the lack of any local facilities for doing this notwithstanding.

I'd cleared the remains of the rope from the rope cutter, had a look and couldn't see anything amiss, everything seemed normal under power - no vibration - so I figured we'd got away with it.

I'd be interested in the experiences of anyone who's notified their insurer of a similar incident: what did they do?

Thanks --

Dave
 
Probably just a good reminder for other people that a rope around the prop can do damage in a number of areas and it's worth reporting incidents to insurers at the time and inspecting all areas. Commercial boats will get lifted/inspected after incidents with rope even when the cutter has been effective.

I've listed below the types of damage we've seen caused by rope/debris round props.

Bent P bracket, which starts a leak at the fixings or causes rapid bearing wear.
Engine mounts broken (that was my boat)
Excessive vibration damaging oil lines on engine causing seizure
Gear box separated from engine
Coupling damage that may lead to failure
Bearing damage from vibration or water starvation (very thin strands or fishing line are the worst for this even when you think you've removed all debris)
Bent shaft (when prop is close to hull and debris gets over prop)

You need to inspect around the engine especially where it is near a bulkhead or other solid items as the engine can move a lot with the force of the pull aft and vibration. There is easily enough force to separate the bolts holding the gearbox on in many boats so

Good luck with your insurers, my experience is if there is a clause that allows them to back out they will use it. I lost my prop but hadn't changed my area of cruising.
 
My insurers would have done the same as yours are doing. Had a claim a couple of years ago - not for rope around the prop - and got to know their practices pretty well as it took 6 weeks to resolve. Satisfactorily in my case.
It seemed that the main thing they look for is action to mitigate against further damage. I think this is understandable. You don't say what your damage was in your post. Is it damage which occurreed at the time or has it occurred since by virtue of continued usage of the boat?
If the latter I don't think you'll get anywhere. If the former, you have a strong case for saying that your subsequent actions did not worsen the situation and therefore that your claim should be upheld.
What are you claiming for?
 
Thanks for those. The major repair involved is the replacement of a bend P-bracket; there's some other items as well, but that's the main one.

The insurers have a "you must tell us within 60 days" clause which they're waiving in respect of damage from the incident itself; they also have a report from a surveyor which makes some puzzling claims, such as a repair cost of €600 were it to have been done at the time (against a cost for the replacement P-bracket alone of €750) and that a bent engine mounting is the result of subsequent use rather than the - presumably much greater - load which it experienced when we caught the rope.

Sorry to hear about your prop, Neil, and I'll be much less reluctant to bother the insurers in future in similar circumstances!

--Dave
 
DaveKnell said:
I'm currently having discussions with our insurer regarding damage to our boat which occurred when we had a rope round the prop last year, but only became apparent when the boat was hauled out in the spring. They're taking the view that, had I notified them at the time, they'd have had the boat hauled out for inspection there and then - the lack of any local facilities for doing this notwithstanding.

I'd cleared the remains of the rope from the rope cutter, had a look and couldn't see anything amiss, everything seemed normal under power - no vibration - so I figured we'd got away with it.

I'd be interested in the experiences of anyone who's notified their insurer of a similar incident: what did they do?

Thanks --

Dave
Click to expand...

A 34 ft yacht got a rope around he prop resulting in bent P bracket possible bent shaft and broken engine mounts. The insurers were notified and the boat lifted out for repairs which are ongoing,
 
macd said:
You're right to be sceptical of that. Frankly, it beggars belief that he could make such a judgement.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I'd come to approximately the same conclusion, but then started to question myself. After all, the surveyor's the expert..

--Dave
 
Searush said:
Or is he just paid by the Insurers to act as a Loss Adjuster (= claim refuter)? Get your own "Independant" surveyor & threaten to take them to an ombudsman or court?
Click to expand...

The insurers assure me that he was picked for his independence, and that his report is entirely without bias; he's not "their surveyor", but "our surveyor". Obvious, really, given that they paid him. And explains why they won't let me see a copy of his report..:rolleyes:

--Dave
 
Rope round propellor on a Sigma 33 at full reverse (burst of reverse power to kick her round). All looked OK, insurance insisted on a lift out and inspection. P bracket OK, shaft OK, prop OK, gearbox OK, engine tore out of all 4 mounts and then dropped back into place, it looked OK! There is a bracket between the mounts at the front, iirc, a sort of cradle, which was twisted as well. Insurance just fixed it.
 
A few years ago a novice helm managed to get my own trot-mooring pickup rope around our prop. (My own fault, as I'm the boss and I should have done the helming.)

As I couldn't get the last few strands off the prop when I dived myself, I resorted to employing a pro diver who did it with proper equipment in a couple of minutes. He reported that the old stern-tube had been slightly damaged by the shackle connecting the pickup rope to the soft mooring eyes.

I monitored the ingress of water for the rest of the season (slight) then conducted a proper inspection on haulout the following February. My insurers had absolutely no problem with my claim, which involved installing a new stern-tube with the associated GRP work. I took the opportunity to also fit a rope-cutter at the time, at my own cost.

Every policy will be different in terms of time-limitations, but frankly the damage is the damage, which is what is being insured, and why should you have borne the cost of a haul-out and the disruption to your season so that the thing could have been reported and claimed on within their time limits? This is bull-shoit, they know it, and you should argue it. If you fail to win your argument, then please let everyone know who these crooks are so we can all avoid them.

Your broker should in fact be arguing your case for you! That is his job, and you should push him hard to do so! If he's lazy or no good, then I strongly recommend that in future you insure with Simon Winter Marine:

http://www.simonwintermarine.co.uk/

No connection other than an utterly satisfied customer.
 
Back again - just thought I'd post an update. And thank you all for your comments, which have been much appreciated.

The insurer involved was Pantaenius. On the positive side, I've received an acceptable settlement from them in respect of the original damage in spite of a policy clause requiring incidents to be notified within 60 days. On the other one, the process took something like six weeks and, as a result, I've lost an entire summer's use of the boat. Were I to have known at the outset what I know now, I'd not have made a claim at all.

--Dave
 
Thanks for that. I am glad you posted this as I has a rope problem earlier this yer and it has prompted me to inform my insurers so my "card is marked" as they say.

Glad you got sorted, albeit somewhat later than ideal.
 
I guess it is best to inform them even if all seems OK.
We had a heavy rope around our prop in Fishguard harbour. Cut off by diver who reported 'all well'.
Continued journey carefully monitoring for water ingress vibration etc.
All seemed well for 2 weeks when stern gear 'collapsed'; very badly bent prop.
Insurers seem to be ok so far but I was worried that we hadn't reported it earlier.
 
I am also with Pantaenius.
Two years ago when the boat was lifted at the end of the season damage was discovered to the bevel gear, the saildrive housing and the rope cutter. Repair cost £1,500. Spoke to Pants and they immediately recommended a claim and all was done and paid out with no effect to my no claims so long as I did not claim again during the following year.
Could not not have asked for more from an insurance outfit.
 
Babylon said:
A few years ago a novice helm managed to get my own trot-mooring pickup rope around our prop. (My own fault, as I'm the boss and I should have done the helming.)

As I couldn't get the last few strands off the prop when I dived myself, I resorted to employing a pro diver who did it with proper equipment in a couple of minutes. He reported that the old stern-tube had been slightly damaged by the shackle connecting the pickup rope to the soft mooring eyes.

I monitored the ingress of water for the rest of the season (slight) then conducted a proper inspection on haulout the following February. My insurers had absolutely no problem with my claim, which involved installing a new stern-tube with the associated GRP work. I took the opportunity to also fit a rope-cutter at the time, at my own cost.

Every policy will be different in terms of time-limitations, but frankly the damage is the damage, which is what is being insured, and why should you have borne the cost of a haul-out and the disruption to your season so that the thing could have been reported and claimed on within their time limits? This is bull-shoit, they know it, and you should argue it. If you fail to win your argument, then please let everyone know who these crooks are so we can all avoid them.

Your broker should in fact be arguing your case for you! That is his job, and you should push him hard to do so! If he's lazy or no good, then I strongly recommend that in future you insure with Simon Winter Marine:

http://www.simonwintermarine.co.uk/

No connection other than an utterly satisfied customer.
Click to expand...

+1 For Simon Winter
 
doris said:
I am also with Pantaenius.
Two years ago when the boat was lifted at the end of the season damage was discovered to the bevel gear, the saildrive housing and the rope cutter. Repair cost £1,500. Spoke to Pants and they immediately recommended a claim and all was done and paid out with no effect to my no claims so long as I did not claim again during the following year.
Could not not have asked for more from an insurance outfit.
Click to expand...

Interesting..

I also used to be with Pants ( for about eight years in total with no claims during that period).

In 2007 I had a nasty grounding (all my own fault). Preliminary inspection showed no damage whatsoever. However, I thought it prudent to signal the incident to Pants in case there were subsequent problems that I hadn't been able to detect with my own inspection. There were no problems at all afterwards when inspected by a surveyor and nearly five years later still no problems.

However, at the next renewal date about 6 months after the incident, Pants increased the premimum by about 50% (so I went elsewhere). I am thus quite sceptical about signalling problems to insurers, unless you are actually going to make a claim...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top