the pain of boat insurance

sawmiillsteve said:
hi mike.
I saw a solicitor today, and he said fight it.
Click to expand...

Some questions.

1) How well do you know the solicitor? I mean is he someone you or your friends and family use regularly, or is this the first time you have met him?
2) Does he have much experience of matters to do with boats?
3) Have you discussed "how far?" and "in what ways?" you are prepared to fight it, and specifically how much further cost you are prepared to risk?

We have not on this forum seen enough detail to form a really meaningful opinion on your situation. For that we would need to see the actual text of every relevant document, including at least your insurance certificate and policy, the proposal form you completed, the survey and correspondence around it, your claim, the insurer's response, etc, etc - I'm not suggesting that you share all that with the forum, but you'll understand that we are only able to make rather general comments based on the outline you have given us.

That said, my sense is that it is probably worth your proceeding to the point where a professional intermediary - either the solicitor, or as has been suggested a loss assessor, has enough information to prepare and write a carefully worded letter to the insurers, setting out the facts of the loss, stating precisely why the loss is covered by the policy, explaining precisely why the insurer's current interpretation is wrong, and stating what action you will take unless they meet the claim.
Do make absolutely sure that the solicitor or other professional has seen and considered every single document and other piece of information that might conceivably be relevant before they write that letter.

Going that far will not cost you much. If the insurers stand their ground following that, then you will need to have a long hard think about whether the prospect of success justifies the cost of going further. Much depends on the market value and insured value of the boat before the incident, what your continued cost of storing it is, what its residual value now may be, and, sadly, what the cost of scrapping it may be.

Good luck,
A.
 
Last edited:
Tranona said:
Difficult to advise in detail without having all the facts, but it seems they are using the wording of the survey to say that you have not maintained the boat in a seaworthy condition. You need to show that the damage was caused by something else, not a failure of the structure. Also make sure that the insurance does cover you for being on the new mooring.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me as if the mooring one is a drying one, dug by the owner. If the mooring he dug bust his boat, I can see why the insurance company would be reluctant to pay. It's not far from "Dear Insurance Company, I motored my boat repeatedly into a pier until it sank. Please pay up."
 
Thank you for your comments. Without posting everything, I can give you all the parts that I think relevant.
1. I had a pre purchase survey.
2. Within the survey it said to strengthen both keels, and "the keel".
3. It sank within 4 weeks of putting it in a mud mooring.
4. I dug in the mooring and found a wooden boat underneath.
5. Indications point to an outward pressure being put on the keels, as there are scratch marks on the inside of the keels.
6. The boat is a write off.
7. I am not getting a payout.
8. The boatyard, and assessor have drilled holes in the boat and will not repair them.the boatyard being given permission from the insurance company.
9. The insurance company telling me one thing one day and then telling me the opposite.
What else do u want to know, without pasting everything on this site. I will personally message anyone with cut, and paste info.
 
Hi I have said to insurance company that I will finally take it to the ombudsman. They have told me that they are willing to pay 100.00 to get the holes repaired. But I have to do the foot work for a problem they themselves gave me.
 
Steve,

Just a thought.
On your HKJ insurance, are you covered for legal representation or losses? Or do you have any other insurance that gives you such? Some credit card companies or Banks/Building Societies also have such cover.
If so, could you contact the legal representative for whoever provides such cover and talk the whole thing through with them? May be worth a try.
Also, who drilled the holes in the hull? If the surveyor acting on HKJ's behalf, then I would ask to see written evidence on why they did this and at whose request? A copy of an email (if sent) would be suitable. If the boatyard, again written evidence. If none could be provided, then perhaps a claim for vandalism or criminal damage could be made?
I'm still convinced you have a valid case and really would urge you to talk to either a lawyer/solicitor who specialises in marine matters or ask for an independent surveyors report (not a friend/insurance assessor or HKJ's recommended one)
As others here have said, the Ombudsman is a very good starting point to talk to.
BTW are you an RYA member or member of a professional sailing/boating body (in your capacity as boat builder/carpenter) or belong to any Unions? They can normally offer good advice on such matters as well. Even the AA or RAC may half a legal body who can assist if you are a member and they offer legal advice.
 
sawmiillsteve said:
Thank you for your comments. Without posting everything, I can give you all the parts that I think relevant.
1. I had a pre purchase survey.
2. Within the survey it said to strengthen both keels, and "the keel".
3. It sank within 4 weeks of putting it in a mud mooring.
4. I dug in the mooring and found a wooden boat underneath.
5. Indications point to an outward pressure being put on the keels, as there are scratch marks on the inside of the keels.
6. The boat is a write off.
7. I am not getting a payout.
8. The boatyard, and assessor have drilled holes in the boat and will not repair them.the boatyard being given permission from the insurance company.
9. The insurance company telling me one thing one day and then telling me the opposite.
What else do u want to know, without pasting everything on this site. I will personally message anyone with cut, and paste info.
Click to expand...

That is useful, but still does not say what the grounds are for rejecting your claim.

Did you notify them of the change to mooring, and did they approve it?

What are they saying about the survey? Are they saying that you did not follow the recommendations and that caused the sinking.

What were the conditions they set when they accepted your proposal?

As a number of people have said you need to be clear exactly why they are rejecting the claim.

Until that is clear, any advice is guesswork. The ombudsman would be asking exactly the same questions - and probably more before they give any advice or entertain a complaint.
 
Steve, sorry to hear of this.
I know HKJ senior folk well and I wrote some of the clauses in their policy. I'd be happy to help, but there is just not enough information in this thread to say anything useful. For now the critical bits of information needed is ..

Precisely WHY are HKJ refusing to pay? Exactly what have they said about this point? Is it because you didn't fix the second keel? Because it is on swinging mooring? Because you laid the mooring? Because of the water ingress exclusion in the policy? Some other reasons?

There will be follow up Qs but we need this answer first otherwise it is impossible to advise you sensibly. Best of luck anyway

If you can answer those questions it would be a great start
 
Hi.
They are refusing to payout because I have not strengthened the port hull, and the surveyor acting for the insurance said the stb lay up was not sufficient.
My argument is that the summary and recommendations within the pre purchase survey states " the keel" not keels. I hope I'm right in thinking that.
1. If there was a typo, then why didn't they ask for a revised statement before insuring me for 2 seasons.
2. How can they now come back and say the survey meant 2 keels.
3. Isn't in one form or another the survey a semi legal document.
They have said I can have 100.00 to repair the holes drilled in the hull, by Gosport boatyard, surveyor, on behalf of the insurance company.
To answer another question. Yes I paid for legal advice. But they have voided my insurance. So unable to use this service.
 
To repair the holes and repair the split laminate in the saloon. Would need (holes), removal of the division between hull and corridor. To enlarge an access panel in the heads, removal of the toilet for access.
The laminate is 150.00 alone without the work to lift it, make a template, and replace with a new sheet.
Where does their surveyor get his prices from. Perhaps when he last worked. That I know was in the 80's.
 
You dug down and found a sunken wooden boat in the position where you were placing your mooring sinker? Is this correct?

Did you explore the limits of the sunken boat or remove it?

If not then your boat would sink down into the mud on a potentially unstable substrate.

In the Essex marshes old wooden boats tend to rot until their frames remain which are sticking up and can cause damage to anything landing on them since they remain connected at the base to the keel sections. I suspect Fareham creek is not much different.

Drilling the holes for inspection would be considered to be 'Sue & Labour' in marine insurance terms and reasonably undertaken.
 
jfm said:
Steve, sorry to hear of this.
I know HKJ senior folk well and I wrote some of the clauses in their policy. I'd be happy to help, but there is just not enough information in this thread to say anything useful. For now the critical bits of information needed is ..

Precisely WHY are HKJ refusing to pay? Exactly what have they said about this point? Is it because you didn't fix the second keel? Because it is on swinging mooring? Because you laid the mooring? Because of the water ingress exclusion in the policy? Some other reasons?

There will be follow up Qs but we need this answer first otherwise it is impossible to advise you sensibly. Best of luck anyway

If you can answer those questions it would be a great start
Click to expand...
Good on you jfm, in the true spirit of the YBW :cool:.
i would suggest that the OP uses PMs not this open forum, as has been shown, some here, are posting less than helpful posts
 
I've no wish to add to sailorman's sense of awe (except to suggest that he lie down for a few moments) but it seems to me that this thread has gone as far as it usefully can without further input from the OP.

As a minimum we need the references to keel defects in the original survey and summary conclusions; the faults the insurers insisted be put right; and the insurer's reason(s) for denying the claim. All these need to be verbatim.
We would also need the OP to clarify what remedial work was undertaken following survey.

Whether this is done by PM or openly doesn't particularly matter. But until it's done, surely this thread can only go around in more circles?
 
sailorman said:
Good on you jfm, in the true spirit of the YBW :cool:.
i would suggest that the OP uses PMs not this open forum, as has been shown, some here, are posting less than helpful posts
Click to expand...

sawmillsteve is probably unaware of jfm's history of helping Formites fight and win their claim rejections (2 or 3 cases), when seemingly no hope cases.

He would be well advised to correspond directly with jfm, and answer any and all questions raised by him.
 
sawmiillsteve said:
Hi.
They are refusing to payout because I have not strengthened the port hull, and the surveyor acting for the insurance said the stb lay up was not sufficient.
My argument is that the summary and recommendations within the pre purchase survey states " the keel" not keels. I hope I'm right in thinking that.
1. If there was a typo, then why didn't they ask for a revised statement before insuring me for 2 seasons.
2. How can they now come back and say the survey meant 2 keels.
3. Isn't in one form or another the survey a semi legal document.
They have said I can have 100.00 to repair the holes drilled in the hull, by Gosport boatyard, surveyor, on behalf of the insurance company.
To answer another question. Yes I paid for legal advice. But they have voided my insurance. So unable to use this service.
Click to expand...
Thanks Steve
One critical thing in all this is that the devil is all in the very fine detail. Not wishing to sound argumentative, but the reason for HKJ's refusal really cant be just that you didn't fix the keels as per your 1st sentence; it must be that there was a contractual condition requiring you to do something (fix the keels?) as a condition of HKJ covering you, and that you failed to meet that condition. Therefore what you have to give us absolutely verbatim is the contractual condition, and then people can advise you on whether HKJ's ground for refusal is valid

If this turns on the use of "keel" versus "keels", there is a heck of a lot of law telling you how to interpret a contract, but I don't feel good about your position when we're talking about a bilge keel boat. Also I don't feel good (regarding your legal position) about cherry picking something in a summary on the footing that it overrides something in the main body of the report. For sure I'd need to see the whole thing

I'm really agreeing with macd 2 posts above: the only way to take this further is to see the actual documents, not descriptions of them given on here. I'm happy to take a look if you want to send me everything

Best of luck anyway
 
Last edited:
Hi thank you for yr post.
I have to say that, I don't know what was said to me about keel, or keels.
There seems to be a big question of singular, versus plural. I am sticking with the fact, thou there may have been a typo, and they have thought it was 2 keels noted. It was 1 keel mentioned in the final recommendations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top