the pain of boat insurance

sawmillsteve: very sorry for your plight.

There's good advice above.

If you exhaust the possibilities in negotiating with HKJ, do consider the insurance ombudsman, as mentioned by Graham in post #12. Indeed it may very well be worth your while to phone them for advice, anyway, before putting your claim with them formally: they're helpful people. They also wield real power in reversing unfair insurance judgements.

Good luck.
 
Seajet said:
Hi Steve,

there are 2 ways to post photo's on here; either put the pic on somewhere like Photobucket and link to it ( which I find hassle and I'm a pro photographer ) or click on the toolbar here when posting and ' insert image ' is an easier option, it lets you select direct from your computer file.

Anyway I find it troubling on several counts you were given this mooring; didn't they know what was there and the conditions ?

Also, as you ' dug through a wooden boat ' that may have been priceless archaeology !

And I have to say a bit of a warning sign to you.

Boats often sit on the mooring sinker on drying moorings, usually in light wind over tide conditions; I have known 2 boats sunk that way by settling on the concrete disc and /or the big steel eye protruding from it.

Since you laid the mooring yourself - a pretty rare thing these days - the insurance may indeed be sticky, but I think if you can produce copies of letters telling you where to lay it you may well have a claim against the suppliers.

When all is done, I think your boat will prove far from a write-off, treat it as an opportunity to upgrade electrics and even any internal layout issues which may have bothered you.

Not so long ago many grp boats were built from hull & deck kits, including mine which I'm still delighted with 37 years later.
Click to expand...
IMG_20151114_150345.jpg
IMG_20151114_150410.jpg to
 
sailorman said:
Has it been rejected, the post 1 is some what disjointed, but i bow to your far superior knowledge
Click to expand...
Agree not very well written, but that is what he seems to be saying - but it is often difficult when the post is not written clearly.

That is why I suggested he perhaps needs professional help.
 
Sorry to read of your problems Steve.

For clarity can you tell us

1. What were the surveys recommendations? I assume RKJ covered you having seen the survey and assuming you would carry out any recommendations.

2. What work did you carry out?

3. What exactly is the damage? I think I can see a split in the hull between the keels but you mention holes.

4. What EXACTLY is RKJ saying and what reasons do they give?

Just an observation, if that is a split in the hull pre being sprayed off I can see no impact marks which to me implies hull failure, not collision damage.

Chin up.
 
sailorman said:
You stated it was a rejected claim
Click to expand...

Why not actually read the OP, particularly the bit that says "Not insured so no payout". Seems pretty clear to me although you have to wade through a lot of confusing stuff to get to it!

However, no more confusing than the thousands of student essays I used to read, and not difficult to pick out what is important and why he has posted his question/complaint.
 
Steve,
Glad you joined here, told you you would get some useful info!
After seeing boat yesterday, a couple of things occur to me.
First, remove the Ebay ads. If the Ins Co sees such, they may think you have given up pursuing a claim against them and consider your interest in selling boat as a sign of submission.
Secondly, after the initial survey saying keels need strengthening, was there any mention of having a follow up survey to confirm works carried out to the required standards as agreed with surveyor? If so, was that followed up?
If HKJ agreed to insure you on the new mooring, did they request any info regarding the new swing mooring or suggest an increase in excess during a specified time? This would suggest that they were OK about the new mooring being used during the winter months. If they insisted on a "professional" being involved in laying/checking or surveying the mooring, this may be a sticking point.
In the Insurance Documents, what are the wordings under the "striking an underwater object" clause? To my mind, this is what has happened and you should pursue the claim under that premise and not anything to do with keel failure. From what I have seen (and my friend) we agreed that this is not a "keel failure" issue. IF the keel had parted company due to failure of the bolts, then yes a keel failure, but as the keel stubs are still intact and the damage is limited to the leading edge of the stub, commensurate with the keels splaying after coming down on a sunken object.

BTW, how did you get on with running engine? Did you follow my instructions as per my email?
Good luck,
Micky
 
sawmiillsteve said:
My question is, How do companies get away with taking our premiums and choose to try and wriggle out of paying?
Click to expand...

There is a misunderstanding here. No insurance policy covers you against inherent structural defects - its an insurance policy not a product guarantee. And Westerlies are notorious for weak bilge keel structures leading to sinkings - we have had a couple at our club.

Nor is the spreading of the keels relevant - thats exactly what happens when the boat sits down in soft mud. So you need to ask yourself why Westerlies have this issue and Moody bilge keelers dont

In the end insurance companies sometimes cover the costs of such claims so you might be lucky. I hope you are. A pal who had the same problem told the company a "porker" saying he had hit something whilst sailing, and that made it an accident so they paid. But his claim was for the repair of a leak not a total loss.
 
sailorman said:
I dont think this is at all helpful to the OP`s claim, you might consider removing it
Click to expand...

Whatever is said on here has no relevance to the success of the OP claim and after all this is a discussion forum and I do not think it is appropriate to try and suppress various points of view.
 
C08 said:
Apology, I misunderstood your point.
Click to expand...

And as sailorman says it is not helpful. It is unclear as to the exact reason(s) why the insurer is rejecting the claim, so the advice to the OP is to establish that and make a case for why they are wrong.
 
hi mike.
thankyou for the reasuring words. not to sure if i am not getting slated for my grammer.
haven't tried your solution re engine. As of today the answer is no to a payout. I saw a solicitor today, and he said fight it. He said the insurances explaination of their refusal to pay out doesn't reflect the survey on strengthening the keels. He said that the ombusman is in the pockets of the insurance companies, so I think i'll give them a miss.
There does seem to be scratch marks down the keels, which may, as we both said, look like the keels spread apart, and in turn split the hull outwards rather than a peneration pushing the hull inwards. The boat has to be moved before christmas as the boatyard need the space. It will move to Curdridge on Tuesday.
Regards
steve
 
Ignore what the solicitor says about the ombudsman, but you are nowhere near ready to go to them. You need to build a case that shows the damage is covered by the insurance. You need a surveyor experienced in dealing with insurance companies. if you don't have a good case, the ombudsman probably won't be much help anyway.

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.
 
Tranona said:
Ignore what the solicitor says about the ombudsman, but you are nowhere near ready to go to them. You need to build a case that shows the damage is covered by the insurance. You need a surveyor experienced in dealing with insurance companies. if you don't have a good case, the ombudsman probably won't be much help anyway..
Click to expand...


Agree, the Financial Ombudsman provides a service for both sides and it's free, the latest figures I can find say that they uphold 49% of complainant's cases. Solicitors are fine but you could end up paying more than the coat of your losses and if you lose those costs will be down to you. But as above do the groundwork first, if you do get a solicitor they will want the info anyway.
Some good advice here
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...AtbK90m9kd6_lNRLvM-MPcj2ER40GF_gnSRoC9d7w_wcB
 
+1 on the posts above re the ombudsman. To suggest that the ombudsman service is in the pockets of the insurance companies is moronic. For a solicitor to say it is unprofessional (and blatantly self-serving, but then we already knew that solicitors are in solicitors' pockets...).

However I'd disagree that it's premature to approach the ombudsman: they're very receptive to telephone contact and happy to discuss your case before you make it formal. One can lose nothing (except possible one's delusions) by doing this.

Even the word 'ombudsman' has some weight. I once had a substantial claim (not boaty) denied. A strong letter with the threat of ombudsman referral totally changed the insurer's view, much to the surprise of my broker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top