sailorman
Well-Known Member
Strongly suggest you contact jfm via PM, you can then email him full details. If he can help he will as he has done for others here. good luck
the pain of boat insurance
- Thread starter sawmiillsteve
- Start date
jfm
Well-Known Member
Epilogue: OP sent me various docs and upshot is that I had to say that I think he is not covered under his policy. Indeed, I think HKJ have behaved very well indeed in paying >£2k of incidental expenses.
A previous survey report on the boat said both bilge keels needed GRP reinforcement and the policy was endorsed to say that these repairs must be carried out. OP repaired one but not the other. He hoped that one sentence in the survey report where "keel" was written in the singular would allow him to say that his repair of just one keel meant he had done what the report recommended, but unfortunately this argument has no legs in my view. It is very clear that the surveyor said both keels needed work and the use of "keel" in the singular was in my view appropriate in the particular context in which it was used - at least, it did not mean just one keel should be repaired.
HKJ were correct in my view to reject the claim when the keels failed. I think it is fair to point out here that HKJ have behaved very well and are due no criticism, in my view
All very unfortunate, and I hope OP is able to repair and refit the boat,
A previous survey report on the boat said both bilge keels needed GRP reinforcement and the policy was endorsed to say that these repairs must be carried out. OP repaired one but not the other. He hoped that one sentence in the survey report where "keel" was written in the singular would allow him to say that his repair of just one keel meant he had done what the report recommended, but unfortunately this argument has no legs in my view. It is very clear that the surveyor said both keels needed work and the use of "keel" in the singular was in my view appropriate in the particular context in which it was used - at least, it did not mean just one keel should be repaired.
HKJ were correct in my view to reject the claim when the keels failed. I think it is fair to point out here that HKJ have behaved very well and are due no criticism, in my view
All very unfortunate, and I hope OP is able to repair and refit the boat,
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that. Lesson for all there I think.
sawmiillsteve
New Member
May I ask, why you add more salt to my wounds by posting your reply to everyone? When you private message a person, it stays private! All I can say is perhaps you have a link with insurance companies to publicly denounce my conversation with you. THANKS FOR NOTHING.
pmagowan
Well-Known Member
I am very glad of the update as I am also with HKJ and was concerned I would need to find a new insurer. This is a forum to spread information and ideas. If you choose to post on it you must accept that there will be those who disagree with you and you do not control the narrative. It appears you have been given some very good expert advice that could save you considerable money. If you find that to be worthless then perhaps you have the problem not HKJ. Of course I am sure there are people you could pay to take things further for you if you feel the advice you have recieved here is wrong. In my experience the people you pay are always happy to take your money.
It is amazing that this took 6 pages to get you to divulge most of the information required to 'help' you.
It is amazing that this took 6 pages to get you to divulge most of the information required to 'help' you.
Last edited:
awol
Well-Known Member
I for one am grateful to jfm for closure on this thread and appreciate his generosity in reviewing this matter. The uninsured loss to the OP's boat is unfortunate and I understand his obvious anger but aiming it at jfm is misdirected.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Cant argue with that.
Biggles Wader
Well-Known Member
Im a HKJ customer and I feel it would have been remiss to leave the issue as was without the conclusion.One of the best things about this forum is that it provides information to us users and if that means a few ruffled feathers so be it.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Agreed, particularly since it seems that the information given about the survey by the OP was, perhaps unintentionally, inaccurate.
GrahamM376
Well-Known Member
You asked forumites (on a public forum) for an opinion on alleged unfair treatment by an insurer and had no problems when anything was published supporting your view. I have had some dealings with jfm concerning another insurer and have found his opinions unbiased and to suggest otherwise is unfair.
NealB
Well-Known Member
I can understand your frustration, but that has got to be one the most ungracious posts I've ever seen on here.
Avocet
Well-Known Member
It's stories like this that have influenced my decision to go 3rd Party only for insurance. I know of other boat owners who are starting to do the same thing. I feel for the OP, and I absolutely understand the risk that I take in doing so, but on balance, I'm happier where I am, I think.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Don't see how an account of someone's experience of having a claim rejected because he failed to comply with a condition of his policy would indicate that all risks cover is not worth having. No doubt that if he had complied and carried out the required repairs the insurer would have paid out. Of course the boat might not have suffered the damage if it had been repaired properly....
Lessons for us all. First; ensure your boat is sound, particularly when the survey you paid for identified the weakness. Second; comply with conditions of your insurance.
GrahamM376
Well-Known Member
I don't understand that point of view. Just read the small print and, if a survey snags something, get the surveyor back to sign it off once repaired/replaced.
NickRobinson
Well-Known Member
My comprehensive policy for my not expensive boat is only 40% more expensive than the Basic Boat Coy third party. So for c.£50 extra it was a no-brainer.. (never claimed, no idea if it has any value!)
jfm
Well-Known Member
How remarkable! You put the whole story on a public forum yet suddenly you claim it is private. Let's be 100% clear: I posted my viewsof things and those views are not private. The specifics I posted related to the survey report and the word "keel" used in the singular, which you posted about on here several times. There was nothing private in my post.
This thread made people were concerned that HKJ were not playing fair, and I wanted to correct that.
In my post above I was good enough to omit a few details, one of which I'll now mention: the trouble I went to for you involved dealing with >50Mb of email attachments. Actually 50Mb sounds a lot but relates to the fact you scanned it at a resolution of 3Mb++ per page - thanks for that. And you scanned every page as a separate pdf with illogical file names so I had to piece it together like a jigsaw, and you scanned everything upside down just to give me the added little job of rotating everything - thanks again. Despite all that failure on your part to make it even slightly convenient for me, I didn't complain and I read through every page to look for a solution.
Your claim was absolutely hopeless. HKJ paid out over £2k to cover incidental costs, which they didnt have to, and behaved very well. Shoot the messenger as much as you want.
Birdie
Active Member
Good on you jfm, as an insurance man, I read this with interest and can see that you have clearly gone to a lot of effort to help a stranger out.
Perhaps Steve, when you have considered this a little more, you might want to thank jfm for clearing things up for you and avoiding the potential cost of a solicitor.
You will still have the opportunity to go to the Ombudsman, but it does seem a little clear cut.
Regards
Seajet
...
Whatever the rights and wrongs are, I do feel the OP has an important point, in that ' Private Messages ' should remain just that; private.
Ceirwan
Well-Known Member
I think a takeaway point from this (apart from make sure you comply with what your insurer demands) is that Surveyors do actually get it right, in this case there was a clearly identified weakness, regardless of if the boat landed on an obstruction, the keel was identified as a potential problem and it led to the loss of the vessel.
We see a lot of posts complaining about survey findings, usually along the lines of 'Its been fine for 30 years. Looks strong enough to me. I've been sailing boats for x years and I know what i'm about'
And maybe people do get lucky and their boat is never tested in such a way to expose the weakness, but these people don't come up with problems 'to keep themselves in a job', if they identify a weakness fix it!
We see a lot of posts complaining about survey findings, usually along the lines of 'Its been fine for 30 years. Looks strong enough to me. I've been sailing boats for x years and I know what i'm about'
And maybe people do get lucky and their boat is never tested in such a way to expose the weakness, but these people don't come up with problems 'to keep themselves in a job', if they identify a weakness fix it!
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Just to add to that point, the boat in question is a Griffon which has a known weakness which that repair costs on new boats nearly broke Westerly. Suspect the surveyor would have been aware of that and recommended the known fix.