They don't build them like they used to...

[petery]

They don\'t build them like they used to...

I have a 25 year old Vancouver 27. Last night a 600 ton gravel carrier hit it at about 0.5 to 1 knot. It was the skipper's first day in command!

I was moored outside of a wooden fishing boat to a pontoon. The fishing boat inside me was crushed and sank. The pontoons were ripped apart and the nearest pile was wrecked.

By luck I appeared to be struck where the forward bulkhead meets the hull and superficially there was very little damage to my boat - some slight movement where the bulkhead is bonded to the hull and some small fractures on the glass that covers the 'bilge stringer'.

Of course I will get it lifted out and inspected by a surveyor, but what should I make him look for?

Could there be major structural damage that a surveyor could miss?

Can I get a guarantee from someone that the hull's integrity has not been compromised (that's for SWMBO)

Can I insist with their insurance company that the repair is done by Northshore ( who now make Vancouvers)?

I'd appreciate any advice from forum members who have had this kind of hit.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Sounds like you need

a structural engineer as well as a surveyor. Anywhere there's likely to have been a point loading or sheer, around hard points, should show up as starring of the gelcoat but it's the degree of flexing and return and the effect it had on the structure of the laminate that would be hard to judge. Maybe some sort of ultra sound inspection would show up any voids. If you were lucky most of the energy went through your boat and nailed the fishing boat.

Where did it happen?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[billmacfarlane]

Re: Sounds like you need

Presumably the bulkhead that moved is a structural bulkhead. Does the shrouds attach to it via chainplates? I'd get it thoroughly inspected in case the bulkhead has settled in a new position. You'd probably never know until you start getting water ingress round the chainplates. Are you on the South Coast? If so I'd take the boat to Itchenor and get the real experts, Northshore to give it the once over.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[petery]

Re: Sounds like you need

On the Arun at Littlehampton just below the opening footbridge.

I understand that one of the the water-jet drives stuck and only the skill of the pilot/harbour master stopped half a dozen vintage Hillyards - moored a few yards downstream - being smashed.

By chance, a Sunseeker 46 that moors close by was away for the day!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[petery]

Re: Sounds like you need

I'm only 10 miles from Itchenor and naturally I would like Northshore to do the work. Can I force (what a silly idea) the insurers to pay for Northshore to do it - they have asked me to get two quotes.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: Sounds like you need

Have sent you a pm

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rob_Webb]

Re: Sounds like you need

Insurers normally ask for tow quotes to make sure they are not going to get fleeced - depending on the situation they won't necessarily insist that you go to the cheapest one as long as there isn't a stupid price difference between the estimates. You can also strengthen your case if you can reasonably demonstrate that Northshore are far and away better qualified to tackle a case like this given their history etc. Also, you need to consider that if the episode was ever raised at the time you came to sell your boat, it's value could be impacted unless you could give a potential purchaser the comfort that it went back to the manufacturers as opposed to someone else. You can point this out to the insurers if having to pursuade them to let you use Northsore (if they are dearer).

A couple of other factors to consider. Your position on insisting on Northshore is greatly strenthened if you are negotiating with the ship's insurers as opposed to your own - they will regard you as the injured third party who needs to be looked after. If, however, you are talking to your own insurer, they may take a harder view about minimising th cost. But hopefully, they should aim to recover their loss from the ships insurers eventually anyway.

Finally, if you still meet resistance, you could get an estimate from someone else first, then go to Northshore and explain the situation and give them the opportunity to provide an estimate that is close enough to your first one not to cause a problem. They may or may not play ball according to what they find but it's a valid tactic when dealing with an awkward insurer and not in any way illegal!

Hope you get it resolved.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Guest]

Re: Sounds like you need

The issue on claiming against your insurance v's the claim on the offenders insurance is very important. When claiming against your own insurance they are only required to compensate/repair based upon the terms in the insurance contract. Their attitude will be to minimise how much they pay out. Once the other party accept liability their attitude should then change to acting on your behalf. In my experience, you are better off dealing directly with the insurance company of the offending party. You will then be able to claim for additional costs that your own insurance does not cover. i.e. chartering of a boat whilst yours is in for repair. Travelling to and from your boat whilst inspecting it etc.
Also, their liability will only be for 12 months. Some of the defects may not show for several years. A thorough survey is a must. There will be no issue in the other insurers paying for such a survey. In some respects, it would have been better if your vessel had been destroyed!


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rob_Webb]

Re: Sounds like you need

I agree (in case this wasn't clear from my last posting!) i.e. Petery's first move should be to claim directly against the ship's insurer's - you might advise your own insurers FYI, just in case things drag on and you need to fall back on their services. But definitely in the first instance tackle the ship's insurers.

I probably should have mentioned that I've got a background in insurance too (there, blown, my cover)!

Rob

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Sounds like you need

Petery should, when informing his own insurance company, make it very clear (in writing) that he is not making a claim against his own insurance company, just notifying them that he is claiming against the other insurance company. It's very easy to lose no claims status in these circumstances if you are not explicit.

<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide

 

[petery]

Thanks for the very useful advice nm

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

Re: Sounds like you need

lest you get an impression to the contrary, bear in mind that you have a legal duty to minimise the loss of the person causing the damage and therefore his insurer. interpreting this in practise is not easy, but you certainly dont have the freedom to spend what you fancy on travel costs, boat hire etc and simply book it to the other side. and you have to look after your own boat to avoid any furtherdamage whilst waiting repair.

i would get myself a real good surveyor. sure the vancouver has a good reputation, but it is still likely to be much lighter built than a fishing boat or a quay. it may well be that the damage is not easily visible, or it could be that you were really lucky.

best of luck

<hr width=100% size=1>