posting to forums may invalidate your insurance

[Martkimwat]

Not trying to be contentious, but it does appear to me that a lot of the Marine Insurance Companies in the US are really a bunch of sharks. I have had two insurance claims in my boating history, the first, 17 years ago was as a result of leaving a hot air gun plugged in when I had finished some electrical work (heat shrink on connections) the switch got knocked on and when I plugged in shore power, it started up and within less than a minute, ignited the seat cushion it was resting on. The boat was a write-off. The insurance company paid up without a quibble. Similarly I had a near lightning strike last year that resulted in a lot of my electronics being fried, again no problems, after the assessor/marine surveyor came and had a look, agreed with my assessment and again the insurance company paid up. In both cases I had done the installations myself (followed Nigel Calders excellent Boatowners Mechanical & Electrical Manual). I had another boat T-bone my boat on its mooring about six years back, again the other boats Insurance company paid up without a quibble. I think over here in UK, they expect that boat owners generally do their own maintenance unless you are talking about very expensive yachts. Pretty well all the Marine Insures in UK are well respected companies, not fly-by-nights.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Martkimwat

Not trying to be contentious, but it does appear to me that a lot of the Marine Insurance Companies in the US are really a bunch of sharks. I have had two insurance claims in my boating history, the first, 17 years ago was as a result of leaving a hot air gun plugged in when I had finished some electrical work (heat shrink on connections) the switch got knocked on and when I plugged in shore power, it started up and within less than a minute, ignited the seat cushion it was resting on. The boat was a write-off. The insurance company paid up without a quibble. Similarly I had a near lightning strike last year that resulted in a lot of my electronics being fried, again no problems, after the assessor/marine surveyor came and had a look, agreed with my assessment and again the insurance company paid up. In both cases I had done the installations myself (followed Nigel Calders excellent Boatowners Mechanical & Electrical Manual). I had another boat T-bone my boat on its mooring about six years back, again the other boats Insurance company paid up without a quibble. I think over here in UK, they expect that boat owners generally do their own maintenance unless you are talking about very expensive yachts. Pretty well all the Marine Insures in UK are well respected companies, not fly-by-nights.

No, you're just getting a supremely biased view of insurance in the U.S. by a handful of people telling and retelling stories they heard on the dock that I'm sure have a kernel of truth in them but are now unrecognizable compared to the real story. As I mentioned, I've asked over and over both here and in real life when I hear these tall tales on the dock for someone, anyone, to show actual language excluding damages that could be tied to a repair. Not a single person has been able to do so, despite that being the foundation of most of these tall tales.

People like a good story about the man and how he keeps us little people down. Something like "the insurance industry" makes for an irresistible target for many, and they're vocal while everyone who had a normal experience isn't. By happenstance I had the misfortune of one of my children just last week causing significant damage to one of our cars in a one car mishap that was entirely and without question their fault and completely avoidable. The insurance company, Geico, paid to tow the car to the dealer, and the adjuster came by the next day and agreed with the dealer estimate and will pay the entire amount minus the deductible, no questions asked, no issues. This happens thousands of times every day in the U.S., it just doesn't make for a great story of the man keeping a poor little aggrieved guy down, so you don't hear about it or if you do it's morphed into something fourth hand that's nearly the opposite of what really happened.

And yeah, I also am going to call BS on the OP's story. I am sure they are honestly recounting what they heard, but equally sure that's nothing like what actually happened.

[goboatingnow]

I agree, by and large my experience is that negligence is not a barrier to payout

[Shanachie]

Ha. I had a claim rejected by Geico/BoatUS a year ago BECAUSE I was not negligent.


My sailboat was staying at a friend's dock in western Florida. Tropical Storm Eta slammed it with eight-foot rollers for many, many hours. (It was a huge storm.)


Two large pilings snapped in the chaos. Luckily, the boat survived with no damage because they acted as sea anchors to help secure the remaining pilings.



I filed a claim for the $2,400 it cost me to have my friend's dock repaired. The adjuster noted that I had the boat properly tied up and said Geico would pay only if my negligence had caused the damage.


Of course, it was a legit liability claim. But the adjuster, under pressure to limit losses, decided to stiff me because it was unlikely I would spend 5K on an attorney to force collection.


He also was abusive and threatening when I pressed my claim, which I thought was highly unprofessional.



The upshot is that I dropped Geico, which had collected many thousands from me over the years, in favor of Allstate, which insures my cars and home. It saved me several hundred dollars a year.


Now I get emails and letters from Geico trying to woo me back. Not a chance.


Anyone who thinks U.S. insurance companies are honest and forthright in handling claims is naive. Particularly during natural disasters, there is huge pressure to limit claims.


My house sustained significant damage from Hurricane Wilma in 2005. The first State Farm adjuster awarded me 10K. Well, after long fighting to get a reassessment, I was given 40K.


I should have bided my time and hired a lawyer. The damage was 60 or 70K. To make up the difference, I did much of the work myself.

[goboatingnow]

Reviewing what you said about the dock damage , unless it’s clearly established the damage was caused by your boat there is no claim. The concept of moral hazard applies. You don’t have an insurable interest in the dock per se. It’s only if your boat clearly was responsible for the damage.

If the piling snapped and as a result the dock was damaged that’s not the boats fault.

As for Loss adjusters , they are only doing their job and in big chains typically you hire your own adjuster that then argues your side of the story. My friend is an ex loss adjuster and he made very good money representing house owners dealing with claims in the BVI.

[leboyd]

If insurance companies are out to get you (e.g., take your premiums and never pay an honest claim), then they're doing a really bad job of it. If they were doing a great or even good job of it, the number of companies insuring boats would be increasing not decreasing because the profits are high enough.

Profits aren't high, which is why the companies are disappearing.

Reminds me of a thread a few years ago where the complaint was work yards were ripping everyone off, but in the same thread people complained about the lack of work yards and more of them closing.

Basic new business strategy is to enter a business where the profits are high enough. When no new businesses are entering an industry, it's because the profits aren't high enough.

[TrentePieds]

leboyd said: "When no new businesses are entering an industry, it's because the profits aren't high enough."

Well, no. Not really. When no new businesses are entering an industry, it is because the profits to be gained in some OTHER industry - dare we mention property development? - are even higher.

If profits in the Insurance Industry are sky high, but profits in Property Development are higher still, investors are obviously gonna plump for the latter to the detriment of the former, and therefore to the detriment of thee and me.

Let's not confuse the concept of "a business", which is generally "an artificial person", i.e a corporation created by government fiat, with the reality of "an investor" created by less bureaucratic means, nor even with a whack of them as is the case in the Insurance Industry. And let us not delude ourselves that the Insurance Industry is not an oligarchy. CFOs in any given industry tend to have lunch with each other :-)!

All that notwithstanding, my experience is that if you, "the insured" aka "the policyholder", hold up your end of the bargain laid down in the Policy you have bought and paid for, and you act "in utmost good faith", Insurance Companies are very good about reciprocating.

TP

[JPA Cate]

.... my experience is that if you, "the insured" aka "the policyholder", hold up your end of the bargain laid down in the Policy you have bought and paid for, and you act "in utmost good faith", Insurance Companies are very good about reciprocating.TE]

This has been my experience as well.

However, for a while, my daughter was employed as a claims adjuster for a well known American company. It was she who told me, "the insurance company is in business to make money for the shareholders."

So, it will largely come down to how you, the consumer of their product, handles insurance issues.

Ann

[Anders]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

This has been my experience as well.

However, for a while, my daughter was employed as a claims adjuster for a well known American company. It was she who told me, "the insurance company is in business to make money for the shareholders."

So, it will largely come down to how you, the consumer of their product, handles insurance issues.

Ann

All company's are in business to make money for the shareholders.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

I’ll bet the insured in question blew himself in. “See! They agree with me!”

Yep, OP indicated 2yrs and lots of lawyers. They probably asked for information about his accounts related to the boat as part of discovery and took the time to review them.

So the insurance company ultimately found out he was doing shoddy work that caused a big loss and a lot of money spent fighting the claim that they wound up paying anyway...then they chose not to take their toys and go home when he asked for his insurance to be renewed.

With the evidence from the case, they have a clear and strong reason to deny coverage.

PS: if the judge catches you hiding accounts that were requested as part of discovery, it gets ugly for you real quick, so using a fake name is not going to protect you.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Shrew

I'm calling BS on the story as told to the OP. I'm sure that the story of the insurance company is one this person is telling, I'm just not convinced.

The insurance company took the time to surf through hundreds of forums (which are designed to foster anonymity). They then were able to identifiably correlate a user name with a name and an account number.

When I went to High School there were three of us with the same First and Last name. Two of us spelled our first names the same. The guy who spelled his first name differently had the same middle initial as I did. Just google your first and last name and look how many hits you get on LinkedIn or Facebook or just plain Google.

Even if the insurance company had a name that matched a screenname, there is no way to guarantee it is the same person. They would have to somehow get the court to subpoena the user records from the forum to conclusively match the user name with the policy holder (if there was enough in the forum's user database to do so).

That whole thing sounds like an idiots conspiracy theory. I call BS.

No need for an internet search. During discovery, ask for any and all sources of information related to the case. If you don't provide them and the judge finds out, you get slammed hard.

But even then, you would be surprised how easy it is for someone with a little background and some key information to search and find a lot of info about you in 20-30min.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I agree, by and large my experience is that negligence is not a barrier to payout

I think the complication is proving if they used reasonable precautions.

In most cases, they payout is less than it would cost to investigate, get the lawyers on line and pursue a civil case if the insured gets their own lawyers...so if it's not clear cut, they don't deny cases of simple negligence (if it's a low payout, they may even pay out on obvious cases of negligence as its still cheaper)

Of course, if the OPs is talking about totaling a $2mil boat and it's pretty clear cut negligence, the scales may favor denying the claim and fighting it out in court.

Of course, the complaint wasn't about the claim but about the insurance company not wanting to renew insurance.

PS: All the blather about mandatory govt insurance doesn't apply to boats. Car, yes. Health insurance, yes. Boats, no.

[JulienPete]

Originally Posted by Dogscout

So the dude replaced the relay incorrectly, it caught fire and he does not want to take responsibility for his screwup and wants his insurance to pay out for his shoddy work. Is that what I read?

I guess that goes for Shoddy driving in a car accident?


Or Shoddy handling of a hammer accidentally dropped that breaks something.



Just saying!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by JulienPete

I guess that goes for Shoddy driving in a car accident?

Or Shoddy handling of a hammer accidentally dropped that breaks something.

Just saying!

While in layman discussion it makes sense, legally, "shoddy" is the incorrect word for what happened.

Presumably, the guy purposely tried to rewire something on his boat and electrical work is a field that typically is expected to be done by qualified and/or licensed individual. You can certainly do it yourself (untrained) but you are now operating outside of standard industry practice and therefore it could be considered negligence if it's not done correctly resulting in an accident.

If you run your car into a telephone pole, presumably it wasn't on purpose and presumably, you were qualified to drive a car as evidenced by having a license (keep in mind, we are talking legal). It's accident rather than negligence.

Of course, if you purposely run into a telephone pole, that will typically invalidate your insurance as it is negligent.

The tricky parts are:
- Proving that you "purposely" did something outside of the norm that caused the incident.
- Should you have reasonably known what you were doing is outside of the norm. (ie: should the OP have known he should use a licensed electrician)

And then you get results that ignore all this because it's cheaper for the insurance company to pay a small claim than fight to deny it.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

While in layman discussion it makes sense, legally, "shoddy" is the incorrect word for what happened.



Presumably, the guy purposely tried to rewire something on his boat and electrical work is a field that typically is expected to be done by qualified and/or licensed individual. You can certainly do it yourself (untrained) but you are now operating outside of standard industry practice and therefore it could be considered negligence if it's not done correctly resulting in an accident.



If you run your car into a telephone pole, presumably it wasn't on purpose and presumably, you were qualified to drive a car as evidenced by having a license (keep in mind, we are talking legal). It's accident rather than negligence.



Of course, if you purposely run into a telephone pole, that will typically invalidate your insurance as it is negligent.



The tricky parts are:

- Proving that you "purposely" did something outside of the norm that caused the incident.

- Should you have reasonably known what you were doing is outside of the norm. (ie: should the OP have known he should use a licensed electrician)



And then you get results that ignore all this because it's cheaper for the insurance company to pay a small claim than fight to deny it.

To my mind certainly around here there is no industry qualifications as to who can work on your boat. The exception is butane Gas installations. An insurance company attempting to deny claims due to DIY issues would (a) have to point to a policy clause limiting such work it could not argue there was an” expectation. “ of professional install as the concept has no meaning.

I have never heard on this side of the pond , of claims being denied unless the policy has specific exclusions which the policy holder transgressed

The one case I am aware , was a boat sunk at its moorings due to a cheap Jabsco filter cracking due to being frozen, even though the owner has agreed that the boat was never “ laid up for the winter “ and the policy acknowledged that. The insurance company argued the appropriate course of action was to shut the seacocks abs this wasn’t done.

After a somewhat lengthy court case the insurance company lost.