can insurance companies endanger lives?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

I think you are failing to understand the fundamentals or perhaps refusing to accept them: YOUR duty to disclose is relevant both when you make your claim, and when you make application for insurance (via a broker, no doubt). To induce the insurer to accept the bet and issue the insurance policy, that application may well have to be accompanied by a survey. It is the APPLICANT'S duty to find and employ a surveyor to furnish that support documentation. BECAUSE the surveyor is an independent professional, he is, under the doctrine of "utmost good faith", assumed to be scrupulously honest until and unless it is shown that he is not.

The INSURER'S duty to disclose is met by the "wordings" of the policy.

The surveyor's report to the underwriter will state any deficiencies of the vessel found by him to be either contrary to sundry legislation regarding safety, or of such a nature that they would clearly impose a probability of "risks" (in the insurance meaning of the word) materializing that the insurer would be ill advised to accept.

Because YOU are the one OFFERING the insurer the opportunity to bet, it is the insurer's prerogative to say "you are on!" or "not today, thank you" as his mood strikes him. You have no RIGHT to be insured, nor has the insurer any DUTY to insure you.

If something happens to you during an insurance term that is an "insured risk", YOU win the bet, and the insurer settles the bet in gentlemanly fashion. If NOTHING happens to you, the Insurer wins the bet and is entitled to keep your "stake", to wit, the premiums paid so far during the insurance term.

At the end of the insurance term the insured's relationship with the insurer is at an end. The insured (the "offeror") is free to offer the insurer (the "offeree") another bet, and the insurer is again free to say yeh or nay. Normally the insurer will assume that the insured will want to bet again, and will APPRISE the insured that he, the insurer, might be willing to enter into another, new bet if one is offered.

That doesn't alter the fact that the insured, who is no longer insured because the insurance term has expired, is the offeror, and the insurer as the offeree is again free to accept or reject this new offer to bet. The insurer may do as he lists with the offer.

When an insured makes a claim during the insurance term, the insurer is quite free to tell the insured (the "claimant") to "prove his claim", i.e. to place the only for getting a survey on the insured. Indeed, the insurer would be a fool if he did not. That is why the onus is on the insured to hire a surveyor to furnish the professional opinion required to "prove the claim", unless he has some other way of doing it to the insurer's satisfaction, which he won't have. Normal procedure would be for the insured's surveyor to remit his report DIRECTLY to the insurer in order to preclude defalcation by the insured. The report becomes the property of the insurer, and he is quite free to refuse to disclose what is in it. He is also free, having "paid out", if the claim is for an "insured risk" as defined in the policy, to refuse to have anything further to do with the insured because his act, the insurer's act, of "paying out" concludes the bet - the bet he lost. The bet does NOT survive the "paying out"! It does not continue for the remainder of the stated insurance term.

If the insured's claim has been for an insured risk and he has been reasonable in the making of his claim, the insured can look forward to the insurer entering into another bet with him, although at altered odds, i.e. possibly at a higher "premium".

If the insured has NOT been reasonable, the insurer may well refuse to enter into another, new bet with the claimant. That is the effect of the doctrine of "utmost good faith", and would all show wisdom by acknowledging that!

All the best.

TrentePieds

GreT post , spot on and it’s how it’s worked for me with 30 years of marine insurance

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by the dude abides

Thank you for such a comprehensive reply TrentePieds.

The Surveyors report to the underwriter that will state the deficiencies. In this report what if it is stated that he needs an expert to ascertain the full extent of damage

This is not how it works.

It’s up to the insured to establish the nature of the claim. The insured ( you) may claim the cost of expert opinion to establish the claim if you feel it’s necessary

The insurer is not there to “ tell you what to claim
“ nor is the insurer actually interested in what you actually do with the claim money.

The insurer may also and typically employ expert opinion to evaluate your claim. This opinion is private to them.

The confusion here is people think an insurer “ fixes “ your boat , he does not. You do. It’s up to you the insured to fix the boat to your satisfaction.

[goboatingnow]

Hence the opening contention that insurance companies can endanger lives is false only you as the owner insured can endanger lives an insurer has no active role in it.

[TrentePieds]

Thank you GBN! That nicely augments a post in which I shoulda included that particular point.

A few further comments on that:

When a claim is accepted as valid, that is when damage has occurred as a result of an insured risk eventuating, the insurer may either settle repairers' invoices ON THE INSURED'S BEHALF, or he may pay out to the insured a sum deemed adequate for the insured to settle workmen's invoices. In the latter case the insured signs a "quit claim", and he can spend the money on skittles and beer rather than on repairs if he chose. Invoices for work that is not necessitated by the occurrence of an INSURED risk will not be compensated by the insurer. They don't evidence a "valid claim" and then remain the insured's responsibility. There are limits put upon the amount the insurer will pay out in respect of every insured risk. These limits are stated in the Insurance Certificate.

If, in the insurer's opinion, it would cost more to repair the damage claimed for than to buy a "similar" vessel in "like" condition, he may deem the damaged vessel a "total constructive loss" and pay for the insured to purchase a replacement a vessel, again up to a stated limit, viz the insured vessel's "hull value" as declared by the insured and stated in the Insurance Certificate.

TP

[5BTM]

Voted no.

Sort of reminds me of a thread on a woodworking forum I used to follow where someone complained about having a car accident because the GPS "told" him to make a left turn and try to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic.

I buy insurance to protect me from losses I can't afford, and I count on them to keep out individuals that see insurance as a way to dodge personal responsibility.

[TrentePieds]

One of life's little conundrums is that them wot need insurance the most is them wot can afford the least to pay the premiums :-)!

TP

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

One of life's little conundrums is that them wot need insurance the most is them wot can afford the least to pay the premiums :-)!

TP

Then there are those that cannot afford to NOT pay the premium.

[CoryW]

Insurance only kicks in when there is a claim. Keeping your vessel seaworthy is your reasonability. Not having a seaworthy vessel can be a reason to deny any claim.

[kurtis king]

an insurance policy is a contract. read your policy to see what it says the duty of each party is in such a situation.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by CoryW

Insurance only kicks in when there is a claim. Keeping your vessel seaworthy is your reasonability. Not having a seaworthy vessel can be a reason to deny any claim.

"Seaworthy' as defined by Lloyds and accepted by other underwriters is quite different than what boaters think

[TrentePieds]

Quite so, BP, but a little elucidation might be appropriate :-)

The legal concept of "seaworthiness" is intimately connected to the legal doctrine of the "reasonable man".

Seaworthiness must be defined with due regard to the severity of weather and of sea conditions expected to be met on the INTENDED VOYAGE, and to the physical condition of the vessel and the competence of the crew in relation to those expectations.

Perfection of vessel condition and of crew competence is not required - only adequacy.

TP

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CoryW

Insurance only kicks in when there is a claim. Keeping your vessel seaworthy is your reasonability. Not having a seaworthy vessel can be a reason to deny any claim.

I’ve rarely seen the term used in insurance policies

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Quite so, BP, but a little elucidation might be appropriate :-)

The legal concept of "seaworthiness" is intimately connected to the legal doctrine of the "reasonable man".

Seaworthiness must be defined with due regard to the severity of weather and of sea conditions expected to be met on the INTENDED VOYAGE, and to the physical condition of the vessel and the competence of the crew in relation to those expectations.

Perfection of vessel condition and of crew competence is not required - only adequacy.

TP

Yup ! Few seem to realize that it also refers to crew.

[Nav4425]

Especially agents.

[qwert]

The mast fell down 200 miles later.

You don't say whether this happened because of hidden damage from the lightning strike, suspected but not confirmed by the surveyor, hence the suggestion to get another specialist. If so one might think the insurer had a moral conflict of interest.

Or was there some pre-existing fault which the surveyor had noticed which caused the dismasting and which had no connection, (if you'll excuse the pun), to the lightning strike ?


In which case warning you would be seem to have been the decent thing to do.......