Boat Insurance deny responsibility, new rope

Brokenyacht

My boat was damaged when another boat came adrift in some strong winds. The owner had purchased and fitted a rope that his insurers deemed to be faulty from new. As they say he had acted with good intent by fitting a new rope, from a supposedly reliable source, they are denying responsibility.
My boat now has well over £3,000 of damage and no-one offering to fix it.
Can I go to small claims court with only an estimate or do i need to repair and submit the bills? Should I be asking a solicitor and how much should I be paying him?

I have been very clear in all my communications that I consider him liable!

My own insurance is third party so no big boys to bail me out here.

lisyloo

Why do you consider him liable?
It doesn’t sound like he was negligent.

Do you have any legal insurance on your home insurance policy or separately?
If not you would need to pay to consult a solicitor.

Have you considered whether the rope manufacturer is liable? Again a solicitor may be needed.

Boggles190

To be fair, unless strict liabilty applies (and I don't think it does in this case) then the owner of the other boat has to be found negligent for him to be liable.

I can see the insurers point, if he bought a new rope then he would rightly expect it to work (unless it looked obviously faulty) so I can't see how he has been negligent as he appears to have behaved reasonably.

Brokenyacht

So whats the point of insurance?

[Deleted User]

Brokenyacht wrote: »

So whats the point of insurance?

To provide cover in the event of accidents.

The other person's insurance pays out if it's their fault.

Yours pays out if it isn't.

lisyloo

Brokenyacht wrote: »

So whats the point of insurance?

To cover liabilities.
Accidents that aren’t anyone’s fault are your responsibility but you chose not to take insurance.

I think the rope maker could be liable if their product was meant to be used for boats. You could ask for the evidence it’s faulty.
But if you haven’t got legal insurance then you’ll have to pay to pursue.

Not sure why you are complaining when it doesn’t look like your insured for the boat or legal cover.

Brokenyacht

If I could clarify... I am insured at a level I would hope paid for damages suffered by others if my boat caused it. I thought I could rely on others around me to do the same.

I take the point about the rope manufacturer and will look into that. It just seems unfair that people pay for insurance for what looks like no effect!

lisyloo

Brokenyacht wrote: »

I am insured at a level I would hope paid for damages suffered by others if my boat caused it.

Only for your liabilities under the law.
The law says that in most circumstances you are only liable of negligent.
So If a slate flew off your (properly maintained) roof in freak weather then you are not liable. It’s an accident for which you are not to blame.

I thought I could rely on others around me to do the same.

He was insured and maintaining his boat properly.
But is not liable as it wasn’t his fault.

It just seems unfair that people pay for insurance for what looks like no effect!

I’m sorry but that is because you do not understand the law.
The law is that someone is not liable unless negligent (in most circumstances).
Insurance covers your legal liabilities to 3rd parties.

Boggles190

Agree with everything Lisyloo has put.

Liability only applies if a person is negligent (except for some very specific exceptions). It is not cover against any damage caused by something you own, you have to have either done something or failed to do something for the cover to apply.

There are some events which happen that cause damage for which no one liable. You either insure yourself against these events or accept the risk yourself. On boat policies I've sold in the past, damage caused by impact is usually a cover that can be bought.

You can of course pursue the rope manaufacturer if you feel they are liable, they will have product liability insurance to cover this. Again they will have to be found to be negligent for any cover to apply.

Brokenyacht

Well I have to say a thank you for your help in clarifying the position for me. You've managed in 7 posts and less than 4 hours to educate me better than several insurance people!
If only someone had explained some of this stuff before..

eddddy

Do you agree with the insurers that the rope was faulty? (Or do you think that the insurers might be using that as an excuse to refuse the claim?)

For example, do you think that the other owner might have used unsuitable rope, or the other owner didn't attach the rope securely etc (which would be negligent).

If so, you could make a claim for damages from the other owner (not the insurer) in the small claims court.


Essentially, the court would look at the evidence that each party submits, and decide on 'the balance of probabilities' whether the rope was faulty, or whether the other owner did something negligent.