insurance claim issues with MS Amlin

[paul jenkins]

Hi All

I am having a huge battle with the above company ( i understand they are one of the biggest marine insurers in the world) regarding an insurance claim.

it boils down to the intertpretation of the usual 'what is covered and what is not' - As some history i have had the claim first refused by the external team who sound as though they kill most claims in their tracks ( Haven Knox Johnston) , and went onto the complaints team at MS Amlin and am now at the Ombundsman stage.

For info my boat was ashore in a marina boat yard , as it has been for the last 12 years and due to a bilge pump failure the boat was swamped over a period of about 6-8 weeks which has resulted in all the electrics needing to be replaced/re-wired and various other items destroyed( fire extingusher/flare pack/first aid kit/fishing tackle).

I have had not used a cover on the boat , and the hull has no drain plug drilled in the hull ( which are not conditions of the policy).

what is covered is ;

Whilst ashore or afloat, being lifted, hauled out or launched, in transit by road, rail, air or car ferry the Vessel is covered for losses arising from: 1.1 all risks of accidental damage; 1.2 theft; 1.3 fire and/or explosion; 1.4 acts of piracy; 1.5 acts of vandalism; 1.6 deliberate damage (not caused by You); 1.7 Latent Defect, excluding the cost or expense of repairing or replacing the defective part; and 1.8 electrolysis caused by a sudden and identifiable cause

Also covered is 'accidental loss or damage as a consequence of a failure or breakdown of Machinery'

I read that to mean if the bilge pump failed and the boat was swamped the cost of the bilge pump would not be covered but the damage would be.....

They have repsonded that the policy wording for exclusions includes the following:

6 You are also not covered for: 6.1 the cost of repairs or replacement to the Machinery directly caused by Latent Defect or mechanical breakdown, unless cover is provided under Section A 2.4; or 6.2 the mast, spars, sails and rigging whilst the Vessel is racing unless this has been agreed by Us and it is shown in the Certificate of Insurance under “Type of Racing”, in which case cover is extended under Section F.

Also that '4.12 incursion of water into the Vessel unless sudden and unforeseen, or accidental;

MY VIEW IS THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE WAS A FAILURE OF THE BILGE PUMP AND ASSOCIATED WIRING AND FUSE POSSIBLY ( I AM AWAITING THE REPORT OF THE MARINE ENGINEER STARTING THE WORKS ).THE BOAT HAD BEEN ASHORE AND BEEN PERFECTLY FINE FOR 12 YEARS UNDER THIS BASIS AND INSURANCE IS THERE FOR THESE TYPE OF RARE OCCURANCES - THE FACT IT WAS SWAMPING OVER TIME IS THIS NOT PUT TO ONE SIDE , AS THE PRINCPLE ISSUE IS MECHANICAL FAILURE.

Their marine engineers report also concldued the damage was caused by the failure of the bilge pump and the subsequent swamping by rain over a period of time...

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appricated as i am told the ombudsman is not always very user friendly for the claimant.

If there are Lawyers or specialists who help people like me out there i would be very interested for any contact info.

Also if anyone out there considers i am wrong and should forget the challenge i have made i would welcome any wisdom from other longer term boat owners!

 

Paul

 

added to which the exclusions also include:

 

 

i assumed that if you have a bilge pump failure

[Andy135]

Hi Paul, welcome to the forum. That's quite a first post. Sorry to hear you're having issues with your insurer - some may say that that is par for the course with any insurer (they exist to make profit at the end of the day, not to pay out to their policy-holders).

I see where you're coming from in respect of the consequential losses arising from the bilge pump failing, and it seems logical to me to pursue this line with the insurer. However, be aware that they may have a clause that requires policy-holders to take "all reasonable steps to mitigate losses" or equivalent wording, which in your case could be to have used a boat cover. I can see a potential outcome where they relent and agree to the claim, but reduce the payout significantly because they deem you to have contributed to the losses by not using a cover. At that point it would depend on whether you want to take them to court over it, or just chalk it up to experience and move on.

How much is the cost to dry out/rewire/replace damaged items? If we're talking just a few thousand I might take the pragmatic view that it's unfortunate but not worth throwing good money after bad (and I suspect they may know this and are deliberately making it hard for you in the hope you do give up).

Either way it's not a nice situation - good luck whatever you decide.

[Saintly Fish]

I'm assuming the insurers are saying that you are responsible because of your negligence to check on and maintain the electrics of the boat, including the bilge pump. Lots of insurance claims are refused because of neglect by the owner and poor maintenance. 
And to be honest (at risk of upsetting you) I'd say that's fair enough. 
I hope you get a result, but it seems unlikely. 

[LostPiker]

I work in insurance, albeit the technology side, and personal lines are very heavily regulated. You say you're talking to the ombudsman, is it the FCA? Have you made a formal complaint to them? Check if your policy was written on Lloyds paper as if it was and you're not satisfied with Amlins response you can complain to them as well. Companies take complaints to Lloyds very seriously and may offer a goodwill settlement to avoid the grief 

[MegaByte]

As the boat was ashore surely there is no requirement for the battery to be connected, therefore the bilge pump wouldn't have worked anyway.

[JonC]

Hi Paul, welcome to the site. 
The whole thing sounds like a disaster and as much as I’d like to hear that you got a favourable result I think that you’re pissing into a very strong wind. To be frank it does sound like the entire thing is the result of negligence on your part so I think they will just bat you off into the long grass. I’m sorry if this isn’t the opinion you want but there’s no point in blowing smoke up your arse here. 
As Andy said above maybe cut your losses and try to get remedial work done at a decent cost. 

[suzook12]

I think with that clause 4.12 they've got you by the short and curlies. I would say it would also be reasonable for someone to have checked the boat within 6-8 weeks as there was no cover fitted.

[Andy135]

8 minutes ago, suzook12 said:

I think with that clause 4.12 they've got you by the short and curlies. I would say it would also be reasonable for someone to have checked the boat within 6-8 weeks as there was no cover fitted.

Agreed. Upon re-reading the original post, if 4.12 is an exclusion clause then yes, incursion of water could reasonably have been foreseen if a cover wasn't used; it's not sudden or unforeseen, nor accidental. Their view will be that the bilge pump simply mitigates the ingress of water that shouldn't reasonably have been allowed in there in the first place, and if the cover had been used then the fact that the bilge pump had stopped working would be immaterial.

[paul jenkins]

Thanks for the various responses - the killer is this has been the way I have operated bringing the boat ashore for 12 years without a problem - the boat has 3 x 12 volt batteries and was connected to an on shore power supply with a tek charger plus a solar panel - and to add to my woes I had the bilge pump replaced in 2021 as it was 10 years old  I thought it was good practice to replace - they have not questioned maintenance of the boat as I have been impeccable in doing regular health checks by my marine engineer and tons of invoices for work Carried out - like the Lloyds route but the general feeling is have no chance of getting any payout for the works (estimated at £3000 to £5000). Anyone know of a specialist who could review my case and advise if I should continue or take the pain ( £££££££) - Paul

[Saintly Fish]

1 hour ago, paul jenkins said:

Thanks for the various responses - the killer is this has been the way I have operated bringing the boat ashore for 12 years without a problem - the boat has 3 x 12 volt batteries and was connected to an on shore power supply with a tek charger plus a solar panel - and to add to my woes I had the bilge pump replaced in 2021 as it was 10 years old  I thought it was good practice to replace - they have not questioned maintenance of the boat as I have been impeccable in doing regular health checks by my marine engineer and tons of invoices for work Carried out - like the Lloyds route but the general feeling is have no chance of getting any payout for the works (estimated at £3000 to £5000). Anyone know of a specialist who could review my case and advise if I should continue or take the pain ( £££££££) - Paul

If the continuation route doesn't cost you any £££'s and you can take the agro then carry on. Personally I'd be wanting to use my boat, so I'd do the repairs then try to claim the work back rather than wait for money then do the repair. 

[captin slows old outlaw]

wellcome to the forum.

sorry to here about the insurence problem.i sometimes think that policys arnt worth the papper there retin on

[Odyssey]

My understanding of MS Amlin is that machinery relates to the engines only…. I did question this as im Insured with them myself