My specific complaint is that they aren't performing the contract as
written. I'm "howling" because I think they are making up new parts of the
contract that were never there. I have no problem with "depreciation."

Depreciation, as mentioned, means decline in value "due to wear and tear."


Just before the accident, you had perfectly serviceable, but "used" parts in
your outdrive. If the insurance company had replaced the parts with perfectly
serviceable parts out of a scrap outdrive, I would be faster to agree with your
feeling of ill use if your were asked to pay a sum that reflected the
difference in value between a new part and a used part. Difference aka
"depreciation." Difference between the value of something new and the same
thing used.

It was absolutely the correct move, IMO, to
put in the brand new parts during the repair. Even a perfectly serviceable used
part can be somewhat worn down, and all other things being equal a used part is
probably more likely to fail more quickly.

Absent something more in the contract, BoatUS can't simply assume there is
wear and tear based on the age of the part. We are NOT talking about the
market value of parts in question, we are taling about how much of their
useful life remains. What if I bought the boat and parked it for 10 years.

Did you park the boat for ten years? Was it new, or slightly worn out when you
bought it? When Boat/US insured the boat, I would assume that they inquired
about the number of engine hours. Were there additional hours
on the machinery at the time of the accident?



There would be absolutely no wear and tear on the prop shaft. My complaint
with BoatUS is that they simply assume wear and tear based on age without
even inspecting the part.

If you want to dispute Boat/US findings or opinions, don't cash the settlement
check.
Call the adjuster and get the name of one of the mechanical surveyors that
Boat/US
trusts in your area, and see if the adjuster will agree to examine the parts.

In fact,insurance law is exactly the opposite. If there is
any ambiguity in an insurance contract, the ambiguity is interpreted in
favor of the insured.

But don't expect the insurance company to bend over backwards to pay you more
than they think they can get away with.

It may take some negotiation to bring them around.

The good news is that they paid for the tear down, right?

There are a lot of insurance companies who don't pay for tear down or
"diagnosis" at all.

I replaced an engine within the last year.
Boat/US insurance. They were very fair.
Didn't cover much, (my policy didn't lead me to expect much, either) but they
spent about $500 tracking down the cause of the failure (bad solder joint in
the turbo aftercooler) and would have stepped up to the plate if the cause had
been a covered item.

In article ,
wrote:


On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 22:22:03 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote:

On 31 Oct 2004 00:08:21 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:


I replaced an engine within the last year.
Boat/US insurance. They were very fair.
Didn't cover much, (my policy didn't lead me to expect much, either) ...

This is the crux of the matter. One shouldn't expect pie-in-the-sky,
but, then, there is that nebulous... "what is covered" and "for how
much" problem. If you received what you *expected* to receive,
everybody is happy.... otherwise, somebody will feel (and perhaps
*be*) cheated.

This is where the agent should be explaining the details. If you want
coverage for XXX it'll cost this much, otherwise, expect to pay
XX+Something premiums... and the insurance company figures
depreciation in this manner....

If the insurance company states they will "depreciate" whatever... it
would be really nice if *everybody* knew exactly what that meant....
especially if not explicitly stated in the policy.

A policy should not be written in such language that it can be
"interpreted" after the fact..... if, that is, indeed, the case in
this matter.... based on the situation, as presented, it just
*sounds* shady....

Most people are over-insured. They have been bamboozled into thinking that they
need insurance to cover anything that might happen to them.

Insure for things you can't handle without help.

That means, have the highest deductibles you can get, and don't insure anything
that you can do without. You don't need to insure a $1000 outboard motor. Sure,
if you lose it, it will be a setback, but it won't cause you to become homeless.

Think.

BB

Yep.

I can rebuild my own engines. I won't like it, but I can do it.

If I blow one of them up, I will buy the parts, rip it apart, and rebuild
the engine on my own.

I won't like it, but I will do it.

Now if my boat SINKS, well, that's why I have my policy. While that
wouldn't put me in the poorhouse either, it'd seriously pizz me off if
I was running "naked" - so I have hull insurance against such things.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

What does an insurance company cover on a blown engine

Depending on the cause of the engine failure, they might cover the entire cost
of an engine.

For instance: An acquaintance of mine had some work done on his Volvo diesels.
He paid to have some zincs replaced, among other items. The technician
apparently screwed one zinc in a turn or two, intending to tighten it down with
a wrench or a socket a moment later. Problem was, the the technician didn't
tighten the zinc down and it vibrated out when the boat was underway. Engine
overheated to the point where it sustained internal damage, acquaintance got a
brand new engine for the price of a small deductible.

When my engine failed, (hydrolock) I didn't expect to get any help from the
insurance company, as per the language of the policy. Actually, the adjuster
suggested that Boat US might be willing to pay to have the engine pulled and
torn down to determine whether the engine failure was a covered event or not-
and I figured that would be fine by me since the engine had to come out for
rebuild or replacement anyway. In the end, Boat US was able to reach a
conclusion about the cause of the failure without pulling the engine.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:32 GMT, akheel
wrote:

First, let me say, given my current experince I wouldn't recommend BoatUS
insurance. I have the so called Yacht policy which is there "better"
policy, and it and their serice sucks. I had a better deal at the Auto
Club before, who are not "marine experts." I switched to BoatUS (which I
will abreviate hereon as "BS") because it was cheaper and now I see the
error of my ways.

~~ snippage ~~

1 - Get a new mechanic.

2 - They have the right to "depreciate" parts at their discretion.
Their point about putting you in a better position than when the
accident happened is a valid view point. In particular with the
"trashed"/"Whoops, not trashed" deal. You think they are going to
trust the mechanic? Or you?

3 - Of all the marine insurance companies I've heard about or
discussed with others, BoatUS is probably one of the best. One of the
all time losers is Progressive (two cases of which I have personal
knowledge).

Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:32 GMT, akheel
wrote:

First, let me say, given my current experince I wouldn't recommend
BoatUS insurance. I have the so called Yacht policy which is there
"better" policy, and it and their serice sucks. I had a better deal
at the Auto Club before, who are not "marine experts." I switched to
BoatUS (which I will abreviate hereon as "BS") because it was cheaper
and now I see the error of my ways.

~~ snippage ~~

1 - Get a new mechanic.

2 - They have the right to "depreciate" parts at their discretion.
Their point about putting you in a better position than when the
accident happened is a valid view point. In particular with the
"trashed"/"Whoops, not trashed" deal. You think they are going to
trust the mechanic? Or you?

They absolutely have the right to depreciate, that's not the problem. The
amount of depreciation is not at their discretion, its the amount of actual
depreciation, which in this context, simply means the percent used of the
total useful life of the part in question. They can estimate the
depreciation based on age, and if I accept that fine. If I don't, they
have to investigate, perhaps inspect, and determine the actual amount of
depreciation. That's all I want, because I think in my particular case,
the depreciation estimate they made, based on a chart they have, is very in
accurate.


3 - Of all the marine insurance companies I've heard about or
discussed with others, BoatUS is probably one of the best. One of the
all time losers is Progressive (two cases of which I have personal
knowledge).

I can only say I had a claim with under an Auto Club policy I had, and they
were much easier to deal with. Bear in mind, we're talking about a little
18 foot I/O runabout. Things might be different if I was insuring an
actual yacht with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake. Maybe it pays
to go with marine experts in those cases, but when it comes to relatively
cheap weekend recreational boats I've had better luck with my local auto
policy companies.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 02:17:39 GMT, akheel
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

~~ snippage ~~

They absolutely have the right to depreciate, that's not the problem. The
amount of depreciation is not at their discretion, its the amount of actual
depreciation, which in this context, simply means the percent used of the
total useful life of the part in question. They can estimate the
depreciation based on age, and if I accept that fine. If I don't, they
have to investigate, perhaps inspect, and determine the actual amount of
depreciation. That's all I want, because I think in my particular case,
the depreciation estimate they made, based on a chart they have, is very in
accurate.

Seems fair to me. Then again, I'm not an adjuster. :)

3 - Of all the marine insurance companies I've heard about or
discussed with others, BoatUS is probably one of the best. One of the
all time losers is Progressive (two cases of which I have personal
knowledge).

I can only say I had a claim with under an Auto Club policy I had, and they
were much easier to deal with. Bear in mind, we're talking about a little
18 foot I/O runabout. Things might be different if I was insuring an
actual yacht with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake. Maybe it pays
to go with marine experts in those cases, but when it comes to relatively
cheap weekend recreational boats I've had better luck with my local auto
policy companies.

I have a custom policy written against my house insurance for my three
boats. All are full replacement value which we negotiate every two
years. I have a $1,500, $500 and $250 deductible respectively. Works
out much better this way.

So far I've had one claim over a bizillion years with this same major
company and I took part of the hit because it was my fault - I whacked
a piling and needed some fiberglass repair.

Later,

Tom

"Beware the one legged man in a butt
kicking contest - he is there for a
reason."

Wun Hung Lo - date unknown