(Gould 0738) wrote in
:

Who cares whose fault it was. Apparently you don't understand the
nature of property insurance.

I understand that the nature of property insurance is that its a
written contract between the insured and the carrier.

The time to read your policy is *before* you hit something, rather
than after, (and then howl about the details of the contract you
signed).

The insurance company didn't come looking for you to turn you into a
victim. You hit something. They then performed as per the contract.
Your specific complaint is, what?

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."
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.
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. My boat has very few hours and thus very little
wear and tear, so I believe they are depriving me the benefits of my
contract with them. The prop shaft by its nature has a very long useful
life (assuming you maintain the other parts) and certainly, the way I use
the boat, will last more than 15 years they assume in their chart. There
is nothing in the contract allowing them to use their own defintions and
assumptions. 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.

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.