Bavaria Yacht Info
Member Forums => Scuttlebutt => Topic started by: JEN-et-ROSS on March 14 2016, 11:34
-
Hi.
Tales of woe ! :(
During the winter of 2014 a large boulder dislodged from the the steep slope behind our yacht (Bav 38 Lagoon 1991) and struck the rudder.
The damage included the top bearing torn from it's carrier, this allowed the rudder stock to pivot breaking the lower bearing carrier free from the hull.
The rudder 'skin' was broken in two places and the stock was bent.
Our insurance company paid out, but rather than replace the rudder stock they had it straightened. This has turned out to be a bad idea as the rudder stock is now showing a distinct bend again at the point of the original bend, so our sailing season is going to be delayed since bending spade rudders don't instil much peace of mind.
We can only assume that the original injury or the process of straightening it has caused a fracture in the 100mm aluminium rudder stock.
I only noticed this last week as we began the preparations for anti-fouling, I've contacted the insurance people who have agreed to a new rudder/stock.
The problem is that the only company I can find who say they can fabricate a new rudder in a reasonable time is Jefa, and they have been very helpful. :)
Does anybody know of a company in the UK who can do this? or is there a source of spade rudders for elderly yachts?
Any pointers to speed us back onto the water would be greatly appreciated......................Bill
-
Don't think there is anybody making that sort of rudder these days in UK as very few new boats are being built here - and some of them have Jefa rudders. similarly the chances of finding a used rudder to fit are vanishingly small. You will not regret having a rudder from Jefa.
-
Thanks Symphony. You have confirmed what I was beginning to think.
DDZ in Largs think they may be able to source one and have put out the necessary feelers, but failing that it looks like Jefa...............Bill
-
Jen-et-Ross
Commiserations. I don't know if that chap (Peter Jereb) who contacted Nigel recently might be able to help, thread here - http://www.bavariayacht.info/forum/index.php/topic,1256.0.html .
Not in the UK but seemed very helpful so may ship if there's something suitable....
-
Thanks for the pointer Mark, I've just sent SVPYACHTS an Email with the details, so fingers crossed, though being an older Bavaria it may be a long shot.
I'll let you know if I get a result..................Bill
-
A brand new Jefa rudder paid for by the insurance? What's not to like?
-
A brand new Jefa rudder paid for by the insurance? What's not to like?
Ha!! I do agree, but insurance companies being what they are want to see three, yes, three written estimates for the supply of a new rudder. (that's their S.O.P.)
As we are all aware this is a tall order, so I'm obliged to go through the motions and jump through hoops to establish Jefa as the only reasonable option in this part of the World. C'est la vie......................Bill
-
Hi Bill,
I wonder if it might speed things up if you went back to your insurers on a slightly different tack, namely that the consequent delay and loss of amenity by not having your boat available to sail as you would reasonably have expected had a full and proper repair been carried out at the time. Specifically this has been as a result of having the rudder stock straightened at their insistence instead of being replaced, and where that straightening has resulted in a weakness which has now manifested itself. In order to minimise your loss of amenity would they contact a yacht charter firm near to your location to authorise the hire and payment for a yacht of similar size and age to yours that you can use until such time that they have sorted the problem which was one of their own making. They might then be a little happier to accept that you have actually found someone, anyone, who can provide a new rudder in a fairly short period of time.
-
Very good point, Salty.
-
Well. I've just received this lengthy missive from HAVEN Knox Johnson (Amlin), divorcing themselves of all responsibility.
I'm just off the 'phone having gone through them like a 'dose of salts' (Scots expression for putting your point loudly and forcibly)
They did agree that if I had bent the rudder by hitting a rock last year they would pay out happily, but since unseen damage was caused by the boulder 2 years ago they won't, They're blaming the original repairer for not spotting the impossible. Surely Comprehensive Insurance is 'Comprehensive'
They have agreed to send a surveyor after I refused to get off the 'phone, so that's a start, but the whole thing leaves a very bad taste and unless they accept the risk that I've paid them for I wouldn't recommend HAVEN to anybody.
As for Salty's suggestion?, I think pigs might fly......................................... Bill ( I've never added an attachment to the forum before so here goes)
-
Bill, as I see it, there are some words within Haven's reply that give you some leeway.
1. They talk about whether the new incident is linked to the original repairs, or if it is a completely new incident. So, does the position of the current bend in the rudder stock coincide with the original bend? This would not be entirely conclusive, but would lend credence to the original bend and subsequent straightening having weakened the rudder stock.
2. "Check rudder stock has not been damaged." Presumably Mainsail Marine would have produced a written report of their findings which hopefully they sent to Haven along with their proposed repair strategy. It would be useful to get a copy of that report, along with any reply to it from Haven. In particular is whether there was any intention or requirement for a detailed investigation of the metallurgical affect that straightening would have on the strength of the rudder stock, and also if there were any weasel words that would enable Haven to pin the blame on Mainsail. But keep in mind that it would also have been negligent for Haven not to have specified adequately about the residual strength of the rudder stock, particularly as it was straightened at Haven's insistence instead of replacement which hopefully was a request you made to them in writing.
3. On the 26th of June 2014 you said "The repairs so far" etc "have been entirely satisfactory." As I read that, what you have indicated is that up until that date, just four months after Mainsail submitted their estimate, and therefore presumably a lesser time between the actual date of the repair and the date of your statement, that the repairs appear ok. This short period of time cannot be considered as anything other than what you have said, namely up until that moment things look ok, but that cannot be assumed to be a guarantee from you that all really is well, particularly if you are not qualified in regard to the residual strength of the rudder stock. As for the residual strength of the rudder stock, unless they know otherwise I'd say you need to lay it on thick that you are not and were not qualified to make any definitive comment in that respect.
4. Haven say that you had legal representation in effect at that time which you can use, so go and grab it with both hands, but make sure that the legal firm will provide totally unbiased help. It could be worthwhile checking your household insurance to see whether you are also covered under that policy for legal help. It will not be to Haven's advantage for this matter to go to court because you live and presumably the boat was located in Scotland where separate laws apply from the rest of the U.K.
5. Haven did not appoint a surveyor, and they admit that they would not have paid for one even if you had asked for one despite that part of the damage to your boat had the potential to affect its seaworthiness. In that respect I would suggest that they were negligent not only in that respect, but also in respect of the fact that they authorised the work that Mainsail did, and it would seem, they did not seek unbiased assurance from someone qualified to give it that the work had been fully and properly carried out.
As for "pigs might fly," if you don't ask, you don't get, so good luck, you will need it.
P.S. I should have the name of a decent loss adjuster who could help, and if I can find it I will let you know. He comes from Kent, but may be able to advise on an alternative person that lives closer to you and would cost less for them to travel to you.
-
Salty. Thanks for your observations, and to answer you queries:-
1)The bend is in the same place and in the same direction.
2)Mainsail Marine are boat repairers not surveyors or specialists. HAVEN were asked if they would provide a specialist but declined, saying they didn't think it necessary. I have no issue with Mainsail's work. Denied the skill and equipment of a specialist, Mainsail's check of the rudder stock could only be visual.
3)As you pointed out, I'm no authority on rudders so why then did they ask my opinion. There should have been a surveyor overseeing the repair.
4)I should use the Legal Protection to sue HAVEN instead for their lack of 'duty of care'.
5)I agree fully that they are negligent, in the past 2 years we've sailed about 1800 miles, including 4 'Minch' crossings and the Irish Sea. If we had lost our rudder we could have lost the boat.
At least now we are getting the services of a surveyor, and a good one at that.
Incidentally, the quote from Jefa came in today at £2046 +vat. not including the adaptive work involved in it's installation..............Bill
-
Maybe I have misunderstood but I am not sure that the insurers have been negligent. Just because they paid out on the claim does not necessarily make them responsible for the work. I am not clear whether you originally asked for a new rudder - or that was recommended by the surveyor and the insurer insisted on having it repaired, or whether the original assessment proposed a repair.
That is significant because it is difficult to see how the insurer can be responsible for a subsequent failure that is not in itself an insurable risk. Normally insurers would accept evidence of completion of the work for payment of your claim, but that does not make them responsible for subsequent failures.
I suspect they will dig their heels in over this (as they already seem to have done) and you will have to prove that they were negligent in specifying an inadequate repair. From what you say, perhaps they have not.
-
Incidentally, the quote from Jefa came in today at £2046 +vat. not including the adaptive work involved in it's installation..............Bill
To avoid any further shocks, note that Danish VAT is currently at 25%.
-
Symphony. I'm not sure I understand your thinking.
At the time of the original damage HAVEN refused to appoint a surveyor, This led to Mainsail, who are boat builders, (good ones) reluctantly having to make a decision on the serviceability or otherwise of the bent rudder stock. This was a situation that I was uncomfortable with at the time.
My point is that had HAVEN commissioned a surveyor we would not be in this situation now as a new rudder would have be installed, and a substantially larger financial hit for HAVEN would have resulted.
By not providing the services of a surveyor or specialist they got off very lightly financially by suggesting the stock could be straightened.
They ARE now sending a surveyor, as I believe they should have done in the first place. So if a new rudder is recommended then HAVEN are no worse off than if they had sent the surveyor two years ago,
It would also prevented recent sleepless nights at the thought of the possible lucky escapes we had by not losing our rudder at some inconvenient moment during the last couple of seasons, so, yes, I do believe our safety was put at risk to safe money, hence negligent.
-
Think you will have a difficult time in trying to prove that not sending a surveyor is negligence. The insurance company's only responsibility is in meeting your claim if it is covered by the policy. They are not guarantors of the quality of the work. If you had wanted to have the repair supervised by a surveyor perhaps you should have appointed one and made this part of your original claim.
Easy to be wise after the event, but the insurer accepted a quote from the repairer so no reason why they should then have got a surveyor to check unless there was a dispute about the claim. Just having a surveyor look at the boat now does not necessarily mean he will agree with you. He is being paid by the insurer and he may well report that the current failure is not a consequence of the original claim.
Sorry if it sounds a bit harsh, but the insurer has settled your claim based on the claim you originally made. So I can see their reluctance in re-opening the case.
-
Rudder examined by surveyor yesterday ( at Haven's expense ).
Interesting conclusion, yes the rudder is bent but it's not the stock, it would appear that the two GRP 'skins/sides were refitted badly and not parallel with the stock giving the distinct impression that the stock was bent. (I was wrong, Ooops!!)
Apparently it's sound structurally but if we ever sold the yacht ( not intending to, but) we could run into difficulties. So the plan is to go sailing as planned, and on lift-out in October Mainsail will drop the rudder back out and complete the job correctly.
Very thorough examination by surveyor as it took over 3 hours.
Many thanks for all your advice, all much appreciated.........................Bill
-
Good result. Bet that is a relief not having to fight the insurer!
-
Good result. Bet that is a relief not having to fight the insurer!
Oh Boy!. it sure is.................
-
That's an interesting conclusion, though I don't see how they could have misaligned the sides of the rudder in relation to the shaft. Did Mainsail agree with the surveyors report, because that reflects on Mainsails ability to carry out a repair properly? Or is something being swept under the carpet to avoid loss of face?
-
Salty. I spoke to the bloke who runs Mainsail this morning. He is very apologetic and is liaising with surveyor to carry out the remedial work over the winter.
Also, since I flagged up a rudder problem with Haven, it might not be very good idea to just go off sailing having put doubt in their minds over the integrity of the rudder, as if there was an issue they might say I was irresponsible and not cover us. So Mainsail are supplying paperwork to certify that although it looks a bit odd and squint, it is structurally sound.
As to how it happened, our rudder is no 'laminar flow blade' and has it's maximum thickness just behind the stock, probably in the region of 140-150 mm. the stock tapers as it goes down, it's surprising, but there is a lot of space inside to be filled, they just got the stock far too close to one side, enough to make look slightly bent.
Gave me a fright though !!...........................Bill
-
Thanks Bill, I have to say that I'm not familiar with the inside of the rudder, but thought that there would have been a series of built in mouldings within that would have held the rudder stock in a central position, and conversely would also have held the side extremities at a set distance away from the stock such that sides could only fit back together in one way, i.e., correctly or not at all.
-
Apparently not Salty. It seems that when they 'split' a rudder they need to remove the material that was used as 'infill'. It then, I've been told, leaves you with two rather floppy sides that is filled with new 'infill'. Without the original mould to support one side while all this is going on it can all go pear-shaped, Basically someone was careless..................Bill
-
Thanks again Bill, I've learned something new today.
-
Jen-et-Ross.
A few thoughts.
Are you members of the RYA? Are you in a sailing club that is RYA affiliated? If so, Free legal representation and advice. The legal team is brilliant, I know of someone who had a prop fall off a new power boat in Chichester, the shaft actually sheared on the duo prop through a metal defect in the shaft. Volvo and Sealine would not budge saying he had hit something.
One letter from the RYA solicitor and the everything was replaced. Sealine and Volvo could not do enough. Ring the RYA and ask them for advice even if your not a member?
Another tack may be to contact the insurance ombudsman. Tell them you are doing this.
Write to sailing today, PBO, Yachting magazine. Tell them you are going to do this.
Copy and paste this thread into a letter tell them about the bad publicity they are getting in on line forums. Not just this one, post on others too.
Write to Robin Knox-Jonson, he is retired now and I believe the insurer only bares his name, but I am sure he will not want to be associated with such sharp practice.
You may want to remind them of their legal obligation to return you to the position you were in immediately before the incident. The position you are in now is a direct consequence of their actions not yours.
If you are in the UK or purchased the insurance in the UK seek a county court judgement (or what used to be called a small claims court judgement) Its about £150 to get the summons sent out. You may have to go through an arbitration process first. You can get this back from them as well as any expenses, but tell them that's what you are going to do first.
Good luck.
Hope this helps.
Ant
-
Thanks Ant.
I had thought of plastering the yachting press to draw attention to Haven's attitude ( the rejection Email was patronizing and gloating in my humble opinion), I was not aware that the RYA could take up arms in the defence of a yachtsman, this I will bear in mind. I'm not a member, but I think I will will join, as if they support us, I guess we should support them.
As mentioned earlier, I did insist on the attendance of a surveyor after their rejection, ( as a result Mainsail accepted responsibility) and I did so using just the argument you have suggested below, I believe it was a point that helped change their attitude. You may want to remind them of their legal obligation to return you to the position you were in immediately before the incident. The position you are in now is a direct consequence of their actions not yours.
When our boats are damaged in a manner that will affect seaworthiness, there is now no doubt in my mind that a surveyor should be appointed, if simply to reassure the poor owner, who is at this point way out of his depth, that his pride and joy will be returned to her previous glory (or otherwise).
I'm relieved that I don't now have to do battle with Haven, but I was quite prepared to give them a very hard time. They may have started to get the message when I told them I wasn't getting off the 'phone 'till I got a surveyor and if they wanted me off the 'phone they would need to hang-up on me, this they were not prepared to do, so I got my surveyor...........But it shouldn't be like this.
A friend asked if I would now be changing insurance companies, the answer of course is no, because if I do I'll require a new survey, not cheap. So, with Haven I stay...........Bill
-
Well done Bill, all too often the customer gets trodden on by insurers trying to save a buck and treating us like we are just a nuisance. Fair enough if we were falsifying a claim, but clearly you were not. Your perseverance has paid off, but it's very tiring and tiresome having to fight tooth and nail for your rights, so we'll done again, and well done for sharing it with us.
-
Hi Salty. Earlier on, Symphony expressed the view that Haven were possibly (just) within the terms of their policy with us He is probable absolutely correct in this, but, for an insurance company to insist on applying the 'letter' of the law and not the 'spirit', always goes down badly. Everybody expects a good reputable insurer to be flexible and provide assistance, since they have all the experience in dealing with disasters, the poor client has none. (I sought to point this out them) Haven scored badly in this......Oh Well...We live and Learn...................Bill.
-
Impavidus
Not sure why you are posting all this when the problem has been solved. The insurer did fulfil his obligations by settling the original claim. Any subsequent failings of the repair is the repairer's responsibility, not the insurer.
I think the insurer has been very fair in paying for a surveyor to inspect the repair and the repairer has agreed to make good the repair at his own cost.
Resorting to the RYA or any other legal avenue is only effective if you are legally in the right and have a sound case. it can however be useful to get advice from the RYA to determine what the legal position is. As is shown in this case it is not always easy if you are not familiar with the law. In this case the insurer has acted with goodwill, not out of any legal obligation.
-
Symphony,
I'm afraid you seem to be the only voice suggesting we should roll over and die when our insurance company tells us to. The general consensus appears to favour the idea that insurance policies are not carved in stone, and can in fact be stretched by a fair bit.
So if disaster strikes, it's up to the policy holder to fight his corner, otherwise he will get the the absolute minimum the Loss Adjuster can get away with. (because that's his job, to reduce the hit on his company.)
I think the so-called 'goodwill' expressed by insurers is really a fear of bad publicity. They operate in a highly competitive market place and happy 'yotties' are the best advertising they can get..................Bill
-
Not at all. Nowhere have I suggested that you should "roll over and die". Just that you should be aware of your legal position based on the contract you had with the insurer. Then you stand a better chance of getting a satisfactory solution. My reading of the situation is that the insurer had fulfilled their side of the contract, so if you want them to revisit the claim it can only be on the basis of goodwill.
Their initial negative reaction would have been because they had settled the claim already and therefore had no reason to re-open it as they are not the guarantors of work done by your contractor and which you have accepted. Your claim is against the contractor, not the insurer. I am all for fighting ones corner - but fighting the correct enemy, in this case the person who made the mistake.
Appreciate why you should think the insurer has a responsibility but they do not for the reasons given, so they have paid for a surveyor when they did not have to. An alternative - and I think this is the way I would have gone - was to engage a surveyor then he is working on your behalf.
So, you have a good result in avoiding the cost of the surveyor. I think it wise (unless you are confident in your own abilities) if there is damage of the type that your boat suffered to have your own surveyor right from the start to deal with the insurer and supervise the repairs with a sign off before payment.
You can, of course just rely on your contractor as you and the insurer did in this case, but recognise that any comeback is with the contractor, not the insurer.
-
All.
Just reading back through this thread again. I guess there are some lessons learned here that we should all think about?
I would suggest a few for starters but, it would be good to get Jen-et-ROSS and others to add to them. Perhaps we could post a "what to do" article on making a claim?
1. If there is any damage to your boat always insist on your insurer providing an expert to assess and provide a report. (otherwise it is their risk)
2. Become an RYA member. Ask them for advice. Its free!
3. If the insurer engages a 3rd party to do the work, have it inspected again by a surveyor and signed off. (remember if this happens, you have no contract with the repairer. Your contract is with the insurer who is obligated to return your boat to the condition it was immediately before the incident)
4. If you have any work done privately this is your risk, as you have contracted with the repairer, not you insurer (again have it checked and signed off if your not an expert in the field. Again, your risk.)
5. Remember. It's good to trust......... It's better not to.
6. ?
7. ?
Ant.
-
The contract with the repairer is with you, not the insurer. The insurer's responsibility is to settle the claim. That, as I see it is the crux of this problem. Insurers liability ends when they settle the claim. Difficult to see how the insurer should have any liability for potential defects in the repair over a year later.
The issue of whether a surveyor should be appointed is not straightforward. The insurer may well appoint a surveyor to assess the damage and determine whether the proposed repair is suitable. The responsibility for the repair then lies with the contractor unless the surveyor is then instructed to supervise the work and then sign it off. In many cases this is overkill, but in others (and possibly this case) it is a sensible approach.
Easy to be wise after the event, but there is no clear cut way of proceeding as each case should be considered on its merits.
-
I think I could add to Ant's list:-
6) If the insurer asks the owner 'are you satisfied with the repair?' then say 'can't tell, not qualified, send a surveyor please'.
They asked me this and I stupidly said "Aye, looks fine to me". This was enough for me to have 'signed off' on the repair without knowing it.
As for Symphony's:-
The insurer's responsibility is to settle the claim. That, as I see it is the crux of this problem. Insurers liability ends when they settle the claim. Difficult to see how the insurer should have any liability for potential defects in the repair over a year later.
Quite clearly it's not as simple as this in real life. The fact that I was able to get a surveyor at the Insurers expense 2 years after the event strongly suggests that Haven did suspect they still had a legal obligation, even after 2 years.
Whether this was because no surveyor was instructed at the time, I don't know. But if things were as black and white as Symphony suggested then they would have maintained the stance adopted in their (rather patronizing) rejection Email..............................Bill
-
The contract with the repairer is with you, not the insurer. The insurer's responsibility is to settle the claim. That, as I see it is the crux of this problem. Insurers liability ends when they settle the claim. Difficult to see how the insurer should have any liability for potential defects in the repair over a year later.
The issue of whether a surveyor should be appointed is not straightforward. The insurer may well appoint a surveyor to assess the damage and determine whether the proposed repair is suitable. The responsibility for the repair then lies with the contractor unless the surveyor is then instructed to supervise the work and then sign it off. In many cases this is overkill, but in others (and possibly this case) it is a sensible approach.
Easy to be wise after the event, but there is no clear cut way of proceeding as each case should be considered on its merits.
Symphony, What makes you think that when the insurer engages a contractor the contract is with you and the insurer? (or have I misunderstood your post?)
I did check with our legal team today. The answerer I got was complicated but, unless you engage a contractor or insist on using them or you sign a release waver saying your happy with the work. No contract exists between you and the contractor.
In fact, I was told that insurers actually have some pretty sharp practices around repairs. They will have a standing agreement with various repairers around the country.
The rates they are charged directly, do not reflect the rates you would pay;
Now get this!!
They will base the damage value (repair cost) on the value you would pay or be paid or the general public based on an hourly cost. But actually they will pay much less, or a discounted rate, this is based on them appointing the contractor as "an approved repairer". Where they send more of the damaged boats to them for a discount.
OK you say how does this affect me if the insurers paying? Well if they write your boat off as uneconomic repair they do so using the "to you" price not the "to them" price. They then settle with you for the lowest amount they can and sell the insured boat off to the highest bidder with estimated repair bill at ..........
Yes you guest it the "to them price"
Oh and just to add insult to injury if a repair is done they register the cost at the higher rate on the insurance register, not the cost they actually paid the contractor for the repair. Prejudicing your claims record......
Insurance works by lots of people paying in to a "pot". The insurers pay out as little of this pot as they can legally get away with.
The difference is called "profit".
To illustrate this add up the average premium of the boats in your marina, at mine its 300. Probably @ £500 PA or more. Take away the cost of repairs to said boats in a year. Say £50k (Just a guess). That's £100,000.00 a year profit for one marina for one year.
So the numbers are not accurate but you get the jist? If you race your boat the premiums can double, if its a power boat with a top speed over 16knts its double.
Sorry I have no sympathy with insurers. They take our money and expect us to take all the risk, then use wiggle room not to pay out. Which is how they can afford full page spreads in PBO, Yachting monthly and RYA news. Parasites!
Sorry Symphony, not having a dig at you personally, please don't take it as so. Apologies if your offended, not my intension. I just want Bavaria owners to get what they pay for.
I also hate Insurers, Bankers and Estate agents. They hide behind half truths, sharp practice, and bully boy tack tics, in the name of profit. I don't operate my business like that, if I did I could have retired years ago.... But I have values and good relationships with all my customers.
Rant over :-)
Off to take a chill pill, and a laydown ;D
Best regards.
Ant.
-
Well said Ant. :tbu
We should all realise that Insurance Companies are not our mates, and will attempt to talk us into accepting the bare minimum if we are unfortunate enough to have to make a claim.
As pointed out they indulge in very expensive marketing campaigns to convince us that the're just like us 'boaties'. If you take a look at Haven's full page spreads, you could be forgiven for thinking that everybody in their company lives on a brand new 50 footer, kitted out in the latest offshore oilies.
The truth I'm sure is very different. Their employees will operate in the same performance and target driven cynical business environment that is endemic in our culture. They probably only see a 50ft. yacht during the photo-shoot.
All that matters is 'the bottom line'. i.e. sell lots of policies and pay out as little possible.
So if you have a claim or other issue with them, be prepared for a battle..................................Bill
-
Not sure there is much value in continuing this discussion in detail, but just for information and to explain my position re the status of the contract for repairs following an insurance claim. My insurance policy with Y Insurance, which is underwritten (as are many yacht policies) by Amlin specifically states that the contract for repairs is between the insured and the contractor and that the insured should settle the bill and pass to the insurer for reimbursement.
Hence my position right from the start that the insurer has no liability or responsibility once the claim has been settled. This seems to be borne out in this case as the contractor has agreed to the remedial work, and the insurer instructed the surveyor as goodwill.
-
Not sure there is much value in continuing this discussion in detail, but just for information and to explain my position re the status of the contract for repairs following an insurance claim. My insurance policy with Y Insurance, which is underwritten (as are many yacht policies) by Amlin specifically states that the contract for repairs is between the insured and the contractor and that the insured should settle the bill and pass to the insurer for reimbursement.
Hence my position right from the start that the insurer has no liability or responsibility once the claim has been settled. This seems to be borne out in this case as the contractor has agreed to the remedial work, and the insurer instructed the surveyor as goodwill.
Symphony.
Your quite right. ;)
If you use your preferred contractor or engage someone to do the work the contract is with you and the contractor. However, if the insurer engages the contractor, or tells you to use x, y or z to do the work and/or they pay him directly the contract is not with you. Which is exactly why some insurers say get 3 quotes and use the one you want or pay you the money to get the work done. The latter is a yet another sneaky way of putting all the risk with you!
A contract is a written or expressed agreement between two parties to provide a product or service. There are essentially six elements of a contract that make it a legal and binding.
In order for a contract to be enforceable, it must contain:
1.An offer that specifically details exactly what will be provided
2.Acceptance, which is the agreement by the other party to the offer presented
3.Consideration, money or something of interest being exchanged between the parties
4.Capacity of the parties in terms of age and mental ability
5.The intent of both parties to carry out their promise
6.Legally enforceable terms and conditions, also called object of the contract
It depends on how the contract of insurance is set up who the third party contractor is in contract with. IE in your case its you. In other policy's it will be the insurer.
Always read the small print!!!!!!!
Hope that make sense?
Ant.