Hobie Cat Forums

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:33 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:20 pm 
Offline
Site Rank - Admiral

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 273
Location: London UK
Thanks for those words PW. It seems we are catching up here on the "catch you out" culture.

But as you say life goes on so I have scraped together for one mirage drive and a seat to get me going again.

I have been advised to write to the main insurance company, Royal Sun Alliance, which will hopefully clarify what those of us insured with Towergate Mardon (who handle the majority of canoe/kayak policies here) are actually covered for and what we are required to do.

I shall let you all know the response

CC

_________________
May the odds be ever in your favor..
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:12 am 
Offline
Site Rank - Admiral

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 273
Location: London UK
Well silence from the powers at Royal Sun Alliance who underwrite the Towergate Mardon Insurance policies.

I thought it polite to write to RS&A to seek their response before lodging a formal complaint about the wording and guidance that I have received and now that the 14 days is up, it is, I think, quite reasonable that you see the points that I was trying to get across to them. Whatever views they may have have not been shared with us so we will all have to make our own minds up.

More as always as it (doesn't) happens.

Oh and I have today pulled the company PI insurance from RS&A as well, but more importantly had a good day on the Revo at the weekend. There you are ...balance as always :D

Royal Sun Alliance
New Zealand House
160-162 Abbey Foregate
Shrewsbury
Shropshire. SY2 6AL
Mr Simon Lee
[i][i]By recorded post & e-mail

5th June 2013

Dear Mr Lee

Clarity of Cover for Kayaks in particular Hobie Tandem Island models - Towergate Mardon ref:*********
I appreciate that you are not in day to day contact with the issues of policy holders however I would appreciate your assistance in resolving what is rapidly becoming a concern people who insure certain types of small watercraft with you.

I am hoping that by writing to you that I can seek clarification of the requirements of the owners of the above craft as to what exactly is covered, what practically (in the real world) one needs to do for the craft to be insured.

The reason for my letter is that following the theft of parts of my craft, for which I am now told that I am not insured, I have failed to find clarity in the policy documentation that supports the advice that I have been given by the brokers, Towergate Mardon. There appears to be a certain level of ambiguity with these particular craft that requires value judgements to be made as to which parts are covered and which are not.

I hope that you agree, that as owners of these boats, it is important that any subjectivity is avoided from the outset so that we can do what is necessary to ensure that our insurance is valid and our possessions protected. The we in this instance is both Myself and my wife but also all of the other interested Kayak fishermen and Hobie boat owners who are following the debate on this and are keen to receive guidance.

I am sure that if you wish, the full correspondence with Towergate can be provided and I will précis the position as I see it.

1 The fact is that the Hobie is a modular boat with bits that plug into it to allow it to operate in varying configurations. Some of these parts are big and some not so big.
2 This means that either to follow the letter of the policy every one of these parts would have to be removed from the boat, thus rendering the cover essentially meaningless as you would have to take 75% of the boat with you.
3 When asked about this Towergate say
“They have commented that with regards to the components that make up the craft, except the actual hull, these would be similar to mast and sails so wherever possible, and if the craft is being left for any period, these need to be removed. Items such as outriggers, as they form the basis of the boat, would be difficult and inconvenient to keep removing each time. Ideally if any items are to be left, then a wire cable with a padlock can be thread around them so that if they are stolen at least there is a sign of forcible removal”
4 The above paragraph, presumably from RS&A, adds considerable doubt into what and what is not covered, but if taken at face value leads to a conclusion that the craft could not be left, anywhere, for any period of time, without the majority of it being removed and taken somewhere else. (The outriggers are not integral to the boat in certain configurations). If this is the case it should have been made clear from the outset.
5 Terms such as difficult and inconvenient are not helpful and open to interpretation. What is inconvenient to someone who cycles down to his Tandem Island to go sailing (as one person at our yard does) is different from someone who has a trailer, (for some of the parts that are removable could only be trailed or carried on a roof rack)

I contend that because of this lack of clarity in the policy documentation, and the advice that I was given by Towergate Mardon, I could reasonably have believed that the items removed from my craft were covered by my insurance policy.

I further contend that because of your application of the subjective nature of the policy wording, in this case, that the Hobie Tandem Island, Adventure Island and to a great extent the mirage drive kayak range are not covered by the insurance policy that I have been sold. Nor could they reasonably, in real world terms, ever be covered and that either I have been sold a policy that could never cover a boat that everybody involved confirms they are familiar with, or in this instance your application of the subjective parts of the policy are rather harsh.

I have not copied this letter to Towergate Mardon at this stage to formalise a complaint but, that I think is the next step if you do not think my reading of the situation is correct. So could I please ask you to review the points that I have made, I hope politely, and let me know if you think I have a valid point in the next couple of weeks.
[/i][/i]

_________________
May the odds be ever in your favor..
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:46 am 
Online
Site Rank - Old Salt

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:58 am
Posts: 1440
Location: Forster, NSW, Australia
As a consequence of reading of your dilemma, I contacted my insurer here in Australia (NRMA) for a ruling, and their response was that my insurance defined my Tandem Island as a vessel including all components required to achieve normal funstionality.

I suspect that in the end, this will be the commonsense conclusion that will be determined as the final outcome of your complaint.

Good luck!

_________________
Tony Stott
2012 Tandem Island "SIC EM"
www.scenefromabove.com.au


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:23 pm 
Offline
Site Rank - Admiral

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 273
Location: London UK
Let's hope so.

Thanks JT for reminding me that we have a great consumer programme here in the uk called watchdog. The one with Anne Robinson. Perhaps they might be interested in the dilemma?

CC

_________________
May the odds be ever in your favor..
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:50 am 
Offline
Site Rank - Admiral

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 273
Location: London UK
So with no reply from the insurance company I have had to lodge a forma complaint to get some action.

Here is is:

Having received no response to my letter of 5th June 2013 to Royal Sun Alliance, I now write to you to formalise a complaint in respect of the sale of insurance products to me and in particular, but not exclusively, with regard to the clarity of the cover provided, the requirements for compliance with the policy and the dismissal of my claim on the loss of parts of the insured craft. My letter of 5th June 2013, which is attached, sets out the background to this complaint.

In particular I contend:

1 That the policy sold to me was not appropriate for the craft, which it has been established both the brokers and Insurers claim they were familiar with. I still do not know what parts of the craft are covered by the insurance and which are not despite having raised the question a number of times. If one were to follow the wording of the policy the majority of the craft would not be insured.

2 The policy that was sold to me is vague in what requirements are placed on the owner of the craft to ensure compliance with the policy in relation to this particular type of craft.

3 Where clarification has been sought on point 2 above subjective judgements have had to be applied by the insuring company. The insured cannot be expected to apply the same subjectivity and arrive at the same conclusions.

4 In applying this subjectivity the Insurers have dismissed my claim for the theft of parts of my craft and had a) the policy been worded to relate to reflect the nature of the craft or b) the subjective judgement reflected the nature of the craft, the claim would have been allowed.

I fully appreciate that the particular problems here arise because of the particular format of the craft, however I have relied on Towergate Mardon to advise me with regards to an appropriate policy for the cover of this craft and, as experts in this field, I believe that they have failed to do so.

I therefore request that:

My claim for loss is reviewed and allowed
The specific actions that I am required to take to secure my craft to be compliant with the insurance are set out
A schedule of which parts of my craft are covered by the policy is issued to me

A copy letter is also addressed to Towergate Mardon.

I have submitted copy correspondence with this claim and would be happy to discuss any aspect of this matter further.


I will update you all on any progress ...or indeed lack of it.

CC

_________________
May the odds be ever in your favor..
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:47 pm 
Offline
Site Rank - Old Salt

Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 2:31 pm
Posts: 2659
Location: Kailua 96734
Rip 'um a new one, CC! :twisted: They asked for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:21 am 
Offline
Site Rank - Admiral

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 273
Location: London UK
NOHUHU wrote:
Rip 'um a new one, CC! :twisted: They asked for it.


Well here is a funny turn up for the books. Maybe i should have realised from the start.

Towergate Mardon are the insurance brokers that sold me the insurance policy and Royal Sun Alliance are the underwriters.

When i had to write to them both to lodge the complaint guess what....yes. They are at the same address as RSA. Now that might me just not understanding how the complaint process works or them being in bed together which would explain the words of my chum al Lloyds " Towergate havnt done you any faours in handling your claim"

How exciting.

Anyway im back on the water on the Revo and even caught a fish last weekend. The waters here are 2degrees C cooler than last year so fish have yet to start moving in in large numbers.

Here's to summer when it arrives. :lol:

Cc

_________________
May the odds be ever in your favor..
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:56 am 
Offline
Site Rank - Admiral

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 273
Location: London UK
So here, after all this time, is the response we have been waiting for from Royal Sun Alliance

"We do regard that other than the hull, the majority of parts that make up the boat are classed as gear or equipment"

So basically they only insure the hull and nothing else.

Waste your time taking out a Towergate / RSA policy if you want to. I certainly wont be going near them in the future.

They also provide the "scheme" that Canoe England use.

Keep Smiling
cc

_________________
May the odds be ever in your favor..
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:06 am 
Online
Site Rank - Old Salt

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:58 am
Posts: 1440
Location: Forster, NSW, Australia
I reckon it is time to take that stupidity to a TV current affairs program, now that they appear to have closed off any chance of doing the right thing by you.

_________________
Tony Stott
2012 Tandem Island "SIC EM"
www.scenefromabove.com.au


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:41 pm 
Offline
Site Rank - Admiral

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 273
Location: London UK
I have rather taken my eye off this one whilst concentrating on another rubbish company.
Check out the "dont get mad get even" type website.

http://www.bongo-international.com

Perhaps i will do a similar one for these insurance jokers.

I am going to the ombadsman about it as well.
Cc

_________________
May the odds be ever in your favor..
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:11 pm 
Offline
Site Rank - Old Salt

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:21 pm
Posts: 2227
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Good luck CC. We'll be rooting for you!

_________________
Image
http://KayakingBob.com - - - - - Hobie Island Sailing since 2006 - - - - - 2011 & 2012 Hobie AIs and a 2012 TI


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group