Insurance Nightmare - BoatUS

Anybody ever have a similar experience with a 3rd part filling a claim on their policy? Back in October I was returning to my slip and I accidentally touched my neighbors boat. He wasn't around at the time and I let him know about it the next time I saw him which was about a month after the fact. He was pissed at the marina for not notifying him. He then accused me of going on his boat to repair all the damage that was caused. Several marina personnel looked at his boat and said there was no damage. I touched the fluke on his anchor with the side of my boat and had a minor scratch on my boat. I had my boat repaired and it was less then $300 to repair. The other boat owner filled a report with the local police and they refereed him to FWC who has jurisdiction on the water. Witnesses on the dock told the FWC that I just touched his boat. Well after several months I get a phone call from BoatUS saying there is a claim against me. I called BoatUS for 3 days and left messages but they did not return my call. Finally. I got thru to someone in claims and they told me the claim (over $5000) was payed off and the file has been closed. They said all the information was submitted along with pictures of the damage and they didn't need to talk with me. It seems the other boat owner is having previous damage that was not done correctly repaired at my (insurance) expense. It is impossible to get a hold of anyone in the organization that can tell me why they would not contact me before paying off and closing the claim. Should I look for a new insurance company?

Greetings,
Mr. D. I would first try to find out what the $5K settlement was for and ask for a copy of the work orders for what work was done and yes, for sure, they should have contacted you and explained exactly what was going on. Sounds like some sort of insurance fraud on the part of your neighbor IMO. What does FWC say?
I'd also try to find another marina with friendlier neighbors.
Did your marina notice any damage to the other boat? Did they do any repairs on the other boat?

Since it’s after the fact there is zero anybody is going to do. Case closed.

Why in the world your insurance would pay a claim without contacting you is beyond me but I suppose if the other party sent in photos, etc... then it sounds reasonable.

This says a lot about your dock neighbor.

Seems very strange. He makes a claim but the insurer doesn't verify who caused the damage.

Did you contact your insurance at the time of the accident? Did you take photos?

This is a reminder to notify your insurer anytime there's an incident and to always take photos. Then follow up.

Now, unfortunately, what they choose to pay on their own is not something you have control over. $5000 is a very small amount to them on a boat claim and a quick and easy settlement. They may have been defrauded. You haven't been.

Had you been told their plans of paying $5000, then what would you have done? Not really anything you could have. Had you talked your insurer out of paying then the other boat owner could have come after you for payment.

Insurers overpay small claims every day. No, you shouldn't look for a new insurance companies. You should be thankful you have one who resolves claims against you with no problem even if you feel they overpay. None of us were there to see the damage they were shown. Neither were you, for that matter. However, it'd done, it's over, and you hit another boat and incurred no cost.

Greetings,
Mr. BB. "...incurred no cost." Other than his premiums may go up and he will NOT have a claims free record if he chooses to switch insurance companies. Granted, there are things he should have done as you mentioned BUT he may still have to pay higher premiums for what may have been his nasty neighbors fraud.
Fraud is but one of the reasons all of our premiums go up and there is still NO proof that any damage was done to the other boat.

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. BB. "...incurred no cost." Other than his premiums may go up and he will NOT have a claims free record if he chooses to switch insurance companies. Granted, there are things he should have done as you mentioned BUT he may still have to pay higher premiums for what may have been his nasty neighbors fraud.
Fraud is but one of the reasons all of our premiums go up and there is still NO proof that any damage was done to the other boat.

Click to expand...

He admitted hitting the other boat so some minor damage, just not what they paid. So, if insurance goes up it's the result of him hitting the boat, not the amount of the claim. He wasn't going to be claims free regardless.

If he does have higher premiums and the insurer tells him it's because of the $5000 claim, then he can sue the other boat owner for damages, but unless or until that all happens, he has no recourse and no position.

At this point, he's incurred no damage. At the time he does, he can sue if he can prove the damage.

Now, let's assume based on the information we have from only one party that the insurer paid too much, was taken advantage of. Had the insurer refused to pay, then he might have incurred real damage when the other boat owner came after him. There was no police report, no coast guard report, no dialogue at the time of the accident.

The OP did nothing to resolve this in advance. Just left a note. If there was no damage to the other boat then why leave a note and his insurance information? By providing insurance information, he encouraged the other party to contact his insurer. He apparently didn't do so himself so they only had the other party's statements to go on. Had he contacted them in advance and told them there was no damage and he had witnesses, then he would have more reason to complain.

I cannot fault Geico in this situation. Customer gives third party his insurance information after hitting his boat. Third party contacts Geico. Geico settles small claim.

RT Firefly said:

Fraud is but one of the reasons all of our premiums go up and there is still NO proof that any damage was done to the other boat.

Click to expand...

If I'm Geico, I accept the fact he gave the other boat his insurance information as evidence there was some damage.

Also, no proof that there wasn't damage done. Perhaps even more than OP realized.

$5000 claims are not what is pushing up our rates.

I didn't read that he had supplied insurance information. Did I miss that?

How about getting a simple statement from the marina stating what DID happen and what damage was seen. Either they piss you off by saying they don't want to piss off the other guy...or vice versa.


Get the FWC report and see what the withnesses say and how it would look to the insurance company.


Then if so inclined, call the insurance company and request to talk to their fraud people and go from there.


But in reality...even a "touch" in some instances can quickly et expensive. So without knowing what the guy claimed and what exactly was fixed...hard to say what I would do.



The insurance company probably saw this as a threshold claim and it was easier/cheaper to pay than investigate beyond covering the claim.



I know all too often that a thing or two gets fixed by insurance that was damage not sustained in the case in question....usually people don't complain, argue, deny...whatever...they just smile and go along.

I would have taken photos at the time showing the condition of the other boat and immediately sent them to the insurance company. That may have prevented the insurance company from paying out a bogus claim.

BDofMSP said:

I didn't read that he had supplied insurance information. Did I miss that?

Click to expand...

I didn't see it either, but clearly he must have as they contacted his insurer.

Maybe the marina gave it out. They definitely have it.

I had a guy back into my car. He admitted fault and gave me his license, registration and insurance information. He did not ask for my information.

I contacted his insurance company and filed a report and claim. He did not report the accident to his insurance company. The insurance company could not get hold of their insured.

At two weeks, I contacted the Insurance Co. Their insured still could not be contacted. I emailed the $3,500 repair estimate to them along with a 2 weeks, and counting, loss of use and diminished value claim. They told me to get the car repaired ASAP, which I did.

I was reimbursed for 26 days loss of use and $3,000 for diminished value.

The insured contacted me about a month later complaining about the loss of use and diminished value claim. He did not know what those were.

You should report incidents to your insurance as information, without making it an official report so they are aware of the situation. You can make it official later if a claim comes in.

Also just because the anchor was "tapped" does not mean there was no other damage inside the boat. Did attachment bolts get bent? Did the fiberglass crack inside?
This type of accident happened in my marina a few years ago. The damage inside the boat was more than anyone expected.

Greetings,
Mr. jl. Exactly. That's why I suggested finding out who did the $5K's worth of work. At least if Mr. Dj finds out the particulars he can rest easy regarding his neighbor (honest or not?). THAT would be MY concern. Not that I did the damage but what kind of people I was berthed with.

More info is needed, as has been attested to.

Was insurance info exchanged? If not, how did the claimant obtain said info? If obtained by the marina, there may be a breach of contract involved, as the marina should have contacted the OP and maintain a written record of what transpired.

It'd be good to get GEICO's record of the event (your right as a policyholder) and followup.

I would be surprised they would pay out any claim without an Adjuster making a damage report. Did they get an Adjuster? If so the insurance Co. would go by that.

Pau Hana said:

If obtained by the marina, there may be a breach of contract involved, as the marina should have contacted the OP)

Click to expand...

I'm not aware that any marina where I've been a tenant, home or transient, has promised me any such thing. They only promised me that I couldn't have the slip without giving them a copy of my proof-of-insurance and federal document and that they'd kick me out if I don't keep their copy of each up to date!

The OP reported that there were witnesses on the dock. With witness statements and pictures, Gieco has all it needs to settle. Apparently, one of the witness’s thought it was more than just a touch.

OP made the mistake of not contacting the other boat owner immediately and not informing his insurance co.

So a quick update, but first a couple of clarifications:

* My neighbor and I are not on speaking or even on Hello terms. I am a live aboard, he visits every couple of months, I just ignore him or smile at him.
* Insurance info for both boats was part of the FWC report. Marina does not give out any info without person approving. That’s how he had my info.
* Neighbor boat called police to report a trespassing issue on his boat, said I went on his boat and did repairs. Marina viewed 3 months of video of his boat and no evidence anyone ever went on his boat never mind did extensive repairs. He told FWC that I tried to cover up the damage done by doing the repairs.

So today I received a “nice” call from a BoatUS claims Manager, (after I had posted a message on FB). He said exactly what a lot of you have already posted. Because it has been several months after the incident and both boats have had repairs already completed, they made a decision to pay and move on. He even agreed the estimate could be for overstated repairs to previous work, there is no way to prove it. Bottom line is that it is less costly to pay now then to try to prove no damage after the fact. Not sure about premiums, I’ve used BoatUS for 15 of the last 20 years.

Thanks everyone for the information, lesson here is to report any contact to your insurance even if no damage was done, let them determine it. And take pictures! This all started because I was a nice guy and told him I bumped his boat. Yikes!

If justice is what you want what prevent you to register a claim against him to the authorities for fraudulent insurance claim?
This is nothing else than a fraud and that jerk is using you to cover some previous damages, whatever the insurance is willing to pay is that right?

L

There is no "unscrambling the omelette" but this has ramifications for your insurance claims history,possibly affecting deductible and premium. Was there no call for you to pay a deductible? And no request for confirmation that a collision of the type alleged occurred? That might have been a good time to take pics.

Were it me I would want to see the repair accounts for the 3rd party boat and take it from there. Who knows what was claimed, certainly not you, and you are the only known witness to the incident.
Don`t know about there, but here, there is a duty of "utmost good faith" between insurer and insured. Insurers don`t like being reminded it is a mutual obligation.

BruceK said:

There is no "unscrambling the omelette" but this has ramifications for your insurance claims history,possibly affecting deductible and premium. Was there no call for you to pay a deductible? And no request for confirmation that a collision of the type alleged occurred? That might have been a good time to take pics.

Were it me I would want to see the repair accounts for the 3rd party boat and take it from there. Who knows what was claimed, certainly not you, and you are the only known witness to the incident.
Don`t know about there, but here, there is a duty of "utmost good faith" between insurer and insured. Insurers don`t like being reminded it is a mutual obligation.

Click to expand...

No deductible for liability and the only insurance mark is an accident and that's not debatable. $100 vs. $5000 doesn't move the needle and even the smallest claim is far more than $100.

Lou_tribal said:

If justice is what you want what prevent you to register a claim against him to the authorities for fraudulent insurance claim?
This is nothing else than a fraud and that jerk is using you to cover some previous damages, whatever the insurance is willing to pay is that right?

L

Click to expand...

The OP can't file because he's not a victim of the fraud.

Let me give an example. Before the laws against identity theft, this is what occurred. Individual has identity stolen by housekeeper who gets nine credit cards from retailers based on it, getting the credit file address changed along the way. She even almost gets an $80,000 Mobile Home delivered. The local sheriff's fraud officer wanted to charge the thief. Potentially had nine cases of felony fraud. However, the retailers had no interest in prosecuting as the woman said she'd make payments and by charging her they'd incur time and expenses and never get a dollar. The sheriff couldn't proceed with a case as they had no complaining party, not a single one. The one whose identity was taken was not defrauded, lost nothing. Now identity theft is a crime in most states and the person whose identity is stolen does have rights. They are assumed to have loss related to cancelling cards and straightening credit records and also quoting from TN law, "immeasurable damages such as stress and anxiety as well as possible health problems resulting from or aggravated by the offense."

The OP didn't suffer a loss in this case. At least, hasn't so far.

BandB said:

The OP can't file because he's not a victim of the fraud.

Let me give an example. Before the laws against identity theft, this is what occurred. Individual has identity stolen by housekeeper who gets nine credit cards from retailers based on it, getting the credit file address changed along the way. She even almost gets an $80,000 Mobile Home delivered. The local sheriff's fraud officer wanted to charge the thief. Potentially had nine cases of felony fraud. However, the retailers had no interest in prosecuting as the woman said she'd make payments and by charging her they'd incur time and expenses and never get a dollar. The sheriff couldn't proceed with a case as they had no complaining party, not a single one. The one whose identity was taken was not defrauded, lost nothing. Now identity theft is a crime in most states and the person whose identity is stolen does have rights. They are assumed to have loss related to cancelling cards and straightening credit records and also quoting from TN law, "immeasurable damages such as stress and anxiety as well as possible health problems resulting from or aggravated by the offense."

The OP didn't suffer a loss in this case. At least, hasn't so far.

Click to expand...

If there was a fraud.
What I find bizarre is the concept of someone other than the insured making a claim on the insured`s policy direct to the insured`s insurer. Here at least,insurance indemnifies the boat owner against claims by third parties. It does not insure third parties, which is how this claim appears to have proceeded. With no reference to the insured, no input from the insured as to what if anything happened to give rise to claim.Which might have led to the claim being treated differently.
But, that`s how it works over there. Not very well.

BruceK

In the States, insurance is heavily regulated and has many lawful obligations, which vary by jurisdiction. The obligation to investigate claims and make good faith attempts at settling them within defined a period of time is often among those obligations. The law mostly governs process, not substance.

One problem insurance companies have when the insured doesn't cooperate is that claims that could be settled "fairly" get more expensive due to cascading damages or "runaway" verdicts at trial, etc.

At one point, someone hit my car, doing damage to both vehicles. I sent him a letter requesting payment for my damages. He turned it over to his insurance company, who happened to be the same as my insurance company. They opened a claim under my policy as well as his while they investigated.

I told them to get out of the way that I wasn't going to deal with any insurance companies, mine, his, or mine/his. They weren't willing or, if I believe them, lawfully able. They kept calling and hassling me.

I'm not sure what their lawful obligations were, but I basically ignored them and continued to send letters to the other driver and eventually threatening to sue him if he didn't pay up. I figured it was his responsibility, not mine, to get his insurance company to pay up. And, I figured if he just fessed up, the insurance company would have nothing to investigate. So, really, I wasn't too concerned about the other person's potential insurance fraud affecting my situation.

The insurer made some noises about my contractual obligation to cooperate with them under my policy. I told them, exactly once, that obligation only applied if I made a claim, which I did not. Then, despite their many attempts to communicate with me, I ignored them.

Eventually, they did find the other driver wholly at fault, paid the claim under his policy, and closed the claim on mine. The other driver apparently mostly admitted fault, but tried to claim that my lights were off (they were not, they are automatic) and that contributed to an accident -- under a street light, at a traffic light, while my car was stopped.

The upshot is that I'm not sure if I had any actual obligations to the insurer under the law. I never really bothered to research it. I figured the insurance company would pay the several hundred dollars of damages and move on rather than risking the business of a then nearly 20-year customer with with a bunch of policies with them. They may just have decided to let it go under the circumstances.

Insurance policies always have a clause that the insurance company may settle a claim with or without the insured"s consent, knowledge, or agreement. In short, the OP no longer has a dog in this fight. In a small way, this thread demonstrates why these types of contractual provisions are heavily negotiated in large corporate contracts - the interests of the parties (the insurance company and the insured) are not always aligned when it comes to settling a third party claim.

Boat US has a program where for every year that I am claim free, they reduce the deductible by 10%.

At the end of 10 years with no claims, the deductible is 0%

The OP is back to full deductible.