New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: In irons
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

In irons
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: In irons
    Posted: 17 Mar 15 at 1:44pm
Another reason I shall not be renewing with Towergate then.
Back to Top
fudheid View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 11
Location: 51.53 N 01.28 E
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241 		Post Options Post Options   Quote fudheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Mar 15 at 1:36pm
Originally posted by JimC

Originally posted by fudheid

 took action on colregs and who was to blame for the damage not who is to blame under the RRS.in a port starboard collision the costs were split as the RoW boat chose to make contact i.e took no avoiding action.....


Are you absolutely sure about that in detail? That would be an odd thing to do since legally colregs don't apply in a race held under RRS.

I can easily imagine insurance companies choosing to split the costs - indeed I'd expect it, but in the case of a P/S where starboard chose to make contact I'd expect both boats to be found at fault and DSQ under RRS anyway.

Absolutely. We had a protest commitee which found fault with port and were dsq'd. However the insurance companies  - towergate from our side; did not ask for the protest committee hearings. 
they asked for witness statements etc. but had no regard for the RRS. 
The actual split was 60/40 i think in favouir of the starboard boat. they were not happy as they did not get a full pay out.


Edited by fudheid - 17 Mar 15 at 1:38pm
Cheers you

only me from over the sea......
Back to Top
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 10:03pm
I think that those who think drumming up witnesses long after a bump on the water between 2 other boats, when they were busy with their own races, and getting a clear idea of what actually happened in enough detail to satisfy a small claims court, are probably going to be very disappointed. Hard enough to get a clear account half an hour later when the race ends.
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by fudheid

 took action on colregs and who was to blame for the damage not who is to blame under the RRS.in a port starboard collision the costs were split as the RoW boat chose to make contact i.e took no avoiding action.....


Are you absolutely sure about that in detail? That would be an odd thing to do since legally colregs don't apply in a race held under RRS.

I can easily imagine insurance companies choosing to split the costs - indeed I'd expect it, but in the case of a P/S where starboard chose to make contact I'd expect both boats to be found at fault and DSQ under RRS anyway.

Edited by JimC - 10 Mar 15 at 10:10pm
Back to Top
GML View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 24 Jul 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 94 		Post Options Post Options   Quote GML Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 5:54pm
Originally posted by Brass

There is no reason whatever to think that a claim by P against S for damages is 'moot'.

P has every right to initiate such a claim and have it decided according to law.

You are right of course Brass - I was looking at the issue too narrowly.
Back to Top
fudheid View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work
Avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 11
Location: 51.53 N 01.28 E
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241 		Post Options Post Options   Quote fudheid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 10:59am
in the few incidents i have had that have led to insurance claims, there is no need for a protest decision. The insurance companies we dealt with (noble/towergate/bishop skinner?) 
took action on colregs and who was to blame for the damage not who is to blame under the RRS.
in a port starboard collision the costs were split as the RoW boat chose to make contact i.e took no avoiding action.....
Cheers you

only me from over the sea......
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 6:58am
Originally posted by jeffers

Originally posted by Brass

 
I am not aware of any insurance policy that makes a valid protest a condition for indemnity.

Neither am I but it is a question that I have been asked when a claim is made after a racing incident.

Whilst the protest result itself is not (and cannot be) an admission of liability the insurance company will use the facts found and decision as a basis for their assigning of liability.

It's perfectly reasonable for an insurer to ask for a written protest decision if there is one:  it's an independent finding of facts and application of the RRS by a protest committee that should be expected to have a better knowledge of the RRS than an insurance assessor.

The degree to which insurers are prepared to rely on written protest decisions varies.
Back to Top
jeffers View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3048 		Post Options Post Options   Quote jeffers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 6:44am
Originally posted by Brass

 
I am not aware of any insurance policy that makes a valid protest a condition for indemnity.

Neither am I but it is a question that I have been asked when a claim is made after a racing incident.

Whilst the protest result itself is not (and cannot be) an admission of liability the insurance company will use the facts found and decision as a basis for their assigning of liability.
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 4:12am
Originally posted by GML

All of which I agree with Brass, but if P didn't hail "Protest" (and display a red flag if required), and then submit a written protest within the protest time limit, it is all pretty moot since there isn't a valid protest. And without a protest committee decision in his favour I don't hold out much hope of P getting any contribution to the cost of repairing his damage from S (who may well claim that he saw the incident differently), and he may have problems with his insurance company too.

Key message - if you want to protect yourself, protest!
There is no reason whatever to think that a claim by P against S for damages is 'moot'.

P has every right to initiate such a claim and have it decided according to law.

True, P, by not validly protesting, has forfeited the convenience of having a written protest decision to support such a claim, but P can still pursue an action 'from first principles'.

Indeed, there are always two sides to any story, and S might successfully defeat P's claim by disputing facts, or the application of the rules, but 'failure to protest' would be a wholly irrelevant consideration.

I am not aware of any insurance policy that makes a valid protest a condition for indemnity.
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 15 at 3:52am
Originally posted by JimC

The other thing might be to talk to the club officers. I don't know about this stuff, but ultimately might refusing to negotiate/communicate about damage/insurance end up with RRS 69 as an ultimate sanction? I don't know, just offering up the possibility.
Indeed you might be able to enlist the good offices of club officers or other respected intermediaries.

BUT, the whole point of rule 67 and the RYA prescriptions to it are that clubs should absolutely avoid getting involved in legal disputes between racers.

Bear in mind that from an RRS point of view, the incident, in the absence of a valid protest doesn't even exist.

A party has an absolute right to sit pat until such time as he is properly served with a legal process (there may be consequences of doing so if the party eventually loses, but that's another matter).

It would be madness to run a rule 69 on the issue as you have described it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy