As some of you know, The Odyssey was struck by lightning back in August. I had a personal loss (expences out of pocket) for loss wages missed from work, travel expences due to Boat/US demands and slip fees lost. Boat/US says they will not pay personal losses because as they say, personal losses are not covered in the policy. After reading the policy, I feel that they should clealy pay based on what the policy reads. It states and I quote "We do not cover your personal expences nor any amount in excess of the Agreed Hull value." Word for word, that is what it states! their are no punctutaion in the sentence, no more to the paraghaph, what you see is what it says. My personal expences are $1,261.49 and my agreed hull value is $85,000.00. I did not exceed the hull value and I feel that the money is due me. What do you think? Thanks for your replys. Steve, s/v The Odyssey (H310) P.S. 3 yrs. ago, my H27 was hit by lightning and my personal expences were paid to me by Boat/US.
- Status
Not an attorney, but here's my opinion anyway
Steve: I'm not sure I understand your dilemma. You quote the policy language as stating, "We do not cover your personal expences nor any amount in excess of the Agreed Hull value." The two clauses of the statement aren't conditional, they are joint. The insurance company says that they don't cover ANY personal expenses, -nor-, do will they pay an amount in excess of the agreed hull value. Even if you could find a policy that covered lost wages, it would be probably be subject to some kind of limit, probably less than what you lost. Usually, you can't claim lost wages unless you personally have been injured, and the lost wages were a result of your inability to work. Taking time off to look after your damaged boat is more of a discretionary matter, not an insurable risk. I'm sorry if this wasn't the answer you were looking for. Eric Lorgus P.S. There's a saying about free legal advice (if that's what you're looking for). It's worth what you paid for it.
Steve: I'm not sure I understand your dilemma. You quote the policy language as stating, "We do not cover your personal expences nor any amount in excess of the Agreed Hull value." The two clauses of the statement aren't conditional, they are joint. The insurance company says that they don't cover ANY personal expenses, -nor-, do will they pay an amount in excess of the agreed hull value. Even if you could find a policy that covered lost wages, it would be probably be subject to some kind of limit, probably less than what you lost. Usually, you can't claim lost wages unless you personally have been injured, and the lost wages were a result of your inability to work. Taking time off to look after your damaged boat is more of a discretionary matter, not an insurable risk. I'm sorry if this wasn't the answer you were looking for. Eric Lorgus P.S. There's a saying about free legal advice (if that's what you're looking for). It's worth what you paid for it.
Not to argumentive but..
There are no punctuations in the sentence, the world "nor" is a extension to the sentence and not a break or pause. Any punctuation would change the sentence stucture and meaning. You do have some good points though. Maybe it's a waste of time and effort? Thanks for your reply. Steve....
There are no punctuations in the sentence, the world "nor" is a extension to the sentence and not a break or pause. Any punctuation would change the sentence stucture and meaning. You do have some good points though. Maybe it's a waste of time and effort? Thanks for your reply. Steve....
Precedent more compelling
Another 2 cents... I'd say you're better off arguing the precedent with your 27 than trying to catch them in wording.
Another 2 cents... I'd say you're better off arguing the precedent with your 27 than trying to catch them in wording.
legal advice
This is not legal advice nor would I vote for Al Gore. Both are mutually exclusive phrases separated by the word "nor" making them independent. Call it a gambling loss and see how well you make out with the IRS...
This is not legal advice nor would I vote for Al Gore. Both are mutually exclusive phrases separated by the word "nor" making them independent. Call it a gambling loss and see how well you make out with the IRS...
coverage
As a former claims manager, I agree with Phil---If you collected three years ago it sounds like they made a mistake or their was a coverage change. If their was a coverage change they had an obligation to advise you in writing. Good luck------
As a former claims manager, I agree with Phil---If you collected three years ago it sounds like they made a mistake or their was a coverage change. If their was a coverage change they had an obligation to advise you in writing. Good luck------
I was told of a mistake..
Boat/US did in fact tell me that they "did" make a mistake in paying my personal losses with my H27. I was not told in writing of that though. What gets me is that I was demanded to have the boat hauled on a monday moring. 1st. day of worked missed. Our marina has no travel lift or any other means of unstepping a mast and or lifting a boat. I had to hire a crane and a truck to lift and haul the boat away. It was demanded that I be at the dealer 150 miles away to inspect the boat and meet with the service reps. 2nd. day of work missed. I was than demanded to meet with "their" surveyor to discuss the damage. 3rd. day of work missed and on top of that, the surveyor never showed up! 300 mile 6 1/2hour wasted day!!! I feel I should be compensated. Keep the replys comming Steve...
Boat/US did in fact tell me that they "did" make a mistake in paying my personal losses with my H27. I was not told in writing of that though. What gets me is that I was demanded to have the boat hauled on a monday moring. 1st. day of worked missed. Our marina has no travel lift or any other means of unstepping a mast and or lifting a boat. I had to hire a crane and a truck to lift and haul the boat away. It was demanded that I be at the dealer 150 miles away to inspect the boat and meet with the service reps. 2nd. day of work missed. I was than demanded to meet with "their" surveyor to discuss the damage. 3rd. day of work missed and on top of that, the surveyor never showed up! 300 mile 6 1/2hour wasted day!!! I feel I should be compensated. Keep the replys comming Steve...
Not personal expenses?
This is not legal advice. However, I would argue that expenses incurred in good faith in complying with the insurer's demands or requests are not personal expenses. These are expenses directly assignable to the claim settlement process. In other words, I would argue that any expense necessary, or required by the insurer, to settle the claim is not a personal expense. Thats my 2 cents. Good luck! Rick
This is not legal advice. However, I would argue that expenses incurred in good faith in complying with the insurer's demands or requests are not personal expenses. These are expenses directly assignable to the claim settlement process. In other words, I would argue that any expense necessary, or required by the insurer, to settle the claim is not a personal expense. Thats my 2 cents. Good luck! Rick
gert over it!
Steve, Get over it! Consider it a life lesson and never deal with boatus insurance again! They have a bad reputation to begin with! Cost more every time I was quoted a price and know of several other stories like yours! The best way to show your unhappy is to spend you money somewhere else! They need to clean up there act!
Steve, Get over it! Consider it a life lesson and never deal with boatus insurance again! They have a bad reputation to begin with! Cost more every time I was quoted a price and know of several other stories like yours! The best way to show your unhappy is to spend you money somewhere else! They need to clean up there act!
Resolution of abiguities
The phrase is poorly drafted and ambiguous. It can logically be read either way folks have suggested. I don't know what the law is in WI, but generally, if there is an ambiguity in the language of a contract a judge will construct the contract in accordance with the parties' intent. It would look at the insurance policy as a whole to try to determine whether it was intended or understood that what you are calling "personal damages" but legally are called consequential, incedental, or indirect damages, were meant to be covered by the policy. If elsewhere in the policy it clearly delineates what is to be covered or specifically excludes consequential or incidental type damages, you'd lose. On the other hand, if there is nothing else in the contract to indicate the whether or not incidental type damages are or are not covered, a court would probably construct the contract against the insurance company. There is a general maxim of interpretation that contracts are to be construed against the drafter, particularly where the drafter is a large company (like and insurance company) and the other party is an individual like you. There may also statutes or rules that require this. Furthermore, the fact they paid "personal" expenses before, even if they now say it is accidental, goes a long way to the argument that everyone initially intended incidentals to be covered. Finally, in my state (Florida) there is a law that if an insurance company loses a lawsuit it must pay attorney's fees. My take is that BoatUS should pay you. I like and am a member of BoatUS, but the language of what is covered in an insurance policy is critical, and if they are going to put such sloppy language in their insurance documents and there is confusion, they ought to be responsible and not the guy who is out the insurance proceeds he reasonably thought he was paying for. They can handle the loss and correct the problem by putting not putting patently ambiguous language in their policies.
The phrase is poorly drafted and ambiguous. It can logically be read either way folks have suggested. I don't know what the law is in WI, but generally, if there is an ambiguity in the language of a contract a judge will construct the contract in accordance with the parties' intent. It would look at the insurance policy as a whole to try to determine whether it was intended or understood that what you are calling "personal damages" but legally are called consequential, incedental, or indirect damages, were meant to be covered by the policy. If elsewhere in the policy it clearly delineates what is to be covered or specifically excludes consequential or incidental type damages, you'd lose. On the other hand, if there is nothing else in the contract to indicate the whether or not incidental type damages are or are not covered, a court would probably construct the contract against the insurance company. There is a general maxim of interpretation that contracts are to be construed against the drafter, particularly where the drafter is a large company (like and insurance company) and the other party is an individual like you. There may also statutes or rules that require this. Furthermore, the fact they paid "personal" expenses before, even if they now say it is accidental, goes a long way to the argument that everyone initially intended incidentals to be covered. Finally, in my state (Florida) there is a law that if an insurance company loses a lawsuit it must pay attorney's fees. My take is that BoatUS should pay you. I like and am a member of BoatUS, but the language of what is covered in an insurance policy is critical, and if they are going to put such sloppy language in their insurance documents and there is confusion, they ought to be responsible and not the guy who is out the insurance proceeds he reasonably thought he was paying for. They can handle the loss and correct the problem by putting not putting patently ambiguous language in their policies.
There is no ambiguity
I guess "nor" is so rarely used these days that many people are now confused about its meaning. In any case, there is no ambiguity in someone saying they will not do X nor Y. From this, you can conclude that they will not do X, and independently, that they will not do Y. There is no implied connection between X and Y, except that they are both things that the speaker will not do. That's what "nor" means. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot address the legal issues. But if you are looking to make a legal case based on ambiguous English, you're hunting up the wrong tree. The English is crystal clear to anyone who knows the words. Use of "and" in this context is ambiguous. If the speaker says they will not do X and Y, it might mean that they will do X, or Y, but not both. "Nor" is clear. That's likely why the lawyer used it.
I guess "nor" is so rarely used these days that many people are now confused about its meaning. In any case, there is no ambiguity in someone saying they will not do X nor Y. From this, you can conclude that they will not do X, and independently, that they will not do Y. There is no implied connection between X and Y, except that they are both things that the speaker will not do. That's what "nor" means. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot address the legal issues. But if you are looking to make a legal case based on ambiguous English, you're hunting up the wrong tree. The English is crystal clear to anyone who knows the words. Use of "and" in this context is ambiguous. If the speaker says they will not do X and Y, it might mean that they will do X, or Y, but not both. "Nor" is clear. That's likely why the lawyer used it.
Close call
Punctuated this way: "We do not cover your personal expenses, nor any amount, in excess of the Agreed Hull value" it sounds like the both personal expenses is being modified by "in excess of ...". Punctuated this way: We do not cover your personal expenses, nor any amount in excess of the Agreed Hull value" sounds like in excess describes just any amount. The original quote is not punctuated at all, so it is still not very clear, in my mind. Been There may be right, but the distinction is subtle, and the fact that different people here interpret it different ways (including, apparently, BoatUS at one point) suggests that at least it's not very obvious. It could (should) have been written clearer: " We do not cover you personal expenses. We do not cover any amount in excess of the Agreed Hull value." Insurance policies should be. Yep. This is what we lawyers spend hours and days fighting over. Doesn't it sound like fun?
Punctuated this way: "We do not cover your personal expenses, nor any amount, in excess of the Agreed Hull value" it sounds like the both personal expenses is being modified by "in excess of ...". Punctuated this way: We do not cover your personal expenses, nor any amount in excess of the Agreed Hull value" sounds like in excess describes just any amount. The original quote is not punctuated at all, so it is still not very clear, in my mind. Been There may be right, but the distinction is subtle, and the fact that different people here interpret it different ways (including, apparently, BoatUS at one point) suggests that at least it's not very obvious. It could (should) have been written clearer: " We do not cover you personal expenses. We do not cover any amount in excess of the Agreed Hull value." Insurance policies should be. Yep. This is what we lawyers spend hours and days fighting over. Doesn't it sound like fun?
Bryan C.
Yes it is confusing to say the least. No it is not fun! I am out $1261.49 It is these thing that intrest me though. I had pland on being a lawyer before I had my motorcycle accident and lost most of my hearing, so law school was somewhat a waste of time. But the way I remember things from school was that, sentence structure can make or break your case! My lawyer says that for $15k, he'll get my $1261.49 back........ He also stated that the a complant to the insurance commission would be a waste of time and I would stand a better chance at small claims court. That, they are in Virgina and I am in Wisconsin, it would cost less for them to settle out of court than to travel here for a hearing. I was not asking so much for advice as it is more of a, asking of interpretation of the sentence and as to whether or not I would have a chance in small claims court. As another poster stated, these expenditures where claims made in good faith to settle demands made by the insurance Co. and to to help settle the claim itself. The $1261.49 really did come out of my pocket and I need it back! Thanks everybody for your replys. Steve, s/v The odyssey....
Yes it is confusing to say the least. No it is not fun! I am out $1261.49 It is these thing that intrest me though. I had pland on being a lawyer before I had my motorcycle accident and lost most of my hearing, so law school was somewhat a waste of time. But the way I remember things from school was that, sentence structure can make or break your case! My lawyer says that for $15k, he'll get my $1261.49 back........ He also stated that the a complant to the insurance commission would be a waste of time and I would stand a better chance at small claims court. That, they are in Virgina and I am in Wisconsin, it would cost less for them to settle out of court than to travel here for a hearing. I was not asking so much for advice as it is more of a, asking of interpretation of the sentence and as to whether or not I would have a chance in small claims court. As another poster stated, these expenditures where claims made in good faith to settle demands made by the insurance Co. and to to help settle the claim itself. The $1261.49 really did come out of my pocket and I need it back! Thanks everybody for your replys. Steve, s/v The odyssey....
Justice ain't free
Being right and getting your rights are two different things of course. I cannot advise you what to do legally, don't know anything about WI law. Here in Florida, you automatically have jursidictoin over the insurer and get fees if you win. Your best bet might be to write a letter to the pres of BoatUS, explain what happened, why you believed you were covered for personal expenses, and ask nicely if they won't reconsider the issue.
Being right and getting your rights are two different things of course. I cannot advise you what to do legally, don't know anything about WI law. Here in Florida, you automatically have jursidictoin over the insurer and get fees if you win. Your best bet might be to write a letter to the pres of BoatUS, explain what happened, why you believed you were covered for personal expenses, and ask nicely if they won't reconsider the issue.
- Status