Perhaps they should simply consider the sail damaged beyond repair and offer you the depreciated value less your deductible. That would likely leave you with a damaged sail and next to no cash.
Rich > On Dec 28, 2013, at 4:34, "Peter Fell" <prf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From my point of view it is what is considered ‘reasonable’ ... that’s a > definition as I think most would agree would be open to interpretation. If a > $500 repair results in a end-product that will “not bring the sail back to > pre-damage condition”, then can it be considered ‘reasonable’? Granted, we > all tend to accept that many repairs result in an end product not 100% as > original. > > From: Rich Knowles > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 11:51 PM > To: Peter Fell ; cnc-list@cnc-list.com > Subject: Re: Stus-List Wind Storm Damaged Genoa > > You said "Policy coverage is for depreciated value on sails and they will > only cover “reasonable cost of repairs actually incurred” for partial losses." > > Can you reasonably expect more than what your coverage offers? > > Rich > > >> On Dec 28, 2013, at 3:28, "Peter Fell" <prf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Well ... going from the nearest marine station we had 18 continuous hours of >> wind over 50km/hr (30 kts). That’s the average of the last 2 minutes of each >> hour. I was at the boat about 5-hours into that 18-hour time period and >> everything was doing fine. >> >> Not sure on the maximum gust speeds but the forecast was a severe wind >> warning with gusts 60 to 80 km/hr (30 to 40 kts). >> >> I’ve seen the comparisons between sailcloth that is completely toasted, >> limp, etc.and mine ... and mine is light-years better than that. >> >> >> From: Jim Watts >> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 9:43 PM >> To: Peter Fell ; 1 CnC List >> Subject: Re: Stus-List Wind Storm Damaged Genoa >> >> A ten-year-old sail is, in most insurance companies' eyes, a tarp. If it's >> shredded by a 20-knot breeze, it's not even that good. Time for a new sail. >> Merry Christmas! An excellent excuse. >> >> >>> On 27 December 2013 20:39, Peter Fell <prf...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So a couple weeks before Christmas, a windstorm of 40 – 50 km/hr ripped >>> apart my 130 genoa overnight. It stayed furled on the boat but the top >>> caught the wind and peeled it down, ripping 3 panels across the leech / UV >>> cover, breaking the leech line, etc. No damage to the furler though ... I >>> had that checked out by a rigger. >>> >>> Local loft says $500 to fix the sail but the “designed shape has been >>> compromised and repairs will not bring the sail back to pre damage >>> condition”. That’s the loft manager’s wording verbatim. >>> >>> So far insurance underwriter has responded back to the adjuster that they >>> are willing only to ‘repair’ the sail, with the net result of me spending >>> another $250 (deductible) on essentially a ruined sail. The adjuster is >>> going to try again with a different approach. I’ll hear back in the new >>> year on that. >>> >>> I’m not obviously happy with this, considering, although the sail is 10+ >>> years old, it was in pretty good condition (sailcloth and shape-wise) ... >>> so much so that it was deemed worth it to have $500 of re-stitching, new UV >>> cover, leach line, etc. done just over a year ago! >>> >>> Policy coverage is for depreciated value on sails and they will only cover >>> “reasonable cost of repairs actually incurred” for partial losses. Seems >>> like pretty crappy coverage given what they consider ‘reasonable’ repairs. >>> >>> I think my loft manager needs to be a bit more descriptive in their wording >>> as well. >>> >>> A new sail has been quoted from the loft at $2,500. Of course adding a new >>> sail won’t allow me to increase the insured value of my boat either ... >>> since it would not be a new equipment addition to the boat ... just a >>> replacement. A little loophole I discovered earlier this fall when I asked >>> about this regarding my newly rebuilt engine ... since it is not a new >>> addition and most of the cost was in labour and replacing existing parts >>> ... no value increase was deemed possible. >>> >>> OK, I’ve finished my rant! Anyone have any suggestions? >>> >>> Peter Fell >>> Sidney, BC >>> 1979 C&C 27 MkIII >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album >>> http://www.cncphotoalbum.com >>> CnC-List@cnc-list.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jim Watts >> Paradigm Shift >> C&C 35 Mk III >> Victoria, BC >> _______________________________________________ >> This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album >> http://www.cncphotoalbum.com >> CnC-List@cnc-list.com > _______________________________________________ > This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album > http://www.cncphotoalbum.com > CnC-List@cnc-list.com
_______________________________________________ This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album http://www.cncphotoalbum.com CnC-List@cnc-list.com
