[300sflyer]

Originally Posted by SEMIJim

Have you tried what the others suggested: Talk to the mechanic to see if he has any clue as to why this might be?

I've no wish to make you angrier, and I'm certainly not doubting your word, but, from the outside looking in, so to say, I think the rest of us can see why the adjuster might be skeptical. All that internal damage and no external evidence of a strike? You said you found that surprising, yourself. So put yourself in your insurance company's position. They weren't there. All they have is your word (so far as we know) and, tho you may be Mr. Integrity, himself, they have plenty of customers who aren't.

Jim

Understood and no offence taken...

Two different mechanics have looked at the boat, and both have sided with the insurance company, so I can see why they are suspicious.

The gimbal ring is broken, the prop shaft is severely bent, [likely by 1/4"] and the paint is scraped on the starboard side of the lower drive, which was not there previously. The two mechanics are certainly entitled to their opinions, however that does not mean the damage done could not, and in fact did not, happen as a result of the impact that day. I was in the boat along with 3 others, and with a skier in tow as stated before. There is no doubt in my mind what happened, nor is there any doubt in the other witnesses minds. There was a BIG thud... the boat shoke quite violently. That is IN FACT where the damage occurred... Except for the damage listed, there is no other damage, and in fact the boat runs and drives fine with the exception of a bad vibration due to the bent prop shaft. It was NOT a mechanical failure of any kind.

When I mentioned that these witnesses would in fact testify to this, the supervisor said "I'm sure they would" implying that he had no doubt they would lie as well...

He even so far as to say it was not to late to change my story, and tell him what really happenned...

At that point our conversation was pretty much done...

[coolfish]

Hi, I am your neighbour on Lake Vernon. Too bad about your issues. I was wondering where on the lake this happened? We live in the bay around from you (Ruthven's old place). I saw your Talari parked on the upper road with the cover on it and wondered why it was there ( I assume that is yours on North Drive with the matching cover on it). It is the same year and colour as our Barchetta 182. I have not experienced any submerged rocks or anything that would cause such damage except near shore by Hoodstown Shores (across from you) where there is a submerged rock pile. Let me know so I can check out the spot and see what might be around. The water levels are pretty high for such a warm summer so rocks shouldn't have been a problem. I too have had my share is damage (picked up an old boat strap at the Peacock boat launch and ruined a brand new prop last summer. I don't even bother with insurance for my boat. I pay zero and get as much coverage as you do....wait that wasn't funny. Too many ways for insurance companies to blame it on you unlike in a car where when you crash you stay put and call police to back up your claim.

Shawn
1994 Barchetta 182

[300sflyer]

Holy smokes... It's a small world!

Yup...That was my boat sitting on it's trailer.

We were in Cooks Bay at the time of the impact, just about right accross the bay from Peacock Marina, about 100 feet from shore in about 12 feet of water. I suspect it was a submerged log, but do not know for sure.

The cottage we were in for the week was rented from one of the locals there. [McHaffie] Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appriciated!

[Shabah 198SE]

300sflyer,

I cannot verify what happenened in your case, but I can state that physical impact damage does not have to be present in the case of a bent propeller shaft.

Years ago, I had an 18 foot Starcraft runabout with a Johnson 135HP outboard. This was about a 40MPH boat. One day, while running full speed at the edge of a lillie pad bed, I hit a large Musky. When I hit it, the boat lurched and vibrated. I threw the fish about 20 feet into the air. The impact resulted in no apparent prop or lower unit damage, but it bent the prop shaft, did gear damage and, if I remember correctly, cracked the gear case. At the time, I was either insured with Pilot or State Farm. My insurance covered the damage. It was the opinion of the mechanic and the insurance adjuster that the large fish was forced through the small space between the propeller and the cavitation plate.

I'm not telling you to try saying that you hit a large fish, but you can tell them that this kind of damage does not have to show a large degree of visible impact type damage. I would assume that passing something like a piece of driftwood through this same space could result in similar damage.

Note: This kind of thing just happens to me. I once had hundreds of dollars in damage done to my truck when it was broadsided by a Canada goose. That damage was an easy sell because the side of my truck was covered with goose down.

Good Luck

Shabah 198SE

[300sflyer]

That sounds like a fishy stort to me!... LOL!! Just kidding!

I strongly suspect it was a submerged log or deadhead, but will likely never know for sure...

What really has me upset, is the way I have been treated by my insurance company. I have been a customer for many years, pay over 4K a year to them for all my insurance needs, [2 cars, two boats, two boat trailers and my home] and I am being treated like garbage... Both my wife and I are stunned by this.

Given the feeling a lot of people have with the insurance industry in general, I guess I should not be surprised. I will very likely be seeking a different insurance company for all my insurance needs regardless of the outcome of this claim. I am if fact considering canceling the claim altogether, repairing all of the damage myself with a new or rebuilt lower unit and gimbal ring, just to avoid paying the $500 deductable, the betterment fees, [likely at least another $500] and having the claim on my record. Up to this point I am claims free and would like to remain that way when I seek a different company. One of the first questions they ask is, "do you have any claims?"

I did take the boat to one other marina yesterday, and had them take a good look at it. They too were surprised by the lack of other damage on the drive, but did not have any other possible explanation for the damage done. They concluded it must have indeed been done by impact with a submerged object. I am now feeling somewhat vindicated.

If the rain lets up, I will try to post some pics later today.

[Shabah 198SE]

300sflyer,

Your photos show some interesting damage that includes what looks like a fresh break. Based on the photos, I can see no evidence of an old crack that suddenly failed completely. Is all of the broken metal the same colour? Or, is there some darker coloured metal that would indicate an old crack? Or is there any indication that the broken parts were rubbing on each other prior to the complete failure? This appears to be some form of stress/impact damage to me.

The scraping on the nose cone area and on the trim/tilt cylinder is really odd. It looks as though the finish was removed by some form of abrasive action. Did the lower unit pass through a sandy or gravel covered shoal prior to the final failure that day? That type of impact should also be covered by insurance and could have led to the final failure. Actually, can you tell if the finish has been removed, or have you picked up some white or grey coloured paint/gel-coat from a submerged object (boat, PWC, snowmobile, etc.)

What part of the damage is being disputed by the mechanics?

Just my two cents worth.

Shabah 198SE

[300sflyer]

The lower unit itself is not broken in any way, other than the paint being removed as a result of whatever struck it during the impact, and the bent prop shaft. It must be torn down to replace the shaft, or a different lower installed. The boat was not beached or anything prio to the accident, or even afterwards.

As you can see the gimbal ring is broken, and needs to be replaced. The break is fresh, and is indeed all the same colour. Not sure what scraping you are referring to on the trim cylinders. Both are in good condition and still operate properly. The port side one is obviously not supported by much, due to the broken gimbal ring.

All of the damage mentioned is being disputed by my insurance.

[mikeyt]

Anything i say here is going to be viewed as 'support for the insurer' and likely inflame things but...i'm going to say it anyway.

Mike: You know what i do for a living and I've been down this road many times with my job. I'm trying to provide advice on how to deal with your situation. The insurer is not 'disputing the damage' as stated below. They are questioning the cause and whether or not it falls within the scope of coverage offered by your policy.

Whether you have been a 'long time policy holder who pays $$ every year to them' does not change the terms of your insurance contract. Also, the insurer isn't treating you 'like garbage'. They're following the accepted procedures of looking at the damages & talking to the experts (ie the boat mechanics you chose) to try & determine what may have happened. At this point it seems they feel that the cause likely wasn't an impact but some sort of mechanical failure & that opinion appears to be supported by two mechanics of your choice if i read the prior posts correctly. Very few adjusters / appraisers try to be difficult & treat people badly intentionally because if it goes to court, the judge can come down very hard on them with punitive damages and the insurers know this. The adjusters know this too & dont want to lose their jobs because of the way they have treated someone.

The onus by law in Canada is on you, as the policy holder, to show that your loss falls within the coverage offered by your insurance policy. A court will not require the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss does not fall within the coverages provided. Please realise that a court will only look at the facts as they are supported by the evidence presented and the insurer is likely trying to do the same. Right now, the evidence supported with 'expert' opinions from two mechanics of your own choosing, appears to be favouring the insurer's position. You need to find an expert (ie a reputable boat mechanic) that will state in a written report that it is possible that you struck a submerged object that left very little external damage but managed to bend your prop shaft & destroy the gimbal if you want them to give further consideration to your claim. That expert may also have to rule out a mechanical failure of the drive shaft as the cause & show it to be 'resultant' damage. It might also help if you have any recent pics of the boat outdrive (prior to the incident) that doesn't show the scrapes you mentioned.

Bottom line is you have to gather enough evidence to offset what the insurer has 'in hand' and put a reasonable doubt in their position. As i said earlier, the insurer will usually give benefit of doubt if there is evidence to the contrary and its supported by an expert. Now its your turn to get that evidence & an expert to support your position.

[300sflyer]

Thanks for your comments Mike.

As someone who works in the insurance industry, can you please look at the actual wording in my policy below, and give your opinion to the coverage in this mater? Thanks!

"Direct Physical Loss or Damage
Your equipment and accessories are protected for:


Theft

Fire

Sinking

Collision

Explosion

Submerged objects

Damage in transit

Windstorm

Hail

Vandalism

Lightning


Coverage is not protected for general wear and tear, rust, and gradual deterioration. For a full explanation of coverage exclusions, refer to the policy."

[mikeyt]

hi Mike

Unfortunately i cant be exact because the coverage wordings are not standard (like an Ontario Auto policy) between all of the insurers. Generally, impact with submerged objects (or even non-submerged objects) are covered. Generally damage due to mechanical failure, wear & tear, gradual deterioration, freezing, ice and the like, are not.

Just to clarify based on what you have shown, 'collision' usually refers to collision with another boat or 'solid' object (such as a pier, bridge abutment etc) that is visible above the waterline while 'submerged objects' refer to things that generally cannot be seen or expected, such as a submerged pier, deadhead, rock shelf etc.