Engine & Steering Stolen!

[Obo110x]

Boat left at Tilleys for retube!!

Broken into and stolen Engine & Hydraulic Steering Gear.

Mariner 115EFI
ID #
MERCURY 115 EFl 4-Stroke 18366823 AND UP
Serial Number : ECM0728067186

Any infomation appreciated and will be discrete.

Cheers

Chris
07815 043002 Mob

[Obo110x]

Brand New Stainless Prop!

Reward for conviction ..

[beerbelly]

that's bad craic have Tilley's not got insurance cover on there customers craft

[HDAV]

Gutted mate get on the stolen boats sites and all over Facebook if you can

[Obo110x]

Originally Posted by beerbelly

that's bad craic have Tilley's not got insurance cover on there customers craft

I be seeing them in court then by the look of it!

I asked if they wanted engine removed etc was informed it was safe there and leave it on!

They have informed me to claim on my insurance!

Meeting my solicitors in the morning haven't come back with any liability ins etc at the moment.

[Obo110x]

Originally Posted by HDAV

Gutted mate get on the stolen boats sites and all over Facebook if you can

Good idea thank buddy

Missus on it now

[matt h]

Sorry to hear of this. Its just bloody crap ..(( but I would imagine all boat left at owners risk. !?!

[Obo110x]

Have wait n see I haven't signed anything!

[Xk59D]

is this standard practice that you leave it are your own risk at marine/any company?

surely companies need insurance for such an eventuality?

please let us know how you fair, good luck bud.

[HDAV]

Originally Posted by Xk59D

is this standard practice that you leave it are your own risk at marine/any company?

surely companies need insurance for such an eventuality?

please let us know how you fair, good luck bud.

A firm I worked for had a van stolen while it was at the main dealer for a service (they left it outside, keys in running) some guy walking past jumped in and was gone, insurance wouldn't pay out and dealer claimed not down to them, nearly went to court there is a duty of care while working on someone else's asset just like there is if you transport it the car park type disclaimer (left at your risk) would surely not apply

Hope it all gets sorted....

[jeffstevens763@g]

i would say its under thier insurance they should be secure whilst working on your boat.
why didnt they take the lot would have been quicker?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by jeffstevens763@g

i would say its under thier insurance they should be secure whilst working on your boat.
why didnt they take the lot would have been quicker?

I know of others who have had problems when boat stolen from a yard when the engine was being serviced. As I understand it the conclusion was that the yard was only liable if it had been negligent, but if the boat was secure, the gates locked etc then they had discharged their duty and the theft was the owners problem. That created more issues as the boat was not insured without the wheel clamp on (which the owner had not provided to the yard). It's something to be aware of when handing over your boat (or your car etc).

Easiest route would be to claim on your insurance and let them pursue the supplier or their insurer if there is a reasonable basis.

[Fenlander]

Spot on advice from Poly. There is no requirement for a yard or repairer to have insurance cover for theft of customer's property. Their liability only extends to a reasonable duty of care which can be argued between them and your insurers from whom you should claim. If the dealer has cover and offer to deal with this it's very much a "above and beyond" situation.

Ran my own motor engineers business for 20yrs and the optional theft element of traders insurance was so expensive like many I didn't have it. Insurance company advice was... as customer's cars were stored either in a locked workshop or locked gated yard... the level of security was greater than owners would have at home so I would never be found negligent.

Never had any theft or damage to a customer's car but understand the stress it can cause to relationships with a customer.

[Xk59D]

So to understand, there are options to insure for loss but it was so expensive businesses don't take it? (in some cases anyway) If so that would seem negligent if im a customer, the business should take the risk on if purposely decided not to insure against it? Bit like home insurance, if you don't insure it you take the risk on.

Is having insurance even a requirement for owning a business? Or can the business take on the liability themselves? I mean normal insurance to cover damage while the work is carried out?

Perhaps dangerous to assume the business security is better than at home if that is the only safeguard a business has when going to court, the fact it got nicked there should offer a degree of proof to that. Perhaps could argue the opposite as the chances of valuable things on the site is worth more than an average home so should be insured accordingly?

Good info folks that may help the OP out.

[Poly]

Is having insurance even a requirement for owning a business?

No. Businesses must have employee liability insurance by law but that is to protect employees not customers or customer property. Most businesses do not require any public liability or product liability type insurance, but many will need it to get commercial business-to-business or government-to-business type insurance. Very few consumers will ask to see that sort of policy. In the absence of insurance the company will be liable if it is shown to have been negligent (whether that is leaving the gates open, allowing the trainee to drive a forklift without training/supervision, not having appropriate fire prevention, etc). Even if they had insurance it may not follow that the insurance would pay out if the company had taken all reasonable precautions, and therefore was not at fault.

[Fenlander]

>>>So to understand, there are options to insure for loss but it was so expensive businesses don't take it?

Well I'm only giving my own example. Personally in the event I'd had an incident and I was judged liable I'd have just paid it... would still have been cheaper than paying insurance year in year out for an event that never happened in 20yrs.

But what this comes down to is why anyone would expect... assuming the business have taken due care... a business to be liable for theft of your item that you the owner have already insured for that risk?

[willk]

Originally Posted by Fenlander

what this comes down to is why anyone would expect... assuming the business have taken due care... a business to be liable for theft of your item that you the owner have already insured for that risk?

Absolutely. I can imagine the whining if servicing or retubing costs rose to reflect the extra premiums incurred by the businesses.

My insurance premium increased by 20k this year. Obviously I had to pass this cost (plus taxes etc.) on to my customers....

[69cmw]

Not half as much whining as loosing an engine though ...

[Xk59D]

Originally Posted by Fenlander

>>>So to understand, there are options to insure for loss but it was so expensive businesses don't take it?

Well I'm only giving my own example. Personally in the event I'd had an incident and I was judged liable I'd have just paid it... would still have been cheaper than paying insurance year in year out for an event that never happened in 20yrs.

But what this comes down to is why anyone would expect... assuming the business have taken due care... a business to be liable for theft of your item that you the owner have already insured for that risk?

Point is even if they didn't take care they don't have the insurance anyway. Court is only option for that obviously.

[Fenlander]

In truth the existence of dealer's insurance is a side issue... that is no more than a business/financial decision for each individual business.

This is all about establishing the degree of duty of care the dealer owed and understanding if that was met to then establish any potential level of liability.

When I looked into it for my business the legal folks referred to "Bailment" which was when someone had another's property in their posession but without transfer of ownership taking place.

The liability was variable depending on whether money was changing hands and the expected level of expertise of the person having posession at the time of loss. From what I could see there was potential for huge legal costs on both sides with the worthies chewing over the fine detail of such arrangements before judgement was given.