Insurance Claim "Witness" Statements

[Aquasition]

Re: Insurance Claim "Witness" Statements

Hi Righty,

Regarding the argument that if no security device fitted. I accept your point, however, it was a policy condition that the trailer was fitted with either a wheel clamp or a hitch lock when unattended. Not quite sure where you are coming from in respect of the trailer being a single or twin axle. Nevertheless, it was a twin axle and the clamp was fitted to the nearside front wheel. One of the marina staff had taken the police officer to the location where the boat/trailer had been stolen from in search of any evidence of a locking device. The marina staff has stated in a statement as much and also that he did not find any evidence but noticed a skid mark on the ground. He put this down to locking brakes, however, there is no reason why the skid mark could not have been caused by the thieves towing the trailer to dislodge the clamp. Having done so, they then removed the clamp from the wheel.

I accept that each individual will have their own opinion regarding the statement that the employee made. I therefore accept that his statement may not amount to negligence. Could you expand on your thoughts that his actions or lack of them may?

On the question of Duty of Care; it was muted at the court that perhaps the employer should be joined in the action. I think that you are perhaps correct in saying that the employer should be sued under vicarious liability. I will wait until I read your comments on the employee’s actions or lack of them before coming back on whether the employer could be liable.

I would totally agree with you that the marina cannot indemnify themselves against negligence. The issue here would be to prove that the marina was negligent.

To this end I would also say that you are absolutely correct in asking, for what reason did the marina install security barriers if not for security. They also installed CCTV, which according to their Data Protection Registration is for the purposes of “Detection and Prevention of Crime”.

Sorry Righty, but not familiar with “IMHO”.

I believe that it would be very simple to establish that the marina knew that unauthorised access through the vehicular barrier could be achieved very easily by merely following a vehicle who had gained access using an officially issued access card. The barrier itself remains open for a period much longer than is necessary. Would I be correct in saying that if a proper risk assessment had taken place it would have highlighted a foreseeable risk?

Again, I totally agree that upon contracting an assumption of reasonable security was made. The thieves were given access to the “restricted” area without any intervention from the marina or staff. The theives were able to disarm any security device in place without any fear of intervention – there were no CCTV covering boats on the hard standing. The thieves were allowed to depart the marina without any intervention.

Lastly, under what authority can an individual demand a copy of the terms and conditions of the marina’s liability insurance?

Thanks

Chris

[Aquasition]

Re: Insurance Claim "Witness" Statements

Hi Righty,

I thought I would expand on the circumstances of the employee’s statement in view of your comments on his action or lack of of them.

Firstly, I need to say that in the marina complex there are two places for boats to be stored, apart from the berths of course.

One is the Dry Berthing Compound (which is a secure compound, fenced off, locked gates and CCTV). The marina offers a special package to owners which include unlimited launching and recovery of boats. The boats/trailers of owners opting for this package are stored in the Dry Berthing Compound.

The other is the Hard Standing (an open area within the marina complex without CCTV).

My boat/trailer was at one time in the Dry Berthing Compound at which time there was not a wheel clamp attached to the trailer. The employee was the manager of the compound. 3 months before the boat/trailer was stolen, I decided not to renew my contract in the Dry Berthing and my boat/trailer was moved to the hard standing. When the boat/trailer was relocated, a wheel clamp was attached.

When the insurance company told me about the statement that they had received from the employee, they said that the employee had stated that there had not been a wheel clamp. I then arranged a meeting with the employee and the marina manager. My wife also attended the meeting. At the meeting the employee stated that the information he had given to the insurance company related only to the time that my boat/trailer was in the Dry Berthing Compound and not the hard standing. I asked the employee to put this into writing; however, the marina manager would not allow him to do so. As I had not seen the statement and I had no reason to mistrust the employee I accepted that his statement only related to the Dry Berthing.

At a later stage I obtained a copy of the statement. To my horror the employee had stated, “I would see his boat/trailer almost daily, both when it was in the Dry Berthing and when it was on the hard, I do not recall it having a wheel clamp”.

The information that the employee had given me at the meeting was clearly false. He knew it to be false and I relied upon it. This was my main argument against the employee.

The employee was asked to clarify matters but chose not to do so.

Hope this sheds some light on matters.

Chris

[Aquasition]

Re: Insurance Claim "Witness" Statements

Photo of Boat/Trailer.

The yellow blob is the wheel clamp. This picture was taken at Largs Marina and the employee confirmed that this was a picture of my boat together with the fact that the photograph was taken at Largs Marina

[righty]

Re: Insurance Claim "Witness" Statements

Stop focusing on the employee He's employed by the Marina go for them

[Aquasition]

Re: Insurance Claim "Witness" Statements

OK Righty,

I'm not that knowledgable on taking on the employer - can you give me pointers how to go about it - and would it relate solely to the negligence of the marina with regard to security or would it also include the "action or non action" as you put it of the employee?

Chris