Towing co damages boat, now dealing with their ins co, so?!???

[sdhawkman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? SOUTH DAKOTA

Good Day!

My speedboat was towed, and due to negligence by the towing company's operator, both the engine and the transom were damaged. The estimated cost for repairs is $3,392.00. A claim has been submitted to their insurance company and is in process, but I need to know my rights, options, etc. in order to be prepared...?!?

The boat is 31 years old and has an estimated book value of approximately $2100. It has been well kept throughout the years, and has continued to run and perform well. Then several years ago there was a significant amount of work done on both the boat and engine – including having the entire transom section torn out and rebuilt to factory specifications - all easily costing well over $1500! Upon completion, it was structurally as close to new as possible, and the engine running as well as ever!!!

So…my questions come down to that of my rights are with regards to the forthcoming ‘negations’ with the insurance company?!? If I show proof of the time and money that’s been put into it, is that something they ‘should’, (or are somehow required to), take into consideration with regards to the boat’s value in determining a ‘settlement amount’? OR…can they simply ‘total in out’, and be required to only pay the book value?!??

In other words, regardless of its ‘actual value’, since their client did the damage, do I not have the right to accept nothing but having it restored to the same condition it was in prior to them towing it???!?

I would sincerely appreciate any assistance with this matter!?!

Thank you in advance!
PHH

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? SOUTH DAKOTA

Good Day!

My speedboat was towed, and due to negligence by the towing company's operator, both the engine and the transom were damaged. The estimated cost for repairs is $3,392.00. A claim has been submitted to their insurance company and is in process, but I need to know my rights, options, etc. in order to be prepared...?!?

The boat is 31 years old and has an estimated book value of approximately $2100. It has been well kept throughout the years, and has continued to run and perform well. Then several years ago there was a significant amount of work done on both the boat and engine – including having the entire transom section torn out and rebuilt to factory specifications - all easily costing well over $1500! Upon completion, it was structurally as close to new as possible, and the engine running as well as ever!!!

So…my questions come down to that of my rights are with regards to the forthcoming ‘negations’ with the insurance company?!? If I show proof of the time and money that’s been put into it, is that something they ‘should’, (or are somehow required to), take into consideration with regards to the boat’s value in determining a ‘settlement amount’? OR…can they simply ‘total in out’, and be required to only pay the book value?!??

In other words, regardless of its ‘actual value’, since their client did the damage, do I not have the right to accept nothing but having it restored to the same condition it was in prior to them towing it???!?

I would sincerely appreciate any assistance with this matter!?!

Thank you in advance!
PHH

I would be prepared to show the service records on that engine to prove its condition at the time the damage was done. That also means that if it has been some time since the last repairs were done on the engine, that you might have to take normal usage and wear & tear into consideration, as the insurance company certain will.

The other very real possibility is that since the repairs you are seeking far exceed the actual value of the boat, they may not be willing to pay more than that book value - regardless of how much you have already paid to rebuild that engine and transom. It's not going to be what you paid to rebuild them, but ultimately what the boat could resell for, that will be the insurance company's bottom line. The fact that you chose to pay more for those repairs and rebuilds than what the boat is worth now could end up costing you in this negotiation.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Apparently, the value of the claim will max out at $2100 based on your numbers. They are not required to pay for all the maintenance. I suggest you only invest your money in boats that will reflect the value of the repairs put in them or do not allow them to be towed.

 

[sdhawkman]

Reply to Replies. . .PLUS additional information/questions

Thank you for your replies!!!!
Alright, I understand what you're both saying, but the way I look at it is that the all the work, (and associated costs incurred), to completely rebuild the floor decking, all new carpet, and the transom section, (none of which were absolutely necessary), I consider as "improvements", not "maintenance"!?! Hence all of that essentially adds value to the boat, since obviously what it would sell for WITHOUT any of that done would be significantly less! As for the engine work, there I agree that for the most part was indeed maintenance because it wouldn't run without it. But in the overall scheme of things, those costs were minimal.

So again, it really comes down to what I deem as 'improvements', and my argument with regards to them increasing the value. . . Not sure I guess?!? Hence, I would truly welcome any feedback about 'my argument', and how I might best achieve making this a valid one, (even IF you don't necessarily agree please...)??!?

Now, assuming their 'bottom line' is only the book value, what means do I have at my disposal to try and make up the difference, (besides of course paying for it myself!!!), if any?!? I guess I simply have a very hard time understanding how it is another party can do damage to one's 'property' - with no denial of responsibility - yet not be required to fully repair said damage???!? Regardless of what their insurance company is willing/required to do for compensation, does the responsible party not have SOME sort of 'legal obligation' in the matter as far as making up the difference. . .MAKING IT RIGHT!?!?? If so, please tell me what options I might have, which 'avenues' to pursue???

Another question I have, after the Adjuster came yesterday and the point came up that the boat's rightful owner is actually my Mother, is whether that is relevant or not??!?

Lastly, there is the whole issue with the Property Management Company who manages my Townhouse and the premises - specifically, the parking area on their property where the boat was parked and towed from - and there being absolutely NOTHING in the lease, (i.e. CONTRACT), that states that I could not park it there!!!
(Following is the section in the contract pertaining to the parking lots, just FYI...):

"PARKING LOTS
1.) A parking lot has been provided for the Residents. If there is assigned parking, a designated spot will be assigned to you at move-in.
2.) Do not park or drive across the lawn at any time.
3.) Park so you do not obstruct the sanitation service's pick up area or the utility company trucks that may be working in the area.
4.) Absolutely no automobile repair is permitted on the premises.
5.) Junk automobiles cannot be stored on the premises. All vehicles parked on the premises must be in drivable condition, and have current license plates and tags.6.) Two-wheel motor vehicles, ATV's, four wheelers and snowmobiles are subject to the same rules as automobiles.
7.) Management reserves the right to tow any vehicle at Residents expense for failure to comply with any of the parking regulations."

(Note that per the city and state, a trailer is indeed defined as a "vehicle", per SDCL 32-9-1.12 And no, being that this happened on private property, naturally they aren't bound by these laws or definitions. But again...not a thing in THEIR contract defining anything, etc!!!).

After it was towed, in a conversation with the Manager, she basically stated that she agreed with me that the TRAILER is the vehicle, and that it doesn't matter what is on the trailer...be it a boat, or a pile of rocks!!!, just so it's licensed - which indeed it was, but the boat's was expired. She decided to leave it up to her boss, (whom she had not consulted with prior to towing it, only the Maintenance guy?!?!!), who by now had gone on vacation. . . The following week I spoke with him, and he simply said that BOTH the trailer AND the boat had to have current licenses - regardless of there being nothing in the contract to back him up. I left it at that, and still have now after two weeks or so after the 'incident', (being that the $128 towing charge was the least of my problems with all the damage to the boat!!!).

BUT NOW...I'm wondering, that if things don't go well with both the Ins co. and the towing co. regarding compensation for the damage, whether I might have any type of recourse with...well, my 'Landlord'??!? - in getting both the towing charges refunded, and obtaining the difference between any compensation offered/received vs. the actual cost to repair it?!?? (Something I think even the Ins co might be looking into, being as the Adjustor was quite interested in all the details listed above?!?)

So. . .?!??!!?

Again, sincerely appreciate any and all replies!!!

Thank You!
PHH~

P.S. Sorry so LONG. . .

 

[sandyclaus]

Nothing you're saying makes much of a difference. Unless you can substantiate that the boat had a far higher resale value than blue book, that's the most that will be paid on the claim.

One thing that you say DOES make a difference. Your MOTHER owns the boat. That also means YOU have no standing to challenge anything that the insurance company decides. The only person who stands to pursue any potential recourse here is the registered owner of the vessel - your MOTHER.

As for liability for the actual towing, that's something would need to be discussed with the LL and/or management company for the apartment complex. They would have to tell you (or your mother) what their justification was for towing the boat and trailer away in the first place.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The trailer was licensed, however it was not in drivable condition. It seems most self powered parade floats would be legal to park, however, boat trailers are not. They lack the ability to be drivable.

 

[sdhawkman]

More 'Comments', etc. . .

As for liability for the actual towing, that's something would need to be discussed with the LL and/or management company for the apartment complex. They would have to tell you (or your mother) what their justification was for towing the boat and trailer away in the first place.

Thank you clause, but as I stated:

. . . The following week I spoke with him, (the Property Manager's Boss...), and he simply said that BOTH the trailer AND the boat had to have current licenses - regardless of there being nothing in the contract to back him up?!??!

In other words, I have already discussed it with them, but to no avail!!?! So what I was looking for were opinions about whether or not I have a legitimate, legal case to argue that they indeed did NOT have the right to tow it, based on what is in their contract with regards to what is and is not allowed - which again...I do not see anything there that could possibly back up his statement that the boat had to be licensed?!??!
And actually. . .a boat, (again by the state's legal definition), is NOT a "vehicle":

32-3A-2. Definition of terms. Terms used in this chapter mean:
(1) "Boat," every description of watercraft, other than a seaplane on the water, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.

Whereas, the trailer IS a "vehicle": (ahhh, warrior. . .!)

32-9-1. Definitions. Terms used in this chapter mean:
(12) "Trailer," every vehicle without motive power designed to carry property or persons wholly on its own structure and to be drawn by a motor vehicle.

So warrior, I think when you stated:

The trailer was licensed, however it was not in drivable condition. It seems most self powered parade floats would be legal to park, however, boat trailers are not. They lack the ability to be drivable.

...you were basically attempting to describe a "motor vehicle", yes?!? (To be quite honest, I'm not sure WHAT point you were trying to make??!? Not that I don't appreciate your input & all, but seriously?!?. . ."PARADE FLOATS"?!??!)

32-9-1. Definitions. Terms used in this chapter mean:
(7) "Motor vehicle," all vehicles or machines propelled by any power other than muscular used upon the public highways for the transportation of persons or property or both.

Not sure what else to say at this point. . .?!? Waiting to hear back from the Ins. Co, but obviously the very BEST outcome is going to be them willing to compensate 'us' for whatever they decide it's worth, end of story??!?! Above that, (according to what I've been told here...), there's absolutely nothing I can do to get the rest of the funds necessary to repair it - not from the Ins co, the Towing co, nor the Property Management co - CORRECT!?!!? (Besides paying for it myself of course. . .!!!)

Guess it's just the same old 'CRAP' - "Life's Not Fair"?!??! Man...talk about GETTING SCREWED!!!

 

[Zigner]

You do realize that, if they "total" it - they will take possession of it, right? If you want to keep it, you will have to (in essence) purchase it back from them as a salvaged boat.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I think it was very clear what I said. They terms of the lease require all vehicles in the lot to be in drivable condition. The boat trailer was not drivable, therefore it is prohibited by the terms of the lease. I was not arguing the trailer was not a vehicle. It is not however in drivable condition as required by your lease.

 

[sdhawkman]

Interesting...but. . .?!?

You do realize that, if they "total" it - they will take possession of it, right? If you want to keep it, you will have to (in essence) purchase it back from them as a salvaged boat.

Thanks for the input!
Yes I do, and that is one option they've given me. They total it, take possession, and pay me $2,365; or I keep it, they deduct $500 for it's 'salvage value' and pay me $1,865. Which I'm assuming is basically what you meant by "(in essence) purchase it back..."?!?

And besides giving thought to going after the Prop'y Mgmt Co for the difference needed to repair it, I DID ponder whether or not it would be possible to let them take it for the $2365, then somehow get/buy it back for less than $500?!???

Now, I'm assuming that they would sell it to a salvage co of some sort, who would then put it up for auction at some point in time!?! Because basically I am paying them what they must already know they'd get from a salvage co by taking only the $1865, correct?!?

But if I were to let them take it, I'd be paying even MORE than the $500 to get it back, (since if the salvage co indeed already PAID that much for it, they're not about to let it go for less!!!?!), or worse yet. . .not get it back at all!!??!
(Although they may be taking less, especially since the bottom line for them is the difference between what they're willing to pay me and the client's ($2000!!!) deductable is actually -$235, meaning the damn Ins co's going to come out AHEAD!!?!!?!! And probably raise his rates after this??!?! Man! If THAT ain't a crock, I don't know what is. . .?!?!!)

Sound about right? Very simply, I'm not entirely sure of that whole 'process', so. . .?!?

Sigh. . . I don't know...

Thanks again, appreciate it!!!

 

[sdhawkman]

My Apologies. . . Ty. But...

I think it was very clear what I said. They terms of the lease require all vehicles in the lot to be in drivable condition. The boat trailer was not drivable, therefore it is prohibited by the terms of the lease. I was not arguing the trailer was not a vehicle. It is not however in drivable condition as required by your lease.

My apologies for somewhat misunderstanding you...

It is indeed a good point which I had not given any thought to, so thank you! But I have unable to find any sort of legal terminology or definitions of what is considered "in drivable condition" - for ANYTHING?!? So until I do or am told as much, I am going to continue to believe that it is(in drivable condition) since it's in good working condition, and 'functions' as it was designed to do. (Now if it had a broken axle or something like that. . .?!!)

Thanks again!

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Whichever you decide, don't let the offer go stale. Then you go to court.

Thanks for the input!
Yes I do, and that is one option they've given me. They total it, take possession, and pay me $2,365; or I keep it, they deduct $500 for it's 'salvage value' and pay me $1,865. Which I'm assuming is basically what you meant by "(in essence) purchase it back..."?!?

And besides giving thought to going after the Prop'y Mgmt Co for the difference needed to repair it, I DID ponder whether or not it would be possible to let them take it for the $2365, then somehow get/buy it back for less than $500?!???

Now, I'm assuming that they would sell it to a salvage co of some sort, who would then put it up for auction at some point in time!?! Because basically I am paying them what they must already know they'd get from a salvage co by taking only the $1865, correct?!?

But if I were to let them take it, I'd be paying even MORE than the $500 to get it back, (since if the salvage co indeed already PAID that much for it, they're not about to let it go for less!!!?!), or worse yet. . .not get it back at all!!??!
(Although they may be taking less, especially since the bottom line for them is the difference between what they're willing to pay me and the client's ($2000!!!) deductable is actually -$235, meaning the damn Ins co's going to come out AHEAD!!?!!?!! And probably raise his rates after this??!?! Man! If THAT ain't a crock, I don't know what is. . .?!?!!)

Sound about right? Very simply, I'm not entirely sure of that whole 'process', so. . .?!?

Sigh. . . I don't know...

Thanks again, appreciate it!!!

 

[ecmst12]

(Although they may be taking less, especially since the bottom line for them is the difference between what they're willing to pay me and the client's ($2000!!!) deductable is actually -$235, meaning the damn Ins co's going to come out AHEAD!!?!!?!!

Deductible does not apply to liability claims, nothing is coming out of the tow company's pocket for the claim (unless they're self insured but that's a whole different discussion).

 

[sdhawkman]

?!?. . .

Whichever you decide, don't let the offer go stale. Then you go to court.

The adjustor said nothing about how long the 'offer(s)' were valid for, although that was late Friday PM and he just told me the details, so?!? Is there some sort of a 'standard' period of time for something like this before it 'expires'???

Thanks!

(NOTE - [TO ALL...]: I would still really appreciate some more feedback with regards to my 'case' against the Property Management Co having the legal right to tow it in the first place, please...???!?)

 

[sdhawkman]

Ok, but. . .??!? ~/

Deductible does not apply to liability claims, nothing is coming out of the tow company's pocket for the claim (unless they're self insured but that's a whole different discussion).

Appreciate your input...!

Well...that's very interesting, not to mention somewhat confusing!??!? I mean, if I were at fault in say...an auto accident, I am obviously 'liable' for any damage to the other party's vehicle, correct?!? And I know for a fact that I would have to pay the policy's decuctible before my Ins co would pay on the claim, so. . .???


Also, when I discussed the matter with the Owner of the Towing co, he stated that because the estimate was more than his deductible, he'd have to submit it to his Ins co! So again. . .??? But note that immediately following that statement, he said "unless you can come up with a number we could both agree on, and I'd just write you a check...", indicating that not only does HE believe/know his deductible would apply, but of course that he'd much rather avoid filing a claim, understandably...?!

One of the reasons I bring this up, is that tommow I was planning on talking with him about the whole situation to see if he'd prefer to cancel the claim, (which is a question in itself, whether or not that's even an option at this point?!??!), and write ME a check for the $2000 vs. going through the Ins co and paying the $2000 deductible?!? Because obviously I would come out at least a little better, and it wouldn't have any potential negative effects with regards to his Ins policy or whatever. . .?!?

And just FYI..., last Fall his co damaged the corner of a parking garage on this same property!!! (HA!...which BTW, was actually only about fifteen feet from where they towed the boat from, and in the process damaged their parking lot!!!) And he told me that to avoid filing a claim - along with the fact that the damages were less than his deductible - he simply paid the contractor directly.

BUT...if indeed you are correct, (per SD Insurance laws and regulations - which as of yet I haven't been able to find anything on), then naturally there would be no need to even have that discussion with him!!?!
So hopefully?!!. . .someone will help me out with these 'issues' so I know how best to proceed??!?

Thanks again!!!

Again...

(NOTE - [TO ALL...]: I would still really appreciate some more feedback with regards to my 'case' against the Property Management Co having the legal right to tow it in the first place, please...???!?) .