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
