spenserj87
Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2012
- Messages
- 3
Four Winns Horizon 180 Volvo Penta 4.3. Short story is that I had an incident on a lake going 15-20 mph where the bottom of the outboard hit a sandbar. The impact pivoted the outboard upward and caused a leak through the transom seal. There was no damage to the outboard at all, really no sign of impact other than the outboard pivoting up. I lowered the outboard and was able to get to dock and pull from water. Quite a bit of water was in the bilge.
I put in an insurance claim and the insurance company declined the claim saying the transom seal is a wearable part. Cost to repair was $1,600 due to fact they had to pull engine to inspect and repair transom seal. Insurance company required a tear down to inspect and then claimed there was insufficient evidence of damage or a collision that would have caused the transom seal to fail. There are six bolts that go through stern and it's clear to me an upward shift occurred. While the bolts aren't bent, there is fresh wood damage in the holes the bolts go through. But pretty minor.
So my situation is that the only evidence of a collision is a failed transom seal. Without any other visible damage, the insurance company (Progressive) is saying it's a wearable part. Obviously they are ignoring my account that there was an incident, there were two other adults on the boat who witnessed. We hit something, seal failed.
Is there any evidence I can use in small claims court to demonstrate that a transom seal isn't a wearable part? I have pictures of the tear down to show wood damage. I spoke with a boat inspector, but it would cost too much to hire him as an expert witness. So I was looking for other sources that would bolster my argument that a transom seal is not a wearable part in most instances.
I put in an insurance claim and the insurance company declined the claim saying the transom seal is a wearable part. Cost to repair was $1,600 due to fact they had to pull engine to inspect and repair transom seal. Insurance company required a tear down to inspect and then claimed there was insufficient evidence of damage or a collision that would have caused the transom seal to fail. There are six bolts that go through stern and it's clear to me an upward shift occurred. While the bolts aren't bent, there is fresh wood damage in the holes the bolts go through. But pretty minor.
So my situation is that the only evidence of a collision is a failed transom seal. Without any other visible damage, the insurance company (Progressive) is saying it's a wearable part. Obviously they are ignoring my account that there was an incident, there were two other adults on the boat who witnessed. We hit something, seal failed.
Is there any evidence I can use in small claims court to demonstrate that a transom seal isn't a wearable part? I have pictures of the tear down to show wood damage. I spoke with a boat inspector, but it would cost too much to hire him as an expert witness. So I was looking for other sources that would bolster my argument that a transom seal is not a wearable part in most instances.