Claim under CPM Policy; Is this claim payable...?

[S. Anoop Kumar]

Dear friends,

 

Here is an interesting case.  The insured is an earth works contractor.  The insured machine is an Ashok Leyland Taurus 2516, 10 wheeled Tipper,  2007 model and about 9 months old.  The tipper body is factory fitted and supplied by Ashok Leyland as a complete vehicle.  The tipper is covered under CPM policy.

 

The tipper was carrying excavated mud and was stationary at the dumping point.  As the driver was lifting the tipper by operating the hydraulic lift cylinder, the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken) at the welded joints and the tipper body fell down on left side even while the cabin and chassis remained firmly on it's wheels and all wheels remained on the ground.    The hydraulic lift cylinder piston got bent/twisted and also broken at the top end as it got pulled by the tipper body during it's fall. 

 

The tipper body sub-frame got bent and also cracked at places.  The loss is about 2.20 lakhs app.  Final cost of repair and loss assessment is yet to be worked out & arrived.  The interesting point here is there is no accident, no collusion and no external impact, no falling of vehicle.  Only the tipper body fell on left side.  The local Ashok Leyland dealer refused to entertain the claim under warranty and disowns any manufacturing defect after 9

months of it's sales and operation.  We have no proof as to overloading as the tipper has been doing the same work all along, and also several other tippers working at the same worksite.  There is no willful negligence on the part of the insured.

 

Now the big question -  "Is this claim payable" ?  State justifications and reasons for your opinion, whether it is 'Yes' or 'No'.

 

Regards -

S. Anoop Kumar.

[kulbhushan manchanda]

Dear Anoop ji

Your case study has  answer hidden in itself.

No external impact~therefore no liability of insurers arises.

Now it is purelya  manufacturing defect for what mfrs are liable to pay and not us.

Regds
Kb     

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 SAnoop Kumar wrote :
>Dear friends,
>
>  Here is an interesting case.  The insured is an earth works contractor.
>  The insured machine is an Ashok Leyland Taurus 2516, 10 wheeled
>Tipper,  2007 model and about 9 months old.  The tipper body is factory

>fitted and supplied by Ashok Leyland as a complete vehicle.  *The tipper is
>covered under CPM policy.*

>
>  The tipper was carrying excavated mud and was stationary at the dumping
>point.  As the driver was lifting the tipper by operating the hydraulic lift
>cylinder, the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken) at
>the welded joints and the tipper body fell down on left side even while the
>cabin and chassis remained firmly on it's wheels and all wheels remained on
>the ground.    The hydraulic lift cylinder piston got bent/twisted and also
>broken at the top end as it got pulled by the tipper body during it's fall.
>
>The tipper body sub-frame got bent and also cracked at places.  The loss is
>about 2.20 lakhs app.  Final cost of repair and loss assessment is yet to be
>worked out & arrived.  The interesting point here is there is no accident,
>no collusion and no external impact, no falling of vehicle.  Only the tipper
>body fell on left side.  The local Ashok Leyland dealer refused to entertain
>the claim under warranty and disowns any manufacturing defect after 9
>months of it's sales and operation.  We have no proof as to overloading as
>the tipper has been doing the same work all along, and also several other
>tippers working at the same worksite.  There is no willful negligence on the
>part of the insured.
>
>  Now the big question -  "Is this claim payable" ?  State justifications and
>reasons for your opinion, whether it is 'Yes' or 'No'.
>
>  Regards -
>S. Anoop Kumar.
>
>>

[ANIL KHUBCHANDANI]

Dear all

 

In my opinion All sorts of unforeseen accidents are covered under the CPM policy. Its more of an ALL RISK POLICY. There is no need for any external means. CPM working on project sites are mostly working alone/singly and often get damaged due to accidents involving themselves. Such losses without any involvement of any external means have been paid.

 

Mechanical and electrical breakdowns are not covered but losses to other parts in consequence of such breakdowns stand covered. In your case loss to (the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken) at the welded joints) may not be tenable under above exclusion but other damages are indemnifiable. 

 

This is my opinion. I may be wrong.

 

Anil Khubchandani

Bhopal (09826075885)

[M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster]

Dear All

 

The situation is to be viewed in light of Policy terms reiterated below (The pertinent point which needs consideration is  - "The interesting point here is there is no accident, no collision and no external impact, no falling of vehicle.  Only the tipper body fell on left side") : Interesting areas r highlighted for ease of ref / interpretation.

 

Quote

 

----------

STANDARD POLICY FORM

 

CONTRACTOR'S PLANT & MACHINERY INSURANCE POLICY -

 

     NOW THIS POLICY OF INSURANCE WITNESSETH

 

…, the Company will at its own option by payment or reinstatement or repair indemnify the Insured against unforeseen and sudden physical damage by any cause not hereinafter excluded to any Insured Property specified in the attached Schedule(s) whilst at the location mentioned therein necessitating its immediate repair or replacement. ….

 

EXCEPTIONS –

 

THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THIS POLICY IN RESPECT OF -

 

a)     …

b)     loss or damage due to electrical or  Mechanical  breakdown, failure,  breakage or derangement, freezing of coolant  or  other fluid, defective lubrication or lack of oil or coolant, but if  as a  consequence  of  such breakdown or  derangement  an  accident occurs causing external damage, such consequential damage will be indemnifiable.

 

c)     …

 

d)     …

 

e)     loss  of or damage to vehicles designed  and  licensed  for general  road use unless these vehicles are exclusively used  on construction site;

 

adju...@bppl.net.in

[ASAR]

Dear All,

 

                     I accept that I am not well versed in automobiles.  With the available information, I have observed the following

 

*  Due to failure of the tilting hinges holding at the rear side of the vehicle

*  The hydraulic cylinder piston lifts the load body for the purpose of unloading

   the contents in the load body

*  There was strong link between the piston and hinges with the load body

*  The load body fallen at the left side of the vehicle due to failure of the

   hinges. 

*  The dipper body was damaged (let me consider that the damage to the body was

   due to collision with the ground. I hope there was very minimal chance for

   damage to the frame and crack at several places due to the force acted on the

   body while lifting of the body due to failure of the hinges)

*  The piston bent due to pulling of the body.

 

             Now my answers for the clarifications are

 

1.  Definitely the loss is unforeseen and sudden physical damage.  The narration

    confirms bent and crack to the damged components.

 

Explanation for Exclusions

 

b)     loss or damage due to electrical or  Mechanical  breakdown, failure,  breakage or derangement, freezing of coolant  or  other fluid, defective lubrication or lack of oil or coolant, but if  as a  consequence  of  such breakdown or  derangement  an  accident occurs causing external damage, such consequential damage will be indemnifiable.

 

2.  It is true that the damage to the hinges are mechanical breakdown which is

    excluded by the policy ('Exception - b' of the policy)

3.  But the damages caused in consequence of the breakdown or derangement are

    covered (Exclusion within the exclusion means covered)

4.  As explained by Anoopji, there was external visible damage to the parts

    considered as damaged.   Generally we think the meaning of 'accident' is

     a road accident causing collion with an external object.  In my opinion,

     accident means an unforseen incident.  We plan for a marriage or a ceremany

    or a party which is an incident.  When it was cancelled for unforeseen

     reasons, it is an accident not incident.  Hence, the incident narrated is

     an acceident and not incident.

 

     hence, the exclusion is not applicable except on the hinges.

 

5.  In case of Exclusion [e]

 

e)     loss  of or damage to vehicles designed  and  licensed  for general  road use unless these vehicles are exclusively used  on construction site;

 

                                              The experts has to decide wether the vehicle is designed for general road use.  I am of the opinion that the vehicle is designed for general road use only.

 

 

     But, the accident occurred while the vehicle was engaged in dumping yard.  In my opinion, the dumping yard must be a construction site and the loss occured while the vehicle was engaged in the contract operations.

           hence, the above exclusion is not applicable.

 

Hope I have explained the case adequately and the members of the forum may comment on the subject

 

ASAR

the Junior

 

Dear friends,

 

Here is an interesting case.  The insured is an earth works contractor.  The insured machine is an Ashok Leyland Taurus 2516, 10 wheeled Tipper,  2007 model and about 9 months old.  The tipper body is factory fitted and supplied by Ashok Leyland as a complete vehicle.  The tipper is covered under CPM policy.

 

The tipper was carrying excavated mud and was stationary at the dumping point.  As the driver was lifting the tipper by operating the hydraulic lift cylinder, the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken) at the welded joints and the tipper body fell down on left side even while the cabin and chassis remained firmly on it's wheels and all wheels remained on the ground.    The hydraulic lift cylinder piston got bent/twisted and also broken at the top end as it got pulled by the tipper body during it's fall. 

 

The tipper body sub-frame got bent and also cracked at places.  The loss is about 2.20 lakhs app.  Final cost of repair and loss assessment is yet to be worked out & arrived.  The interesting point here is there is no accident, no collusion and no external impact, no falling of vehicle.  Only the tipper body fell on left side.  The local Ashok Leyland dealer refused to entertain the claim under warranty and disowns any manufacturing defect after 9

months of it's sales and operation.  We have no proof as to overloading as the tipper has been doing the same work all along, and also several other tippers working at the same worksite.  There is no willful negligence on the part of the insured.

 

Now the big question -  "Is this claim payable" ?  State justifications and reasons for your opinion, whether it is 'Yes' or 'No'.

 

Regards -

S. Anoop Kumar.

[M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster]

Dear ASAR & All,

 

"external damage, such consequential damage will be indemnifiable" Please observe that the external damages to the tipper body & there may be contributory damage although small to the sub frame & chassis.

 

Interesting views, more views are awaited for a conclusive analysis.

 

breg

 

M S Sainani

 

adju...@bppl.net.in Group Moderator
adjuste...@gmail.com
adju...@bppl.net.in

[ASAR]

Dear Sir,

 

            I am sorry, As I already told in the other mail, I have some absence of mide today.  I thought to explain the same.

 

           Please note the word.  It says EXTERNAL DAMAGE -  It does not spells the damage are to be caused by any external means. 

 

        As explained in the previous mail, It is confirmed that there was external visible damage to the components.  The damage is not internal.  The damage is noteable externally.  Hence,  the exclusion can not be applied.

 

If need more clarification on the same, I am ready to explain more.

 

ASAR

The Junior 

 

[ASAR]

On 16/03/2008, ASAR <asant...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sir,

 

            I am sorry, As I already told in the other mail, I have some absence of mind today.  I thought to explain the same in the previous mail.

[M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster]

Dear ASAR you are taking benefit of legal maxim Contra Preferentum (I suppose I am not wrong, Atul Datt Ji / Vinod Bhai to pl correct me if there is a mistaken narration of legal maxim !!!!). Yes there is a point here to view it from this angle also, Insurance Claism personnels to pl comment on this.

 

breg

 

M S Sainani

--
M S Sainani
9414168144
Group Moderator
adjuste...@gmail.com
adju...@bppl.net.in

[ASAR]

My points are on the intention of the policy wordings.  The intension of the policy designers are clear if you go through the entire policy.  I am not debating on the mistake in the words or missing words.  I am discussing on the intention of the policy wording.

 

Please note here :  The wording may be 'but if  as a  consequence  of  such breakdown or  derangement  an  accident occurs causing damage, such consequential damage will be indemnifiable

 

The intention of the policy designers in addition the word EXTERNAL is purely to avoid any disputes in interpretation.  If the word is not there, any internal damage due to breakdown may be included as the consequence of the other breakdown and a claim may be preferred on the same.

 

please note that the policy is designed on wider use for all type of properties.

 

 

ASAR
 

[C K Bhatia]

Friends it is a CPM policy and should not be mixed with motor policy. CPM policy is an engineering policy and thus co-relation of terms should be with MAhinery insurance. In my opinion the claim is payable except the brackets where the welding has given up.

"M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster" <adjuste...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All

 

The situation is to be viewed in light of Policy terms reiterated below (The pertinent point which needs consideration is  - "The interesting point here is there is no accident, no collision and no external impact, no falling of vehicle.  Only the tipper body fell on left side") : Interesting areas r highlighted for ease of ref / interpretation.

 

Quote

 

----------

STANDARD POLICY FORM

 

CONTRACTOR'S PLANT & MACHINERY INSURANCE POLICY -

 

     NOW THIS POLICY OF INSURANCE WITNESSETH

 

..., the Company will at its own option by payment or reinstatement or repair indemnify the Insured against unforeseen and sudden physical damage by any cause not hereinafter excluded to any Insured Property specified in the attached Schedule(s) whilst at the location mentioned therein necessitating its immediate repair or replacement. ....

 

EXCEPTIONS -

 

THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THIS POLICY IN RESPECT OF -

 

a)     ...

b)     loss or damage due to electrical or  Mechanical  breakdown, failure,  breakage or derangement, freezing of coolant  or  other fluid, defective lubrication or lack of oil or coolant, but if  as a  consequence  of  such breakdown or  derangement  an  accident occurs causing external damage, such consequential damage will be indemnifiable.

 

c)     ...

 

d)     ...

 

e)     loss  of or damage to vehicles designed  and  licensed  for general  road use unless these vehicles are exclusively used  on construction site;

 

On 3/16/08, ANIL KHUBCHANDANI <khubchan...@airtelmail.in> wrote:

Dear all

 

In my opinion All sorts of unforeseen accidents are covered under the CPM policy. Its more of an ALL RISK POLICY. There is no need for any external means. CPM working on project sites are mostly working alone/singly and often get damaged due to accidents involving themselves. Such losses without any involvement of any external means have been paid.

 

Mechanical and electrical breakdowns are not covered but losses to other parts in consequence of such breakdowns stand covered. In your case loss to (the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken) at the welded joints) may not be tenable under above exclusion but other damages are indemnifiable. 

 

This is my opinion. I may be wrong.

 

Anil Khubchandani

Bhopal (09826075885)

----- Original Message -----

From: S. Anoop Kumar

To: insurance...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:12 PM

Subject: [Adjusters:4917] Claim under CPM Policy; Is this claim payable...?

 

Dear friends,

 

Here is an interesting case.  The insured is an earth works contractor.  The insured machine is an Ashok Leyland Taurus 2516, 10 wheeled Tipper,  2007 model and about 9 months old.  The tipper body is factory fitted and supplied by Ashok Leyland as a complete vehicle.  The tipper is covered under CPM policy.

 

The tipper was carrying excavated mud and was stationary at the dumping point.  As the driver was lifting the tipper by operating the hydraulic lift cylinder, the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken) at the welded joints and the tipper body fell down on left side even while the cabin and chassis remained firmly on it's wheels and all wheels remained on the ground.    The hydraulic lift cylinder piston got bent/twisted and also broken at the top end as it got pulled by the tipper body during it's fall. 

 

The tipper body sub-frame got bent and also cracked at places.  The loss is about 2.20 lakhs app.  Final cost of repair and loss assessment is yet to be worked out & arrived.  The interesting point here is there is no accident, no collusion and no external impact, no falling of vehicle.  Only the tipper body fell on left side.  The local Ashok Leyland dealer refused to entertain the claim under warranty and disowns any manufacturing defect after 9

months of it's sales and operation.  We have no proof as to overloading as the tipper has been doing the same work all along, and also several other tippers working at the same worksite.  There is no willful negligence on the part of the insured.

 

Now the big question -  "Is this claim payable" ?  State justifications and reasons for your opinion, whether it is 'Yes' or 'No'.

 

Regards -

S. Anoop Kumar.

adju...@bppl.net.in

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[ASAR]

As per moderator, so many officials from insurance companies are also members of this forum.  Why they are keeping silence in technical discussions.

 

ASAR

 

[kulbhushan manchanda]

  I suppose their role is to give PP msgs only
KB

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 ASAR wrote :
>As per moderator, so many officials from insurance companies are also
>members of this forum.  Why they are keeping silence in technical
>discussions.
>
>ASAR
>
>
>On 16/03/2008, C K Bhatia <ckbhatia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Friends it is a CPM policy and should not be mixed with motor policy. CPM
> > policy is an engineering policy and thus co-relation of terms should be with
> > MAhinery insurance. In my opinion the claim is payable except the brackets
> > where the welding has given up.
> >

> > *"M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster" <

> > adjuste...@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> >  Dear All
> >
> > The situation is to be viewed in light of Policy terms reiterated below
> > (The pertinent point which needs consideration is  - "The interesting
> > point here is there is no accident, no collision and no external impact, no
> > falling of vehicle.  Only the tipper body fell on left side") :
> > Interesting areas r highlighted for ease of ref / interpretation.
> >

> > *Quote*
> > **
> > *----------*
> >  *STANDARD POLICY FORM*
> > **
> > *CONTRACTOR'S PLANT & MACHINERY INSURANCE POLICY -*
> >
> > *    NOW THIS POLICY OF INSURANCE WITNESSETH*
> > **

> > ..., the Company will at its own option by payment or reinstatement or

> > repair indemnify the Insured against *unforeseen and sudden physical
> > damage* by any cause not hereinafter excluded to any Insured Property

> > specified in the attached Schedule(s) whilst at the location mentioned
> > therein necessitating its immediate repair or replacement. ....
> >

> > *EXCEPTIONS -*

> >
> > THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THIS POLICY IN RESPECT OF -
> >
> > a)    ...
> > b)    loss or damage due to electrical or  Mechanical  breakdown,
> > failure,  breakage or derangement, freezing of coolant  or  other fluid,

> > defective lubrication or lack of oil or coolant, but *if*  *as a
> > consequence  of  such breakdown or  derangement*  *an  accident occurs* causing

> > external damage, such consequential damage will be indemnifiable.
> >
> > c)    ...
> >
> > d)    ...
> >
> > e)    loss  of or damage to vehicles designed  and  licensed  for general
> > road use unless these vehicles are exclusively used  on construction site;
> >
> >
> >  On 3/16/08, ANIL KHUBCHANDANI <khubchan...@airtelmail.in> wrote:
> >

> > >  *Dear all*
> > >
> > > *In my opinion All sorts of unforeseen accidents are covered under the

> > > CPM policy. Its more of an ALL RISK POLICY. There is no need for any
> > > external means. CPM working on project sites are mostly working alone/singly
> > > and often get damaged due to accidents involving themselves. Such losses

> > > without any involvement of any external means have been paid. *
> > > **
> > > *Mechanical and electrical breakdowns are not covered but losses to

> > > other parts in consequence of such breakdowns stand covered. In your case

> > > loss to* *(the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken)

> > > at the welded joints) may not be tenable under above exclusion but other

> > > damages are indemnifiable. *
> > >
> > > *This is my opinion. I may be wrong.*
> > >
> > > *Anil Khubchandani*
> > > *Bhopal (09826075885)*
> > >  **
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* S. Anoop Kumar <s.anoo...@gmail.com>
> > > *To:* insurance...@googlegroups.com
> > > *Sent:* Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:12 PM
> > > *Subject:* [Adjusters:4917] Claim under CPM Policy; Is this claim

> > > payable...?
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear friends,
> > >
> > >  Here is an interesting case.  The insured is an earth works contractor.
> > >  The insured machine is an Ashok Leyland Taurus 2516, 10 wheeled
> > > Tipper,  2007 model and about 9 months old.  The tipper body is factory

> > > fitted and supplied by Ashok Leyland as a complete vehicle.  *The tipper
> > > is covered under CPM policy.*

> > >
> > >  The tipper was carrying excavated mud and was stationary at the dumping
> > > point.  As the driver was lifting the tipper by operating the hydraulic lift
> > > cylinder, the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken) at
> > > the welded joints and the tipper body fell down on left side even while the
> > > cabin and chassis remained firmly on it's wheels and all wheels remained on
> > > the ground.    The hydraulic lift cylinder piston got bent/twisted and also
> > > broken at the top end as it got pulled by the tipper body during it's fall.
> > >
> > > The tipper body sub-frame got bent and also cracked at places.  The loss
> > > is about 2.20 lakhs app.  Final cost of repair and loss assessment is
> > > yet to be worked out & arrived.  The interesting point here is there is no
> > > accident, no collusion and no external impact, no falling of vehicle.  Only
> > > the tipper body fell on left side.  The local Ashok Leyland dealer refused
> > > to entertain the claim under warranty and disowns any manufacturing defect
> > > after 9
> > > months of it's sales and operation.  We have no proof as to overloading
> > > as the tipper has been doing the same work all along, and also several other
> > > tippers working at the same worksite.  There is no willful negligence on the
> > > part of the insured.
> > >
> > >  Now the big question -  "Is this claim payable" ?  State justifications
> > > and reasons for your opinion, whether it is 'Yes' or 'No'.
> > >
> > >  Regards -
> > > S. Anoop Kumar.
> > >  adju...@bppl.net.in

> > > ------------------------------

> > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> > > Search. > >
> > >

> > > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
> > >
> > >
>
>>

[C K Bhatia]

Kulbhushanji & Asarji,

Dont look to any participation of insurance company officials. I am yet to come across with so much of knowledge as I am seeing among us immaterial of it that ercentage among us is also fairly low. But I am of the opinion that vital opinion should be ours  C K BHATIA

kulbhushan manchanda <mancha...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

[NARESH K TAGOTRA]

Dear Mr. Bhatia

Whle going through your reply I find that your point that the case not
be mixed with motor policy is correct but your saying that the hinges
are not payable is on what basis as you will note that cause of loss
is not payable in motor policy but is payable in mbd policy.

Pl make the same clearer.


Regards


NAresh


On Mar 22, 9:13 pm, "kulbhushan manchanda"

<manchanda...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>   I suppose their role is to give PP msgs only
> KB
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 ASAR wrote :
>
>
>
> >As per moderator, so many officials from insurance companies are also
> >members of this forum.  Why they are keeping silence in technical
> >discussions.
>
> >ASAR
>

> >On 16/03/2008, C K Bhatia <ckbhatia_surve...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Friends it is a CPM policy and should not be mixed with motor policy. CPM
> > > policy is an engineering policy and thus co-relation of terms should be with
> > > MAhinery insurance. In my opinion the claim is payable except the brackets
> > > where the welding has given up.
>
> > > *"M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster" <

> > >  On 3/16/08, ANIL KHUBCHANDANI <khubchandania...@airtelmail.in> wrote:
>
> > > >  *Dear all*
>
> > > > *In my opinion All sorts of unforeseen accidents are covered under the
> > > > CPM policy. Its more of an ALL RISK POLICY. There is no need for any
> > > > external means. CPM working on project sites are mostly working alone/singly
> > > > and often get damaged due to accidents involving themselves. Such losses
> > > > without any involvement of any external means have been paid. *
> > > > **
> > > > *Mechanical and electrical breakdowns are not covered but losses to
> > > > other parts in consequence of such breakdowns stand covered. In your case
> > > > loss to* *(the rear side tilting mounting beds have given away (broken)
> > > > at the welded joints) may not be tenable under above exclusion but other
> > > > damages are indemnifiable. *
>
> > > > *This is my opinion. I may be wrong.*
>
> > > > *Anil Khubchandani*
> > > > *Bhopal (09826075885)*
> > > >  **
>
> > > >  ----- Original Message -----

> > > > *From:* S. Anoop Kumar <s.anoopku...@gmail.com>

> > > >  adjus...@bppl.net.in

> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> > > > Search. > >
>

> > > > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newse...>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[C K Bhatia]

Dear Naresh

Cause of loss is not payable in MBD policy also. The hinges failure is the mechanical failure due to fatigue and thus not payable even in MBD policy. In case of motor policy loss due to external means is key point. C K BHATIA

NARESH K TAGOTRA <nkt...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Bhatia

Whle going through your reply I find that your point that the case not
be mixed with motor policy is correct but your saying that the hinges
are not payable is on what basis as you will note that cause of loss
is not payable in motor policy but is payable in mbd policy.

Pl make the same clearer.


Regards


NAresh

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[kulbhushan manchanda]

  Dear Mr Bhatia,

I would add up that the MBD policy covers metallurgical fatigue too.
Please comment.

KB

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 C K Bhatia wrote :
>Dear Naresh
>
>Cause of loss is not payable in MBD policy also. The hinges failure is the mechanical failure due to fatigue and thus not payable even in MBD policy. In case of motor policy loss due to external means is key point. C K BHATIA
>
>NARESH  K  TAGOTRA <nkt...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>Dear Mr. Bhatia
>
>Whle going through your reply I find that your point that the case not
>be mixed with motor policy is correct but  your saying that the hinges
>are not payable is on what basis as you will note that cause of loss
>is not payable in motor policy but is payable in mbd policy.
>
>Pl make the same clearer.
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>NAresh
>
>
>
>
>
>

>---------------------------------

>Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
>>

[M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster]

Dear ASAR, KB, Bhatia Sb

 

There had been lot of discussion on CPM matter in trailing mails but there are no conclusive remarks as to the result.

 

As a moderator we try best to let the flow of info go to the members in form of postings (barring a few cases where moderation had become necessary including new members whose mails are also moderated). I feel instead of moderator commenting conclusively there shud be a healthy discussion on the issue & if there is no conclusive remark by one or two or a few that does not mean the whole discussion was fruitless. It is expected of the members when they make a conclusive remark it shud be substantiated by Policy Wordings preferably, Case Laws / Citations, Circulars or similar supporting wherever possible and there is no restrictions as to that, any of the member can come fwd on above lines.

 

I wish to put on record that there are few members whose participation with supporting material really helps grasping the subject matter in line with the policy conditions (with citations).

 

Every body draws conclusion correcting their perception of the problem & uses this in honing the skills in the field, thus, during & at end of discussions implements intoto or partially what is discussed on the board.

 

We all are well aware that in any of the Game there are Real Players (regular participants), Fence Sitters, Viewers (detached / unattached included), Cheer Leaders, Scorers, Commentators, Reporters, Observers, Crew Man, Line Man & Referee etc etc, similarly there are hoards of members in either (or more than one) category / similar categories.

 

To conclude it is not only posting of PP msgs on board, there is lot more than this to it. I feel most of the members enjoy healthy discussion related to our job, profession in general & Technical matters in particular.

 

The very idea of floating the group was to encourage People / Claims personnel sharing there view point & more the policing (as pointed out be Vinod Bhai in one of earlier mails) less meaningful discussions will take place.

 

As far as participation by Insurers is concerned, I beg to differ here as knowledge may not be necessarily domain of Surveyors / Assessors / Adjusters only. There are Claims personals (includes Insurers, Brokers & other such entities) who may be very apt in the subject matter but are not participating o the forum for various constraints. However we look fwd to them for more active participation in the group discussions at appropriate point of time.

 

Breg

 

M S Sainani

Group Moderator

9414168144

 

[M S Sainani, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Adjuster]

Please read "encourage People / Claims personnel sharing their (& not there) view point & more the policing".

[kulbhushan manchanda]

  Dear all Including the Moderator,


IT WAS REALLY A NICE DISCUSSION AND DEFINITLY WE LEARNED SOMANY THINGS FROM EACHOTHER. BUT I CONCLUDE THAT OUR POLICY DRAFTINGS ARE AMBIGUOUS AND I SUGGEST THE TAC AND OTHERS TO REDO ALL THE POLICIES WITH STRAIGHTFORWARD WORDS WITH THE HELP OF EXPERT ACTUARIES.

REGARDS

KB

>--
>M S Sainani
>9414168144
>Group Moderator
>adjuste...@gmail.com
>adju...@bppl.net.in
>
>>

[C K Bhatia]

Metallurgical & fatigue failure are due to wear & tear and develop over a long period of time. Thus these fall under the wear & tear and not payable under any policy under the principle of indemnity.  C K BHATIA

kulbhushan manchanda <mancha...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

[S. Anoop Kumar]

Dear friends,

 

Thanks for the overwhelming response from all of you.  It was truly educating & enlightening (also confusing at times).  Learned members should know that the vehicle is covered under the CPM policy and should not be linked to Motor policy.  The conditions in both policies are different.  

 

I think a few photos showing the damaged mounting bracket and pivot pins should give you clear idea.  You can see the failure at the welded joints clearly.  Pls. note that the tipper body was getting lifted and was in the process of unloading the muck at the dump yard while it fell down on LH side. 

 

The tipper body was lifted & remounted on the chassis frame in order to bring it to the town to carry out the necessary repairs and/or replacement of parts. 

 

With best regards -

S. Anoop Kumar.

 

 

[Vaibhav Kulkarni]

Dear Anoopji,
I am not aware about the T & C's of a CPM Policy, however after looking at the photographs it looks like the welded joint is not original besides the brace plate on both sides is also welded locally, this is indicating two factors 1. The welding appears inadequate (local weld), 2. This is a strain damage peculiarly caused by overloading.
Pl consider these points in your assessment
Vaibhav

[kulbhushan manchanda]

  Dear Mr. Bhatia
Agreed, but the MB policy covers mattelurgical fatigue. and here your all wear and tear damages are covered automatically.

Secondly it is not indemnity based policy but reinstatement value basis policy.

please comment

regards
KB Manchanda

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 C K Bhatia wrote :
>Metallurgical & fatigue failure are due to wear & tear and develop over a long period of time. Thus these fall under the wear & tear and not payable under any policy under the principle of indemnity.  C K BHATIA
>
>kulbhushan manchanda <mancha...@rediffmail.com> wrote:    Dear Mr Bhatia,
>
>  I would add up that the MBD policy covers metallurgical fatigue too.
>  Please comment.
>
>  KB
>
>
>  On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 C K Bhatia wrote :
>  >Dear Naresh
>  >
>  >Cause of loss is not payable in MBD policy also. The hinges failure is the mechanical failure due to fatigue and thus not payable even in MBD policy. In case of motor policy loss due to external means is key point. C K BHATIA
>  >
>  >NARESH  K  TAGOTRA <nkt...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
>  >Dear Mr. Bhatia
>  >
>  >Whle going through your reply I find that your point that the case not
>  >be mixed with motor policy is correct but  your saying that the hinges
>  >are not payable is on what basis as you will note that cause of loss
>  >is not payable in motor policy but is payable in mbd policy.
>  >
>  >Pl make the same clearer.
>  >
>  >
>  >Regards
>  >
>  >
>  >NAresh
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >---------------------------------
>  >Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
>  >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>---------------------------------

>Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>>

[kulbhushan manchanda]

  Dear Bhatia ji,

          We must join hands for the betterment of our noble profession.

Because UNITED WE STAND ~ DIVIDED V FALL

rEGARDS

KB


On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 C K Bhatia wrote :

>Kulbhushanji & Asarji,
>
>Dont look to any participation of insurance company officials. I am yet to come across with so much of knowledge as I am seeing among us immaterial of it that ercentage among us is also fairly low. But I am of the opinion that vital opinion should be ours  C K BHATIA
>
>kulbhushan manchanda <mancha...@rediffmail.com> wrote:    I suppose their role is to give PP msgs only

>  > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>  > > > Search. > >
>  > > >

>  > > > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>

>  > > >
>  > > >
>  >
>  >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>>