Re: HYDRO STATIC LOCK & PERIL ------ ACCIDENTAL EXTERNAL MEANS

M S Sainani, Surveyor / Loss Adjuster

unread,

Aug 1, 2015, 4:24:55 AM8/1/15

to Love Patel, Girimaji Ashok, Muthusamy Subbiah, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com, Insurance-Adjusters

Dear All,

What a meaningful discussion, our lot is growing towards more professionalism, Ashok Ji has pointed out some indication about condition # 4, I suggest while deciding on such situation policy Condition # 4 (without any favour / bias towards any of the concerned parties viz Insured & Insurers, leaving aside sentiments & various deliberations) is need to be vetted properly before making conclusion. Condition reproduced below: -

Quote

----------------

4. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk.

---------------

Unquote

Please note that we as Surveyors / Loss Adjusters are guided by the contract i.e. Policy Condition & mere sentiments or elaboration on natural reaction couldn't form basis of deviation from the contract.

Please also note that several insurers are giving extensions like Engine Shield / Engine Guard etc. to meet out indemnification in such cases. The standard pool of risk under Standard Motor Package Policy is surely & definitely is not considering acturial contribution of such situation / losses if we go to the roots of the policy it is only Ad-Ons by way of collecting extra premium such indemnification can be provided.

More inputs (bouquets & brickbats) are awaited.

Breg

M S Sainani (SLA 15187 - 3/3/17)
+ 91 9414168144 | adjuste...@gmail.com | sai...@adjusterindia.com

Udaipur, Rajasthan.

On 1 August 2015 at 13:08, Love Patel <lovepa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,

The opinion of Mr. Muthusamy indicates towards proper approach..

“This type of loss can be admitted only after a thorough study with regard to cause of accident stated in claim form, driver's statement and enquiries with insured/driver. Simply presence of water in cylinder block is not a sufficient cause for an accident. Generally these losses falls under peril of "flood" in motor policy not under "accidental external means". “

I exercise following approaches on such case/s :

1. Loss invited (knowingly / unknowingly) : Should be avoided as not payable being gross negligence

2. Loss occurred : Considerable

The incident catagorization :

sn

Loss invited (knowingly / unknowingly) falling in gross negligence

Loss occurred (although due to mere negligence)

1.

Vehicle was purpose fully drove from water accumulated area, where other vehicles are not passing or waiting in que.

All the vehicles are moving from water accumulated area so the subject vehicle also passed.

2.

While it was parked and due to inundation / flood , the stationary vehicle submerged in the water. Later after reseeding of water some try to crank the engine without removing water from cylinder.

some emergency is arised (offcourse established) and movement of vehicle was essentially required.

3.

Vehicle was passing through water accumulated culvert. on mid way, engine got off. The road got blocked. Insured called crane and vehicle was towed away. In workshop, the mechanic committed mistake of cranking, without any attempts of removing the water.

In same example, if repairer exercise all attempt to clean and then after, while cranking, hydrostatic loss reported.

The all above is with only purpose to distinguish between Gross Negligence and mere Negligence.

mere Negligence is very much covered in the policy and Gross Negligence is not covered.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Girimaji Ashok <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Muthusamy

I am not disputing your interpretation of the term " accident".

The fact is policy of motor insurance will not pay for " accidents " as such.

The policy will pay for " accidental events " (events means loss producing events) that are insured against .

Accidental --- where there is an element of fortuity / element of chance --- which may happen or which may not happen ---- which has not been deliberately brought about.

Water ingress till the combustion chamber is an "accidental event"

Water is "external" to the combustion chamber.

External term has to be understood the way fire is understood in a fire policy.

Fire in a gas burner is not fire as per the fire policy.

These are my personal views & not binding on any one.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Muthusamy Subbiah <mail2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,

The meaning of "accident" in insurance is : It must be forcible, external, violent and visible means (there are four factors to involve for an accident as for as insurance is concerned)

I think logic of simply water presence in cylinder block seems inadequate as external damage under named peril "accidental external means". It depends upon the situation and nature. This type of loss can be admitted only after a thorough study with regard to cause of accident stated in claim form, driver's statement and enquiries with insured/driver. Simply presence of water in cylinder block is not a sufficient cause for an accident. Generally these losses falls under peril of "flood" in motor policy not under "accidental external means".

Hydrostatic lock can also happen due to presence of water damaging internal parts of engine
consequent after a loss even after retrieval and cranking which falls under exclusion.

This is my opinion.

Sent from my iPad

Excuse typo

Thanks and regards

S.Muthusamy

On 31-Jul-2015, at 8:45 pm, Girimaji Ashok <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Friends

My understanding of accidental occurance is as follows:

Any policy of motor insurance will indemnify against events that may happen & not against events which must happen or which have been deliberately brought about.
The loss producing event should be identifiable within the meaning of the term “accidental / fortuitous”.

A loss is “Fortuitous / Accidental” in the sense that it would not have happened but for any act / event again which was not expected in the normal & ordinary course of things.

Presence of water in the combustion chamber is by all means accidental as per above.

Water is alien ( alien meaning external in this context) to combustion chamber. The presence of an alien matter( external) in the combustion chamber will not always lead to ir-reversible mechanical damages to the internal parts of the engine.

To sum up:

1. The initial cause of loss -- inundation / floods ---- creates a favourable situation where the water can ingress the combustion chamber.

The pertinent point to be noted here is:
Mere presence of water in the combustion chamber does not cause for the hydro static lock to happen.

With the vehicle( engine) in running condition when water suddenly enters the engine , water being in-compressible, will cause for hydro static lock.

So it can be justifiably summed up that the presence of water( external to the combustion chamber) is the cause of loss.

So the loss / damage due to hydro static lock can be admitted under the named peril " accident external means".

The above are only my views & are not binding on any one.

-
WARM REGARDS
ASHOK GIRIMAJI
Insurance Surveyor & loss Assessor
Chartered Engineer
SHIMOGA - 577201
KARNATAKA
+91 8861077536

Save Papers… Go green…
Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAK603h6T%2Bb7TpTkOgO38fVQVrVTigcLfOVS5esSbedxSWwGAfg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
WARM REGARDS
ASHOK GIRIMAJI
Insurance Surveyor & loss Assessor
Chartered Engineer
SHIMOGA - 577201
KARNATAKA
+91 8861077536

Save Papers… Go green…
Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAK603h6iKm%2BfOKY%2BJ-EqO4mT8oQnDEzfwSPx8E1YKq9rPEaxQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Thanks & regards

*Love Patel*
(Surveyor)
HIG 91, Bharhut Nagar, Satna
Madhy pradesh, India 485001
Contact 9425172741

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAF226GsgUPe4oQek6qCqsBCQGRACc1%2Byp3AroedLYs5nN6a%2BqA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

NAISHADH DESAI

unread,

Aug 1, 2015, 4:55:37 AM8/1/15

to M S Sainani, Surveyor / Loss Adjuster, Love Patel, Girimaji Ashok, Muthusamy Subbiah, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com, Insurance-Adjusters

Sir,

Please find below mentioned two conditions

01. A vehicle was moving on road, driver saw a big stone lying on the road. He continue to move ahead assuming that it will not touched vehicle. Unfortunately his presumption went wrong and stone stuck with bottom of vehicle.

02. A vehicle moving on road in monsoon, driver saw water flowing from one side of road to other side. He continue driving presuming that he will comfortably through this . Unfortunately Water hit air cleaner and went in to combustion chamber and lock the engine

Please tell me which peril is operated in the both condition.

NAISHADH DESAI

SURVEYOR

TRAINING COORDINATOR (WZ)

COUNCIL MEMBER (WZ)

SURAT

09824113733

LIC NO : 44152/13-18

FIRE- B,

ENGINEERING- B,

MOTOR- B,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAFHYs-LhtX%3DteoMfWv%3D6g7z-jsF9tmQE5CQaqHGWPCmwVxaujQ%40mail.gmail.com.

M S Sainani, Surveyor / Loss Adjuster

unread,

Aug 1, 2015, 6:45:34 AM8/1/15

to Girimaji Ashok, Love Patel, Muthusamy Subbiah, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com, Insurance-Adjusters, Naishadh Desai, Samir Joshi

Dear Ashok Bhai,

This is not negation of Policy Condition # 4 but covering an additional risk by payment of consideration, covering a risk which was not at all meant to be / intended to be covered or rather limiting the coverage by way of express condition in standard package policy by way of policy condition # 4.

Breg

M S Sainani (SLA 15187 - 3/3/17)
+ 91 9414168144 | adjuste...@gmail.com | sai...@adjusterindia.com

Udaipur, Rajasthan.

On 1 August 2015 at 15:53, Samir Joshi <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

First we should understand why engine got Hydrostatic lock?

Its not just like that vehicle passed through water logged area & intake air manifold sucks water along-with air & engine hydrostatics locked.

Every vehicle manufacture give guidelines to drive vehicle through water. BMW giving strict instructions that in 6 inch hight of water, vehicle must driver at 10 kms/hour speed. Other all vehicle manufacture also giving such types of instruction. Refer vehicle manuals. Insured/Driver have to follow instructions of vehicle manufacture as well.

While you passing through water logged area as & when water enter in to Air filter & when approaching to injection system, vehicle (Engine) will stop with immediate effect. In this case, Air filter, injection system cleaning & flushing charges is allowable as water entered in to vehicle through Air Filter & got damaged. (Peril Accidental external means applicable).

But after stopping in to the water, Driver trying to start engine by giving intention key ON. In this case, the already entered water must shows her characteristics & engine will receive major damages after that. Con rods, pistons, Head, Crank & even block will receive damages after each & every starting efforts. I came to handle these type of numbers cases where driver tried to start vehicle until Battery drained!!!. These damages are not covered as not due to accidental external means in standard Motor Policy. But due to Insured/driver had not taken care of vehicle by ignoring manufacturer guidelines. You can also says consequential damages as well and which is not covered peril. These damages can covered in Engine Protection add On, its simple.

While assessing loss we must discuss & have to take entire narration from driver of Insured vehicle enable us to justify loss.

Regards,

Samir Joshi

Surveyor/Loss Assessors

517, City Center,

Near Sosyo Circle,

Udhana - Mugdulla Road,

SURAT

M: 98241 25963

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Naishadh Desai <njdes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear sir,

Can this be covered in standard motor insurance ?
If yes then
What extra engine protection shield covers?

Engine protection shield is nothing but gimmicks of pvt players.

NAISHADH DESAI
SURVEYOR
TRAINING COORDINATOR (WZ)
COUNCIL MEMBER (WZ)
SURAT
09824113733
LIC NO : 44152/13-18
FIRE- B,
ENGINEERING- B,
MOTOR- B,

On 01-Aug-2015, at 2:25 pm, "Girimaji Ashok" <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Naishadh Desai

In both the instances it only the error of judgement. The driver has taken a judgement, which unfortunately failed him.

It will be too unreasonable to penalise the driver for an error of judgement.

In both the instances the peril is accidental external means.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAK603h6oKhO8%2ByqT680Rt53bh_x0WSOGoPfcmrDF_oULVubmGw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/COL402-EAS6559D8AC9120FF1C1A71C99A890%40phx.gbl.

M S Sainani, Surveyor / Loss Adjuster

unread,

Aug 1, 2015, 6:51:56 AM8/1/15

to Samir Joshi, Love Patel, Girimaji Ashok, Muthusamy Subbiah, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com, Insurance-Adjusters, Naishadh Desai

Dear Sameer Bhai,

You have aptly detailed elaborated the position, from your last para I'll pick up a threat & mention in the report that loss has occurred in-contravention with condition # 4 of the policy & you have put it in different manner But due to Insured/driver had not taken care of vehicle by ignoring manufacturer guidelines but i suppose delibration in our report narrating condition # 4, quantifying the loss final recommendations could be left to insurers (with your explicit recommendations of Yes or No or part coverage towards cleaning, gaskets, labour etc) would be a more professional approach.

Many amongst us could have different view point but policy & policy only is the guiding factor & sentiments shouldn't prevail in concluding the claims.

Breg

M S Sainani (SLA 15187 - 3/3/17)
+ 91 9414168144 | adjuste...@gmail.com | sai...@adjusterindia.com

Udaipur, Rajasthan.

Chand Bhatia

unread,

Aug 2, 2015, 1:23:40 AM8/2/15

to insurance...@googlegroups.com

Dear All

The Condition No 4 is to some extent vague and subjective. There may be circumstances when one act is reasonable and the same act in other circumstances may not be reasonable. I have in hand a case where the stone hit at the oil sump make the sump breaking and oil leakage. The circumstances of accident are as below -

" The car was passing on the road where some water had accumulated. While passing through there was some stone at the bottom which was not visible in water. The stone hit the oil pan."

In the given circumstances no one shall stop the car in water and come out of. The car was driven out of water and as per insured statement his speed was about 5-10 Kms and this might have taken hardly 4-5 minutes that he came out of the water. The car stopped after coming out of the water.

The car was Mercedes and owner himself was driving in the evening. He immediately called another car and Mercedes was towed to the garage. Insurance Company informed and a surveyor deputed, who after only photographing the car declined any claim of the engine under the pretext that engine protection cover is not taken in the policy. Insurance Company Surveyor allowed only the oil Sump.

Insured deputed me for the survey and wrote insurance company for joint inspection/survey. However insurance company and her surveyor shied away. I at my own got the engine opened and observed that only one bog end bearing had seized and the same was repairable. The crank could be ground and bearing (bog end and crank), pistone rings and gasket set only have tto be done to put the engine in same condition as before the accident.

Now the questions that arise and I throw open for discussion-

1. Is there any gross violation of condition no 4 that surveyor has not taken any reasonable care.

2. The seizing of only one big end bearing not confirm the driver/owner statement that engine was running at hardly 5-10 Kms speed.

3. If engine cover is to be taken as ad on then the same should be stated in the policy under exclusion as per IRDA regulation for protection of policy holder that policy must give in writing that what is covered and what is not covered. In absence of any exclusion as stated by insurance company and her surveyor that engine protection cover is not taken, how far is it right to disallow the engine damage.

4. All the more oil sump is allowed and is that not an engine part.

I would like the learned members and specifically think tank like Mr Sainani to comment on the above case and more discussion on '' REASONABLE CARE". What is the definition of the same, if the same can be defined.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Insurance Adjusters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to insurance-adjus...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to insurance...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/insurance-adjusters.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

c k bhatia
09810231248

NAISHADH DESAI

unread,

Aug 3, 2015, 7:00:18 AM8/3/15

to Samir Joshi, Girimaji Ashok, M S Sainani, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com, Insurance-Adjusters, Love Patel, Muthusamy Subbiah

Dear all,

From the first para of trailing mail I would like to ask

Do we pay engine oil when engine oil completely drained in the accident where engine chamber got damaged ? Or as a special case in flood we paid

Please reply with justification.

Second para about hydro lock , it is technical and need to elaborate further more ? As I could not understand this.

Third para is about what Mr Sainani told.

It is applicable for all claims and that is what surveyor should do in each claim

NAISHADH DESAI

SURVEYOR

TRAINING COORDINATOR (WZ)

COUNCIL MEMBER (WZ)

SURAT

09824113733

LIC NO : 44152/13-18

FIRE- B,

ENGINEERING- B,

MOTOR- B,

On 03-Aug-2015, at 12:56 pm, Samir Joshi <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sir,

I am disagree with you at this point of view.

In 2006 floods, we have allowed Engine Oil, Air Filter, Fuel Filler, Transmission Oils, Steering Oil, Oil Filters and even assessed flushing Oil as well.

Only excluded items are not covered in policy i.e. items damaged due to wear & tear, Mechanical/Electrical break downs and consequential loss etc.

Entire all vehicle is Insured & hence all items of standard vehicle is payable.

We have to understand cause of loss first. The items damaged at first is payable as per policy. The chain of after that is not admissible as per my opinion.

In Hydrostatic damaged engine I already cleared that first entry of water in Engine is admissible i.e. Air Filter & flushing charges are covered under standard coverage of Motor policy. We can say entry of water into engine is accident external means. Technically all Air filters made by material which soaks water which disallow more quantity of water going in to ignition system and combustion chamber. Wet Air filter enabled Air to passes through it & hence engine will stopped immediately. This is first incidence this will definitely not resulting in to major damages inside engine. In this case Air Filter & Engine flushing charges are payable. But after stopping of engine as & when driver tried to crank engine, the intensity of damages inside of engine will high & this is not covered peril. Con rods can bent badly. Even crank shaft & block can damaged. And these types of damages can covered in Engine protection/Engine shield addition add on coverage. There is no gimmicks.

Shri Sainani Sir very well suggested that being a Surveyor we have to quantify loss & admissibility is to be left on Insurer on border lines cases as here breach of policy warranty observed.

Regards,

Samir Joshi

Surveyor/Loss Assessors

517, City Center,

Near Sosyo Circle,

Udhana - Mugdulla Road,

SURAT

M: 98241 25963

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Girimaji Ashok <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Samir

Coolant , engine oil, brake fluid, transmission fluid --- are operating medias. NOT CONSUMABLES.

It is a known fact that operating media loose their characteristics / qualities & diminish due to usage or passage of time or both.

The motor vehicle is used or not used these operating medias will have to be compulsorily renewed after a particular kms reading or time.

No policy will pay for events that are bound to happen.

There is no risk in events that are bound to happen.

insurance pays only when there is a risk -- chance of loss.

Hence, as per above no operating media becomes under any policy of motor insurance is my considered opinion.

More views are welcome.

On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Samir Joshi <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all, Reply my simple querry. Vehicle badly hit from front with TP vehicle. Radiator crushed on spot.coolant drained on spot immediatly. Shall we allow coolant ?. Who had ever allowed coolant?. If yes, then why?. If No, then why?. Regards.

Samir Joshi, Surveyor/Loss assessors, Surat.     Send from Mobile

On 2 Aug 2015 10:17, "Samir Joshi" <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all, " My car was totslly sunk in floodwater up to four days (As major flood, no one can save it.) and my car got severe damages". This is cause of loss. Now in estimate complete car coloruing on account of badly got rusted, Complete engine, Gear box, All electicals and all electonics items including wiring harness, all seats and upholstery claimed.   What will you assess the loss?. What is payable and what is not payable. Kundly elobrate. Thanks and wish you halppy friendship day. Regards

Samir Joshi, Surveyor/Loss assessors, Surat.     Send from Mobile

On 1 Aug 2015 23:41, "Girimaji Ashok" <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir

The problem with majority of surveyors is they are misusing the term consequential loss as an excuse.

Without even making an attempt to understand what is consequential loss.

Consequential loss is not an excuse but it is a fact.

Please stop using consequential loss as an excuse.

This what i wanted to convey through my communications.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Samir Joshi <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Ashokji, We have to see all terms and condition of policy. Surveyor had not prepared policy terms and condition. We come in to picture after issuing policy and after loss. Regards

Samir Joshi, Surveyor/Loss assessors, Surat.     Send from Mobile

On 1 Aug 2015 23:21, "Girimaji Ashok" <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Samir

If insurance is not charity than how could you use the term consequential loss?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Samir Joshi <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all, one should must clear that insurance is not charity. Insurance is subject to terms and condition of insurance policy i.e. contract. By paying premium one should clear its mind that he had not hand over vehicle to Insurance company. He have to follow all terms of policy as well. Being a surveyor our duty is assess the loss and coment on admisibility of claim as per policy terms and condition. Shri Sainani very well said that after our all comments if we left matter to Insurer for paying of claims as per their desctetion on border line cases as customers is of them. And for engine loss, anybody enlight on sudden seize of Engine Imnedeately after accident?. No water, No oil drain, No ovrerturning, No slipping of Timing belt. Every claim if unique and being surveyor we must handle it with care by appling our technical and practical knowledge. Regard.

Samir Joshi, Surveyor/Loss assessors, Surat.     Send from Mobile

On 1 Aug 2015 22:52, "NAISHADH DESAI" <njdes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear,

What will you do when due to frontal collision, co passenger's head hit with w/s glass.
Apply same theory here.

Only difference is our negative Frame starts when any damages related to engine or it's parts.

NAISHADH DESAI
SURVEYOR
TRAINING COORDINATOR (WZ)
COUNCIL MEMBER (WZ)
SURAT
09824113733
LIC NO : 44152/13-18
FIRE- B,
ENGINEERING- B,
MOTOR- B,

On 01-Aug-2015, at 10:07 pm, "Samir Joshi" <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ashokji, shall we conclude as consiquential loss?.

Samir Joshi, Surveyor/Loss assessors, Surat. Send from Mobile

On 1 Aug 2015 22:02, "Girimaji Ashok" <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Samir

Mechanical break down? -- is it the cause of loss --- no it is not the cause of loss --- cause of loss is --- frontal collision --- there has been no breakage of timing belt --- the timing belt has skipped

Perspective is more important.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Samir Joshi <joshisa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear friends, this is purly mechanical breakdown. Not covered peril.i.e. breakage if timing belt resulting into damages to parts of head especially valve mechanisum. Regards

Samir Joshi, Surveyor/Loss assessors, Surat. Send from Mobile

On 1 Aug 2015 19:16, "M S Sainani, Surveyor / Loss Adjuster" <adjuste...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ashok Bhai

The Policy is to be read in toto & not in part, I am sure the friends in fraternity (I mean here insurers, insured, surveyors put together & not only surveyors) are reading Policies & interpreting in various ways they feel according to their thought of interpretation. All are well aware that the law is interpreted many a times differently by different (honorable) Judges, even the supreme court benches of 2, 3, 4, 5 Judges will have different opinions, tie situations where a decision by majority prevails.

Thus I don't say what I say is absolutely right but given the standard ways of interpretation of contract law, particularly insurance contract law, precedences available, obiter dictums, ratio decidendi & basic engineering concepts (automotive also), deep understanding & study of insurance case laws I tried to enter in to this discussion. Unfortunately there are no authoritative directives from the then TAC, IRDA now but there is ample reference material available which supports deliberations shared.

More inputs please.

Breg
M S Sainani (SLA 15187 - 3/3/17)
+ 91 9414168144 | adjuste...@gmail.com | sai...@adjusterindia.com
Udaipur, Rajasthan.

On 1 August 2015 at 18:25, Girimaji Ashok <avan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Sainani

Which part of the motor policy expressly deletes the coverage to the internal parts of the engine i.e damage to engine ?.

It is the proper understanding of the loss producing event from start till end that decides the admissibility or non admissibility of a clam.

Off late, a peculiar loss was reported on a diesel indica vista which had met with a frontal collision.

After repairs the engine just did not start, rather it did not crank even.

Later on it was realized that one of the overhead cam shaft had cut.

The reason --- during the collision the timing belt had jumped( shifted ) a few teeth. When such a thing happens the cylinder head is bound to develop defects.

The overhead cam shaft took the hit & got cut.

The damage to the cam shaft has to be indemnified.

your views please sir.

jqmalik

unread,

Aug 4, 2015, 11:32:30 PM8/4/15

to Insurance Adjusters, lovepa...@gmail.com, avan...@gmail.com, mail2...@gmail.com, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com, Insurance...@googlegroups.com

Dear Sirs,

My best wishes and regards to all my Indian friends. Please forgive me for my long absence from this forum. I kept busy in other International Insurance and Surveyors forums.

As far as the current topic is concerned we already have initiated discussion in this forum long ago. I do not know whether we could be facilitated by its reappearance.

However, I think we should consider flood as a peril in this case. I think there is no exclusion in motor policy against gross negligence. Even if there is any such exclusion (not present in Policies issued in Pakistan) almost 80% accidents would fall under such exclusion because most of the accidents are the result of some one's negligence. We better should come out of this circle.

Whenever we see any accumulated water on any part of road where the flow of traffic is not suspended we as a prudent driver tend to drive through with the idea that we would also cross this water logging as others are. At that point of time there is no intention or deliberation to destroy our Vehicles. But then accidentally either a stone hit, a lid of manhole hits damaging the oil sump and leaking the lubrication oil which in return may cause damage to the engine. This all is accidental damage and Motor Insurance Policy does not exclude it. Flood is also covered under the Motor Insurance Policy. Even no other one is passing through stagnant water at that point of time and road is still not closed by the authority one may take the initiative.

During passing through stagnant water the driver can not foresee anything like any damage to engine, sump etc. Prudently he would just dive through. In case he hears any unusual sound or feels something abnormal while driving he may always stop and check at his own. But again if he does not find any abnormality he still may try to drive it further unless the Vehicle is stopped at its own.

No brutal application of condition No 4 should be made because then most of the motor claims would fall under repudiation. One should analyse the ground reality on the basis of particular situation where a normal prudent man would behave under that circumstances. One should keep it in mind that all benefits of doubts would go in favor of Insured.

Now unless any exclusion clause or endorsement is made in the standard motor policy I think the risk should stand covered.

What if we are driving on a water free road and flood hit that area all of a sudden creating the similar situation. Now flood water hit the Vehicle or Vehicle hit the flood water may be the case if some one intends to discuss.

In any accident under motor policy if the lubricant oil leaks by breaking oil sum etc obviously the oil is recoverable.

So in this case flood is the peril, entry of flood water in to the engine is the cause of damage to engine. Oil sump also damaged due to accident and so the oil leaked.

Best Regards!

QAYYUM PERVEZ MALIK

PAKISTAN

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAK603h6T%2Bb7TpTkOgO38fVQVrVTigcLfOVS5esSbedxSWwGAfg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
WARM REGARDS
ASHOK GIRIMAJI
Insurance Surveyor & loss Assessor
Chartered Engineer
SHIMOGA - 577201
KARNATAKA
+91 8861077536

Save Papers… Go green…
Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAK603h6iKm%2BfOKY%2BJ-EqO4mT8oQnDEzfwSPx8E1YKq9rPEaxQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Thanks & regards

*Love Patel*
(Surveyor)
HIG 91, Bharhut Nagar, Satna
Madhy pradesh, India 485001
Contact 9425172741

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.

dasara...@gmail.com

unread,

Aug 5, 2015, 8:52:45 PM8/5/15

to insurance...@googlegroups.com, lovepa...@gmail.com, avan...@gmail.com, mail2...@gmail.com, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com

Dear Sirs,

I agree with the narration of Mr Malik. It is high time that we come to proper conclusion on; 1. Accidental external damage, 2. Consequential loss, 3. Aggravated or subsequent damages, and 4. Engine damages due to oil starvation and / or flood water entry causing hydro static lock.

I intend to raise for discussions of all the above in the seminar proposed by AP Chapter scheduled for mid October 2015.

Wishing you All a very Happy Independence Day.

Regards,

dcs raju.

Sent from my iPad

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Insurance Adjusters" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to insurance-adjus...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to insurance...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/insurance-adjusters.

Jagdish Motwani

unread,

Aug 5, 2015, 8:52:57 PM8/5/15

to Insurance Adjusters

• This entire problem & complications have come after 2005 Mumbai Floods & matter is being debated over last decade. Earlier there were no issues & unless there was gross negligence established, the insurers were paying such claims. Due large number of claims the private insurers in 2005 took shelter of policy condition 4 being impressed.

· There are 2 different words CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS & CONSEQUENTIAL DAMGE/S, the damages which are directly to the vehicle and are accidental in nature should not be termed as consequential. Consequetial losses are only indirect losses to the insured due to the accidental of the vehicle i.e. the subject matter. The book "MOTOR INSURANCE IC 72" of Insurance Institute of India, which has defined consequential loss in this manner only It reads as; " Consequential loss: The policy covers only direct loss caused by an accident to the car. The insured may suffer loss of use of the car during repairs, in the form of costs and expenses to alternate transport. This is consequential loss, which is not covered." The above is appearing on page 71 of "IC 72 Motor Insurance" of Institute of India under the heading Exclusions under ‘Own Damage’ Section

· The availability of Add On Cover of Engine Protector / Guard, etc. is superfluous in most cases as basic package policy also covers most cases as analysed by Muthuswamy Sir.

·         There is actual physical & accidental ( i.e. unforeseen loss ) to
the internal components of the engine i.e. loss can be classified as
accidental.
•        The basic peril operating is Flood / Inundation & proximate cause is
that as the chain has not broken i.e. the vehicle was not used after
the ingress of water. The loss is caused due to external means i.e.
due to non working of electro mechanical system damaged by floods.
•        Here again, even if proximate cause if not being considered as flood
then a fresh cause “ accidental external means” may be applied i.e.
negligent attempt to restart & accordingly double Excess can be
applied.
•        The Motor Policy covers negligence per say.
•        The Policy Condition 4 states “ ____ if the vehicle be driven ____”
& after floods there is only & attempt to start / drive. Hence this
clause is open to be contested. The intention perhaps of this clause
is to prevent consequential loss caused after the externally visible
accidentally damaged vehicle is used.
•        The Owners Manual or Warranty Terms can not come to the rescue of
the Insurers. These are offering protection to manufacturer for his
responsibility towards manufacturing defects, etc. Does insurer verify
the compliance of all Traffic regulations before settling accident
claim for vehicle.
•        If there is any negligence / error on the part of dealer’s (i.e.
manufacturer’s) mechanic as in this case then insurers can recover the
amount from them under subrogation.
•        Sometimes, when the level of water is questioned, the effects of
water waves & their height also needs to analyzed for the damages
caused.

I feel the matter needs to be debated from different perspective.
Also whether any Consumer Forum judgments of any State or National
Commission ( not district forums) are available?

With regards,

Jagdish Motwani
PATHWAYS Insurance Solutions
www.pathways.co.in

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAK603h6T%2Bb7TpTkOgO38fVQVrVTigcLfOVS5esSbedxSWwGAfg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
WARM REGARDS
ASHOK GIRIMAJI
Insurance Surveyor & loss Assessor
Chartered Engineer
SHIMOGA - 577201
KARNATAKA
+91 8861077536

Save Papers… Go green…
Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iiisla-technical-group/CAK603h6iKm%2BfOKY%2BJ-EqO4mT8oQnDEzfwSPx8E1YKq9rPEaxQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Thanks & regards

*Love Patel*
(Surveyor)
HIG 91, Bharhut Nagar, Satna
Madhy pradesh, India 485001
Contact 9425172741

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IIISLA TECHNICAL GROUP" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to iiisla-technical-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com.

rpratapin

unread,

Aug 7, 2015, 7:16:40 AM8/7/15

to insurance...@googlegroups.com

Sir

According to me , the driver should see as a reasonable man whether other vehicles are passing through the water or any man can judge that situation .if water is above engine level and still driver is passing through and taking risk for damage to vehicle it cant be justified or if he is at all first person , to go he should take account , still by watching cyclists, motor cycles, any animal etc.whether it is possible to go, and if still engine is not responding he should call his mechanic immediately, rather than trying himself, and causing further damage like taking medicines himself .and even insurers should be informed immediately if this situation is in city area itself so that surveyor also can take fresh idea of cause.

R.pratap.retd.NIA.

-------- Original message --------
From: jqmalik <jqm...@gmail.com>
Date: 04/08/2015 10:00 PM (GMT+05:30)
To: Insurance Adjusters <insurance...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: lovepa...@gmail.com,avan...@gmail.com,mail2...@gmail.com, iiisla-tech...@googlegroups.com, Insurance...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Adjusters:13719] Re: HYDRO STATIC LOCK & PERIL ------ ACCIDENTAL EXTERNAL MEANS