Flood risk-Hydro static lock loss case under a motor comprehensive insurance policy and perceptions.

[Ashok Kumar Singh.]

These views are only opinions from my side.

Respected all,

Now days rainy season is running in all over India. Some of Us are seeing the Hydro static lock loss type insurance claims. I have some points on it & sharing with you all as under,-

Motor Comprehensive Insurance policy covers  the  Flood Risk. 

Flood Risk:- Risk coverage again damages due to flood reason.

Flood Definition:-

An overflow of water onto normally dry land. The inundation of a normally dry area caused by rising water in an existing waterway, such as a river, stream, or drainage ditch, by raining.

Proximate cause:-  first main cause of accident, for damages is called proximate cause.

Now days Some private insurance company are charging extra premium for Extra Engine coverage as Hydro static lock loss risk.

As per me Flood risk coverage and Extra Hydro-static lock risk coverage has no differences. Any hydro-static type loss payable conditions are same. Loss due to Gross Negligence (means with out safe guard or without repairing precautions) (Loss aggravation) or intentional is not covered. Although Negligence or Gross Negligence words are not any where in policy.

Cause of accident:-  As per only Insured,s statement he was driving the car, on the way while he was passing a under pass road with speed, road was full of water, suddenly car got stopped with a high noise. Then he took his vehicle by towing crane to garage for repairing work. As per him, he did not try to cranking the engine after the accident.

It is a simple case of Hydro static lock loss claim.

Explanations:-  First of all I am explaining some terms of four stroke engine as under,-

Four stroke Petrol engine (I.C. Engine) working operations:-

As their name implies, four stroke internal combustion engines have four basic steps with every two revolutions of the engine.

I.             Intake / suction stroke

II.          Compression stroke

III.       Power / expansion stroke

IV.       Exhaust stroke  

I.             Intake stroke- the first stroke of the internal combustion engine is also known as the suction stroke because the piston moves to the maximum volume position ( downward direction in the cylinder). The inlet valve opens as a result of the cam lobe pressing down on the valve stem,& the vaporized fuel mixture enters the combustion chamber. The inlet valve closed at the end of this stroke.

II.          Compression stroke- in this stroke, both valves are closed & the piston starts its movement to the minimum volume position (upward direction in the cylinder) & compresses the fuel mixture. During the compression process, pressure, temperature & the density of the fuel mixture increases.

III.       A power stroke- when the piston reaches a point just before top dead center, the spark plug ignites the fuel mixture. The point at which the fuel ignites varies by engine, typically it is about 10 degrees before top dead center. This expansions of gases caused by ignition of the fuel produces the power that is transmitted to the crank shaft.

IV.       Exhaust stroke- in the end of the power stroke, the exhaust valve opens. During this stroke, the piston stats its movement in the maximum volume position. The open exhaust valve allows the exhaust gases to escape the cylinder. At the end of this stroke, the exhaust valve closes, the inlet valve opens & the sequence repeats in the next cycle. Four stroke engines require two revolutions.

 Hydro Static lock :-

Modern cars tend to have air intakes fairly low down at the front of the car. Drive through water deep enough & it will be sucked up into the engine, causing it to seize.Technical term for this damage is called “ Hydrostatic lock”- water enters an engine cylinder & during the compression stroke will lock the engine piston in place. It can take just an egg cupful of water in the combustion chamber to wreak an engine. Water does not compress & the piston in effect hits a wall, bending or breaking a connecting rod.

This in turn overloads the connecting rod, causing it to deform & cause significant engine damage, it can even destroy the engine altogether.

The damage caused by hydro-lock is dependent upon the state of the engine when it occurs,  the results are different as under conditions

1. In a stored non running engine.

2. An engine running at idle speed.

3. An engine running at high speed.

Hydro lock, properly called hydro static lock, is a failure in an internal combustion engine; the engine is prevented from turning over by fluid in the cylinder above the piston.

Hydrolock Explained

If an engine’s piston cannot complete its full travel cycle — up to its minimum at the top of its stroke, then down to its maximum at the bottom of its stroke — the engine cannot turn over. If the piston or pistons that cannot complete their travel cycle are prevented from doing so by a liquid above them, they slam to a halt on the upstroke, hence the “lock” in hydrolock. This condition occurs when fluid enters the top of the cylinder, rather than gas; gas is compressible and the piston can keep moving upward as it compresses, while fluid is not compressible and prevents the piston from reaching the top of its stroke. Water was called “hydro” in ancient Greek, hence the “hydro” in hydro-lock.

Causes of Hydro-lock

Outside water can enter the engine through the air intake if the vehicle is driven through a flood; vehicles designed with low-mounted air intakes can draw in water from a bow-wave caused by driving through relatively shallow standing water.

What Gets Damaged

Although an engine that hydro locks at idle speed may simply stop,

catastrophic engine failure is likely if an engine hydro-locks while running at speed. The most common result of hydro-lock at speed is that the piston rods are deformed; they bend and fold between the piston at their top, which cannot travel upward any farther, and the crankshaft at their base, which continues to travel upward. Absorbing the force of the sudden stop may crack the block, crack the crankcase, destroy the head and shatter the bearings.

( Generally, when an engine hydro-locks at speed, the force of the camshaft pushing bends the piston rods, which are folded under the piston above them. While the crankcase or the heads can be ruined in the process and the crankshaft bearings destroyed, the shock can even cause cracks in the engine block.If an engine hydro-locks while at speed, a mechanical failure is likely. Common damage modes include bent or broken connecting rods, a fractured crank, a fractured head, a fractured block, crankcase damage, damaged bearings, or any combination of these. Forces absorbed by other interconnected components may cause additional damage. Physical damage to metal parts can manifest as a "crashing" or "screeching" sound and usually requires replacement of the engine or a substantial rebuild of its major components. 

If an internal combustion engine hydro-locks while idling or under low power conditions, the engine may stop suddenly with no immediate damage)

Manifestations and Rectification

Typically, an engine will seize solid if it hydro-locks at speed. 
If only one piston hydro locks and the engine continues to move, there will be a loud screeching noise. Given that most of the major internal components have been destroyed, replacing the engine is typically more cost-effective than rebuilding.

For example, a slightly bent rod (a common problem) will not have a notable effect on the way the engine works but it will eventually cause damage on the bearing. Other parts of the engine, such as the camshaft, timing chain, timing belt and piston skirts could not have apartment damage, but could later contribute to major failure of the engine.

If an engine hydro-locks at idle, it may simply stop and refuse to turn on the starter motor. There may well be no internal component damage.

Rectification is by removing the spark plugs or injectors then turning the engine on the starter motor; this will expel the liquid from the cylinder or cylinders. Once reassembled, the engine should start as normal.

The hydro-lock, however, was a symptom, not a cause. If the liquid was introduced to the cylinder through a failed component, typically the head gasket, this must be diagnosed and rectified. Further, water is corrosive to the internals of an engine. If water has been inside a standing engine for any length of time, it could have caused rust bands to form inside the cylinder. These would have to be addressed, and the pistons perhaps replaced.

         

Now matter is that this claim is payable or not?

1. Some Surveyors consider it as a gross negligence case. And recommend it as a no claim. Some of us have a perception that insured has been cranking the engine (try to start the vehicle) after the accidental event (after stopped the vehicle). But insured is denying it. Some of us give the some proofs for it like piston seizure, shape of connecting rods, cylinder wall top and etc matter. But in actual it is a one sided decision without any solid proofs. These proofs are not scientific or automobile engineering or  bookish proof. So with out any solid prof we should not reach any final decision of No Claim.     

2. Some insurers are charging extra premium for this risk and pay the claim. But question is if it is the matter of gross negligence, how can it payable? are these insurers covering gross negligence?  Very strange ?

3. As per me,  except insured, no one knows about  cranking status. No one can prove it by above proofs,in front of any ombudsman or courts.

As per my opinion and recommendation to insurer:-

 I am not saying that insured is saying absolutely truth or false, i was not available at the place of accident on time and date of accident. But if he is saying right then damages also matched with the cause of accident. As per me proximate cause is flood in this accident. Benefit of doubts should be go in favor of insured. So as per me this claim with engine damages should be payable.     

With regards,

Ashok Kumar Singh.

Surveyor & Loss Assesssor.

104, L-1, Ansal Housing, Golf Link-01,

Sector-Omega-01, Builders Area, Near Pari Chowk,

Greater Noida, U.P..

201308.

06.08.2016.

[Swapan Basu]

Mr.A.Singh,
Your logic is absolutely correct.
Regards.

[Arvind Kumar]

Dear Sirs,

I agree with these deliberations and opine that such losses be paid by insurers even in a normal policy.

More views solicited from learned members with their logics and point of view.

Regards,

AKS
New Delhi

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Insurance surveyors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to insurance_surveyors+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to insurance_surveyors@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/insurance_surveyors.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ashok Kumar Singh.]

Respected sir,

I am sharing one ombudsman decision on water logging type case as under,- 

DELHI OMBUDSMAN CENTRE

Case No. GI/28/Bajaj/11 In the matter of Sh. Thirvinder Singh Anand Vs Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Company Ltd.

AWARD DATED 21.1.2012 PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF MOTOR CLAIM

1. This is a complaint filed by Sh. Thirvinder Singh Anand (herein after referred to as the complainant) against the decision of Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to as respondent Insurance Company) relating to partial settlement of motor claim.

2. Complainant stated that he had taken a Motor Car Insurance Policy from M/s Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Company in respect of his civic car no. DL4CAH8975. The premium was paid of Rs. 15,037 for comprehensive cover and the period of insurance was 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. He further submitted that on 11.08.2010 his car was caught in heavy rains and subsequent massive traffic jam outside khalsa college, Delhi University. The water level on the road continued to rise and while he was sitting helplessly because of the traffic jam the water slowly started entering inside the sitting cabin of the car. It continued to pour heavily and when the rain stopped his daughter who was driving the car asked him for advice as to what to do as the water had entered the driver’s cabin. He took advice from mechanic of the work shop Sh. C. Lal who advised that car should not be started because the water had already entered the cabin and it surely would have entered the engine through the silencer as civic is a low lying car. He acted on his advice and towed the car to his residence with the help of his other car Toyota Corolla with the help of rope. M/s Ring Road Honda was informed whose engineer came to inspect the car and it was advised to him that car would have to be taken to Honda Work shop and the same was done. Claim form was duly filed and signed was given to M/s Ring Road Honda (Honda Car Dealers) for submission and liaisoning with the insurance company for processing the claim.

The company’s surveyor categorically stated that insurance company will not pay the claim as the damage was on account of flooding and floods have not been notified by the government. He was surprised by the observation of the surveyor. The matter was further perused with the Insurance Company.

However, on 07.03.2011 the company sent him a cheque for Rs. 28,351 dated 30.11.2010 which was valid only for 3 months and whose validity in any case had expired even before it was sent to him. This shows the carelessness attitude of the company. He had requested this forum with a request to direct the Insurance company to pay the claim along with an amount of Rs. 2,36,665 paid by him to M/s Ring Road Honda and Rs. 5,500 was paid for the car battery which also became dead along with penal interest. During the course of hearing complainant argued vehemently that vehicle was not driven once water entered the cabin due to heavy rain but it was towed to the residence first and thereafter to the garage (authorized workshop) and therefore the argument of the company’s representative that engine was ceased with the consequence damage as someone tried to start the vehicle. He further argued that claim was partially settled and company is under obligation to settle the claim fully.

3. Representative of the company stated that claim is not payable as required by insured of the vehicle and whatever claim was found payable under the facts and circumstances of the case the same was already paid. The damage to the engine was caused due to the fact that it was started and that being the resulting of the loss the same is not payable.

4. I have considered very carefully the submissions of the complainant as made in the complaint and also as made during the course of hearing. I have also considered the verbal arguments of the representative of the company. I have also perused both the reports of the surveyor. After due consideration of the matter, I hold that company had not adequately settled the claim of the complainant. Having due regards to the facts and circumstances under which damage was caused to the vehicle and circumstances narrated by the insured and I have no reason not to accept the version of the insured in this regard, I hold that company was not justified in not settling the claim fully on the plea that consequential loss is not payable. When vehicle was damaged due to entering of water due to heavy rain and there was no evidence that attempt was made to start the vehicle while water was in the driver’s cabin, in my view whatever damage was caused to the vehicle, the company is liable to compensate the insured for the damage caused to the engine also.

The surveyor of the company had assessed the loss on that account also at Rs. 1,73,526. Accordingly an Award is passed with the direction to the Ins. Company to make the payment of assessed loss to the insured amounting to Rs. 1,73,526. 5. The Award shall be implemented within 30 days of receipt of the same. The compliance of the same shall be intimated to my office for information and record. 6. Copies of the Award to both the parties.

With regards,

Ashok Kumar Singh.

Surveyor & Loss Assesssor.

104, L-1, Ansal Housing, Golf Link-01,

Sector-Omega-01, Builders Area, Near Pari Chowk,

Greater Noida, U.P..

201308.

09.08.2016.

[Ashok Kumar Singh.]

Respected sir,s

I am sharing another ombudsman decision. We should take independently decision in any claim. We should never follow the sheep walk as blindly.  If we are giving as No Claim recommendation for any claim then we should have solid scientific engineering proofs for it.   

DELHI OMBUDSMAN CENTER 

Case No.GI/431/IFFCO TOKIO/11 In the matter of Sh. Puneet Sood Vs IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. 

AWARD DATED 7.11.2012 PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF MOTOR CLAIM 

1. This is a complaint filed by Sh. Puneet Sood (herein after referred to as the complainant) against the decision of IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. (herein after referred to as respondent Insurance Company) relating to partial settlement of motor claim. 

2. Complainant stated that company was paying only a sum of Rs. 12,000 as against his claim of Rs. 58,000. He further submitted that he got his car with registration no. HR 26 AS 4935 insured through IFFCO TOKIO on 27.01.2011. On 16.09.2011, his vehicle engine got ceased in heavy rains while he was driving through a water logged road at Charmwod Village, Faridabab. As he was crossing, a speeding car from opposite direction propelled a huge wave of water which hit his car and covered it with water up to bonnet. The car immediately stopped and he got the car pushed to be parked on the side with help of three other people. He also observed that the wind screen was cracked due to a stone hit the wind screen with the wave of water. He immediately contacted Maruti help line and got location of the nearest authorized service station. The car was towed to seven hill at Okhla and he simultaneously informed the insurance company. The car was inspected in front of the company deputed surveyor Mr. M.K. Agarwal who clicked various pictures. An initial estimate of INR 17,500 was provided by the service station for flushing of the engine as the extent of damage was not known at that point of time. He was further informed that engine would be required to be opened for repairing the vehicle. Service station also informed the company about this. Company had approved the claim for Rs. 12,500. He has come to this forum with request to get his claim settled. Complainant did not attend the hearing. 

3. Representative of the company pleaded that insured tried to start the vehicle when it stopped due to entry of water in the engine. The damage was caused to it. Water entered remote to the engine and the claim was settled as per policy and further claim is not payable. Company also filed written reply dated 02.02.2012 wherein it has been stated that as per policy accidental damage is payable. A small stone got dashed with the front glass of the car resulting the wind screen getting cracked. The company had paid for the wind screen. It was further mentioned that water on the bonnet could not damage engine. Engine could not be impacted by merely coming in contact with water and the damaged to engine can only be attributed to mechanical failure to start/run engine when it is still in contact with water. Company is liable only to the extent of damage to the wind screen and replacement of engine oil, oil filter and flashing of water and interior cleaning amounting to Rs. 12,078. 

4. I have considered the submissions of the complainant as well as of the representative of the company. I have also perused the written reply of the company and also other papers placed on record. After due consideration of the matter, I hold that company was not justified in partially settling the claim because entire damage which was caused to the insured vehicle was accidentally damaged. Therefore, company is liable to compensate for the entire damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident under the circumstances mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. In my view complainant needs to be further compensated. Accordingly an Award is passed with the direction to the insurance company to make payment of Rs. 36864 subject to deduction of an amount already paid. 

5. The Award shall be implemented within 30 days of receipt of the same. The compliance of the same shall be intimated to my office for information and record. 

6. Copies of the Award to both the parties.

With regards,

Ashok Kumar Singh.

Surveyor & Loss Assesssor.

Greater Noida, U.P..

201308.

Greater Noida, U.P..

201308.

[Arvind Kumar]

Dear Ashok ji,

I have also examined such a case and have similar views as stated by you.

More learned friends should also express freely what inconsistencies (if) they see in explanations made by you.

Regards,