Has anyone claimed a cracked fuel tank on insurance?

[marto78]

A mate of mine has a fairly big boat that has developed a fuel leak in one of the underfloor tanks but whether this has occurred through wear and tear or was the result of coming off the back of a wave is not known until the tank is pulled out.
The cost to do this is quite a few thousand hence the thought of making a claim with his insurer.

I know if its wear and tear it most likely wont be covered but if it can be proved that it ws caused by something else (*accidental) would it be possible to claim it through his insurtance policy?

Cheers

[The Woo]

Personally had to replace a few underfloor tanks in a couple of boats (requiring several thousand bucks and cutting of bulkheads/floors to remove) and not once thought we'd get away with a claim.

You'd need to have some serious other damage to the hull structure to prove impact damage, otherwise they'll say (probably quite rightly) that its basic wear n tear or a manufacturing fault and refer you back to the builder.

[EdBerg]

You'd need to have some serious other damage to the hull structure to prove impact damage, otherwise they'll say (probably quite rightly) that its basic wear n tear or a manufacturing fault and refer you back to the builder.

Hi guys', I really can't see how a fuel tank would have "wear and tear". If it was built and fixed in properly under the floor then it should not crack, move or wear at all (ever!!). If it developed a stress crack due to pounding and so forth, then I go back to my first point, that it wasn't designed, welded or fixed in properly! Electrolysis/Corrosion is another story as that is a maintenence issue. If a manufacturerer makes a fuel tank that will flex every time the boat hits a wave then the metal thickness isn't sufficient or it does not have enough baffles internally, which will cause the metal to fatigue eventually and crack, then in my book I would consider that is a manufacturing/design defect. As a boat will always pound constantly in use the tank should be designed to withstand the forces involved otherwise it's not fit for the purpose that it was built.

If it was a car it would be recalled straight away even years after the warranty expired.

Just my 2 cents worth!

Ed.

[The Woo]

Yeah, good luck with recalls on older boats.

The OP's question was in direct relation to an insurance claim. I gave him my opinion on that.

If you think you'd go ok chasing the builder of your Scarab 20+ years down the track for a failed fuel tank for whatever reason, I wish you luck, and I think the trials and triblations would be worthy of its own thread.

* Just my two cents ;)

[EdBerg]

Probably not for an insurance claim but to the manufacturer assuming it is still around. As for my Scarab, I ripped the tank out before it went into the water and built a new one out of 4mm and 5mm aluminium. Most of the fuel tanks (depending on the capacity) I have seen in small to medium sized boats are out of 1.6mm stainless or 2.5mm and rarely 3mm ally. For me, building mine out of the 4-5mm was worth the peace of mind with only about a 15kg penalty in weight and I know it won't crack, corrode maybe but not crack! ;D

Not having a go at you but just wanted to point out that sub-floor fuel tanks should not have "wear and tear" with the only moving part is the sender unit.

[The Woo]

I'm not here for a long drawn out debate on tanks and the whys and what fors of their common failures.

But, I will ask these questions relating to any vessel outside of its warranty period;

1. if it's NOT ok for a tank to fail due to a crack developing, why is it ok for a tank to fail due to corrosion? And shouldn't steps be taken by the manufacturer all those years ago to ensure corrosion doesn't become a problem?

2. At what age does the onus of a tank failure cease to fall upon the manufacturer's shoulders? Is it 10, 20, heck, 30 or 40 years?

[EdBerg]

First off, I have no idea how old old the boat in question is as the OP didn't state that, so for all I know it could be anything from 1 week to 25 years, that aside, if the tank cracks from fatigue it basically boils down to, that it's not designed or welded right, not fitted properly or the hull has cracked in half which clearly isn't the case here.

As for the corrosion, that is outside the scope of the manufacturers control. For example, saltwater getting in or some previous owner wires up something incorrectly and it corrodes away due to electrolysis, water getting in the fuel which can help to corrode the tank, these are maintenance issue and not a manufacturing issue/liabilty.

A fuel tank is for holding fluids only so no "wear or tear". Baffle it properly, make it strong enough so the sloshing fluids doesn't stress and flex the material till it fatigues and cracks, fix it down properly so it doesn't move when the boat is moving in choppy seas, and there is no reason why it shouldn't outlast the boat hull.

As an example only regarding manufacturing faults and liability. The Jeeps manufactured in 2000-2004 with heated seats were recalled (Number J14) on Nov 2009 to have the heating elements replaced as they could overheat and cause a fire. That was between 5-9 years after warranty expired.
Recall number F25 some Jeeps built in 2000 and all Jeeps in 2002 with a 4lt engine had a recall because the electric fan blade may fracture and separate, this recall was issued in aug 2006.

Both of these were the responsibilty of the manufacturer even after many years out of warranty. Now I know that the examples I gave, are of cars and not boats, however, all manufacturers have legal obligations that go way beyond the warranty period.

So my advice would be to go after the manufacturer of the boat (not the insurance company) assuming they are still around and in Australia and if no satisfaction, to perhaps try the ACCC or the state Office of Fair Trading and see what they say. This is assuming that the manufacturer still exists and is from Australia.

You seem to be taking this personally for some reason which was not my intention, and again I just wanted to point out that there should be no wear or tear on a built in below floor fuel tank. If you still do not understand my point, then please re-read my first paragraph in Post No 3.


Cheers

Ed.

[Gazza]

jmo :rifle:

no wonder insurance premiums are higher than they probably should be. :disappointed:

maybe leave the tank in , and replace the boat under "fire insurance" :fireman:

[The Woo]

Edberg, I'm not taking it remotely personally. And in essence, I AGREE with you upon how tanks should be made and installed. But I think we've gone beyond what the OP asked and have derailed into a very general discussion re tanks in boats! ;D

I'm holding a very different view of what is a reasonable expectation of tank longevity.
There are simply too many variable factors involved as to how or why tanks may fail. To throw a blanket over a failure and say, "oh that's a manufacturing fault", to my mind, is impossible.

An analogy, since you've sited car recalls;

A farmer has a Landcruiser that he uses daily and travels often on very corrugated dirt roads.
Over time, the vibrations put through the vehicle from the corrugations eventually wear out the rubber unsulaters that prevent the steel fuel tank directly contacting the steel fuel tank retaining straps. One day, the tank strikes a leak from where the strap has worn through the tank.
The farmer hasn't "abused" the vehicle, he's simply used it often, in a harsh enviroment. Just like we do in our boats.
Is Mr Toyota liable to replace this tanks etc in Mr Farmer's 10 year old "Cruiser? I don't think any reasonable person would think so. The failure was attributed directly to something simply "wearing out". Everything wears out sometime.

Back to the boats, I think it's unreasonable to think that a properly mounted tank will last forever. EVERY boat flexes, even ultra-stiff carbon hulled race boats, so things can and do fail from flexing and vibration. To expect any manufacturer to design and build a bulletproof and infallible tank mounting system is again, unreasonable. Sure, mount it in foam they say (and many do!), but that invites Mr Corrosion to the party.....

In essence, my point of view is that no 100%, absolute, failsafe way has yet been found to mount fuel tanks.

[EdBerg]

This has definitely derailed into a different topic, but I still can't completely agree with you, your example of the landcruiser is one of lack of maintenance. The farmer in your example should get his vehicle checked every time he had a service and the tank rubber insulators are visually able to be seen for any maintenence required, with the boat flexing, yes I agree with you that all boats flex and have to do so. The carbon fibre based ones are usually built to stretch that technology to it's limit so not surprising that things go pop.

However where boats flex the most is usually not in the place where most fuel tanks go, ie, in the bottom V of the hull or in pockets at the sides, with the sides having the most, but that flexing is still minimal and the tank should be designed to move with the boat. If in the "V", it should be supported off the hull floor and raised a bit off so if water does contact the tank it will not stay in contact with the tanks' base for any length of time to prevent corrosion and a drainage sytem put into place to remove any water that got in there.

If the manufacturer has sealed in the fuel tanks, therefore there can be no maintenance or inspection to check the state of the tank, (you said that you had to cutout some bulkheads and floors on the ones you did), which means that no reasonable inspection could be carried out which would also put the onus back onto the manufacturer to make sure that it was done and designed and installed right to withstand any wave pounding the boat would take in the normal operation barring breaking in half by slamming rocks, ect.

However I am no expert in law but if it was my boat I would contact the manufacturer and if no success then I would take it further to those contacts as I described earlier. I mean, what has the OP got to lose by doing so, a few phone calls and a few hours of his time! Those government departments I mentioned may take a different view to the manufacturers. They could determine and advise the OP if the manufacturer had a case to answer to, if not, the OP can get on with the task of fixing it on his own.

Anyway I am going to stop as I really have gone on for too long. Let others share their opinions. I will agree to disagree.

Cheers

Ed.

[marto78]

Thanks for the replies/debate guys you've answered my question and an insurance claim is out of the question by the looks of it ;D

[The Woo]

haha, I reckon we've pretty much covered everything ;D

Slow day @ work. ;)