Insurance issues

To the Editor

I would like to share a case that I believe will resonate with many in the marine community.

Last year, my vessel, Carlotta, was destroyed by fire in the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter during Typhoon Wipha. The fire originated in a vessel moored alongside mine – see picture above. What followed was not only the removal of the wreck. I am now embroiled in a dispute regarding re-imbursement of those removal costs, and my claim for the loss of Carlotta against their insurers.

This dispute highlights a critical issue – how insurers interpret policy wording versus how courts and common law precedents (such as Star Centurion) have ruled that wreck removal expenses are recoverable. It also raises the question of contractual obligations and what protections yacht owners have when disaster strikes.

My question is this: if courts have recognized that wreck removal expenses are recoverable, and if policy wording provides for the cover of such costs, on what basis can reimbursement be denied?

I believe that, at the heart of this lies a fundamental imbalance of power. An individual like me faces not only the vast financial resources of an insurance giant but also the legal machinery that covers their interests.

Compounding this, it appears to me that Hong Kong’s data privacy rules favour the perpetrator over the victim. For example, the Marine Department would not give me the name of the owner of the boat where the fire originated, despite the findings of the Fire Services Department.

This is not just my story — it is a cautionary tale for every boat owner in Hong Kong. It underscores the importance of knowing your rights, understanding your policy, and being prepared to escalate your case to regulators like the Insurance Authority.

I believe this case could make an engaging feature for Fragrant Harbour, drawing comments from readers and sparking discussion about insurance practices, legal precedents, and the responsibilities of insurers.

--- Miikka Antila