Hostility Proven

inconvenient truth - intent on denying the claimNov 22, 2016 Wayne Scott provided us a copy of the input they received from Hill Dickenson. Hostility proven! They demonstrated that they were intent on denying the claim. They:


  • jumped on the John Koon bandwagon, accepting his statements even though they were proven wrong or at least seriously put in question by multiple people.
  • accused us of not providing crew statements, maintenance logs and trip logs implying that we were withholding these, when in fact we were never asked for this information. According the ICOBS, the insurance company is responsible for advising the claimant what needs to be accumulated and provided when filing a claim. Larry never said a word about any of these items.
  • made bad and uneducated assumptions based on mis-information from John Koon.
  • went evidence trolling by
    • asking why a Mayday was not issued and
    • how could the propeller have possibly fallen off
    • implied a suspicious anomaly by not including the prop as part of the claim.
  • ignored the inconvenient truths in our responses.

On Nov 24, we reply that we will respond thru counsel. We also requested reimbursement for our expenses if for no other reason than the unconscionable delay of 7 months in processing our claim with no communication implying concern.

Avoiding Responsibilitiy for Delays

Wayne Scott responded on Nov 25, acknowledging our email and stated that the delays were not LJJ’s responsibility.

We responded that we believed all involved were responsible especially due to the verbal assurances by their representative from the very beginning.

No response was received.


Hostile Action Taken Seven Months after Loss

Angry foot tapping.jpegFor the next two weeks we sent multiple emails to Larry, and Wayne Scott hoping for action or direction regarding

  • acquiring a copy of John Koon’s response to our response to his initial report,
  • our settlement offer and
  • clarification on the expenses format.

The responses were inadequate or deflective. They even referred us back to Blue Water Insurance who had already told us not to call them.


On Nov 11 Wayne Scott of LJJ Associates writes:

“Rest assured I am liaising with underwriters at Lloyd’s and your requests are certainly NOT being ignored.

Fully understand your position and will contact them again for the latest urgently.”

They hire solicitors

On Nov 14 Wayne Scott sent the following to Blue Water Insurance, Larry Montgomery and us.

“I have copied all parties in as I wish it to be perfectly clear these are advices direct from the insuring underwriters in Lloyd’s and not from LJJ Associates or any other party: –

Underwriters have responded as follows:

In order for Underwriters to give the Insured the benefit of a detailed analysis, to get a get a settled picture, and to validate and resolve this claim as soon as possible, we have instructed Hill Dickinson.  This isn’t intended to be a hostile move on our part and the person we have referred to there is conscious that this is time sensitive and that we do not want a long drawn out legal overview but a straight forward strategy to resolve, narrow any points in dispute, by an expert in the field. 

I appreciate the suggestion of a payment on account but as you will appreciate we need to work out what the basis for any settlement would be.  This forms part of the remit to HD.  They are working on the file as I type so we expect to be in touch very soon with their views.

Will revert soonest.

Best wishes


Incredulous Action and Statement

Hostile action

Not a hostile action??!! Seriously? Hill Dickinson very large (1200 person) law firm in the UK. Were they really trying to tell us that involving attorneys should not imply a hostile action??  Yea right!