I would not consider this to be a covered loss since it appears to be damage to the insured's product. However, I am having difficulty finding the language in either of the forms (enclosed) to invoke a denial. I appreciate your looking into this form for me and I look forward to your opinion.

Kansas Subscriber

A

You are quite right about the similarity between the forms for auto dealers and the samples of the comparable forms for boat dealers. The products exclusion in the Marina Operators form—like garage liability—eliminates cover for property damage to a product stemming from a defect in the product when it was sold.  Assuming, as it seems, that the customer's complaint is that the damage was caused by the water pump defect (defective in and of itself or defective in the installation by the dealer insured) it is a perfect example of the claim the exclusion is designed to eliminate from coverage.

The watercraft liability form (the garagekeepers counterpart), covers bodily injury and property damage “resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or servicing of an 'insured boat',” as defined in the Marina Operators form. There, an “insured boat” is said to include boats owned by others when in the insured's care for “covered operations.” That expression is defined as might be expected: repair, storage, hauling out or launching, mooring at rented anchorages, or fueling or miscellaneous services. None, of course, reaching to a boat that has been sold or serviced by the insured prior to the damage. The customer's boat is not an “insured boat” because it was not involved in a “covered operation” at the time of the damage.