A question for Y-insured forumites, with apologies for my laziness...

MapisM

MapisM

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Mar 2002
Messages
20,658
Visit site
The extensive damages in Rapallo got me wondering: are also that sort of natural, extra-ordinary events covered by the standard Y policy?
Before digging into the text, I thought it's likely that someone here already knows by heart... :rolleyes:
 
I have no idea.
My assumption (and I know these are dangerous) is that you would be insured.
Especially if that is your home berth - you declare where you keep it so it’s a known risk.
As I say, this is my expectation but not backed up by facts.
 
Yes, I believe so.

The policy wording says 'all risks' covered, it does not specify that storm damaged is covered, but, in section 4 - 'What is not covered' does not exclude storm damage.
 
Last edited:
In the circumstances I can't imagine any problem with an all risks insurance policy regardless of the insurer.
Unusual weather events as is in this case is exactly what is covered .
 
I’m with ‘Y’ & as per others, no exclusions in that regard that I can see. Drop them an email...they’re very helpful.
L
:)
 
bluetooth said:
Surely this will be claimed against the shipping insurers ?
Click to expand...

That's my train of thought also. All losses incurred from point of finding the boat to loosing the boat? Not to mention the boats contents also? (Yes i know it was just purchased but all that Louis Vuitton luggage, Mac pros ect? ) The £500 for the licence just to get it to the ship??? :ambivalence:
 
Thanks everybody for your feedbacks.

Just for the records, I'm afraid the two last posts misunderstood my original question, which was related to the disaster in Rapallo marina and not to the cargo loss which sadly involved a forumite boat - pretty different events, even if both driven by bad weather.

No problem from my part if anyone wish to debate here also the latter, anyway!
 
Just read the policy and its terms and conditions along with the definitions and you will have facts and not assumptions.

Is it worth the time? YES, is it worth questioning the definitions? YES; at least you know exactly where you stand.
 
Among the damage in the harbour many boats have collided together and boats have collided with things on the shoreline. I think in these circumstances each insurer will take care of its own responsibilities and there will be no recovery sought from others. No one is to blame for the storm.
If the shipping container incident is part of the same storm event the same philosophy will apply unless the shipping company was negligent.
 
The Y Yacht policy says

Whilst ashore or afloat, being lifted, hauled out or launched, in transit by road, rail, air or car ferry the Vessel is covered for losses arising from:
1.1 all risks of accidental damage;
1.2 theft;
1.3 fire and/or explosion;
1.4 acts of piracy;
1.5 acts of vandalism;
1.6 deliberate damage (not caused by You);
1.7 Latent Defect, excluding the cost or expense of repairing or replacing the
defective part; and
1.8 electrolysis caused by a sudden and identifiable cause.


https://www.yyachtinsurance.com/Oct18/A CHECK LIST (Policy (1A) Sail) OCT2018.pdf
 
This summer, we had some extreme weather in Sant Carles as well.
One such storm was hail.
Not golf ball size but most of the hail was about 25mm dia.
I was there at the time.
It didn't cause much damage to boats but all the cars in the car park had little dents.
AFAIK people have made successful claims against their car insurance.
Certainly, I know of four successful claimants.

BTW - No Teslas were harmed in the making of this storm !!!
 
Assassin said:
Just read the policy and its terms and conditions along with the definitions and you will have facts and not assumptions.
Is it worth the time? YES, is it worth questioning the definitions? YES; at least you know exactly where you stand.
Click to expand...
Objection accepted, though I did apologize in advance for my own laziness, didn't I? :rolleyes:
One of these days, I'll invest a bit of time in reading the text.

Otoh, it was interesting to see that most of the replies, albeit generally confident that the risk should be covered, are not exactly positive about that.
Btw, I forgot to mention that my doubt was very specifically related to the outcome of natural disasters, because I remember to have seen, before subscribing a Y policy, another one which in the small printing excluded this sort of extraordinary but "generalized/extended" events.

Which is pretty much a nonsense, 'fiuaskme - in fact, I didn't subscribe that policy.
But afterwards, when I subscribed Y policy, I didn't even check it in detail, on the basis that if it's good enough for jfm it's also good enough for myself... Hence this thread! :o

But as I said, I'll check the text one of the next days, and will also post my findings - unless in the meantime jfm or anyone else who knows for sure can confirm what most folks are assuming to be true! :encouragement:
 
You said it yourself Mapis, the words "generally confident" and "assuming" and this is where the issues arise, and a little time spent reading them are often worthwhile to fully understand where you are.

With the best will in the world, you are dealing with insurers and some are slippier than a frozen turd on wet basalt tiles and they will exploit anything they can, and I wouldn't want to see anyone on here become a victim of them trying to screw someone over and costing them a few thousand pounds, that money is better in the fuel tanks.
 
Assassin said:
You said it yourself Mapis, the words "generally confident" and "assuming" and this is where the issues arise, and a little time spent reading them are often worthwhile to fully understand where you are.

With the best will in the world, you are dealing with insurers and some are slippier than a frozen turd on wet basalt tiles and they will exploit anything they can, and I wouldn't want to see anyone on here become a victim of them trying to screw someone over and costing them a few thousand pounds, that money is better in the fuel tanks.
Click to expand...

You raise an interesting point. Its perfectly clear in the wording that all risks of accidental damage are covered. But what constitutes accidental damage? So I went back to the policy document to look at the list of definitions to see how clear the description of accidental damage is.

Guess what, accidental damage isn't in the list of definitions. So, perhaps scope for Y Yacht to argue that the boats smashed up in Rapallo were not accidentally damaged, but caused by natural occurrence....

Which led me to look at Pants policy, which says it covers all risks aside from those in section D. Section D does not exclude storm damage.

So seems to me the Pants policy is better, but, I know, for my boat, Pants cover to be around twice the price of Y Yacht cover. I might go back to Pants.

I can't say I have encountered many frozen turds on wet basalt tiles, or even many wet basalt tiles without frozen turds, or even many dry basalt tiles as far as I know!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top