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

[Assassin]

Problems are interpretation! often a claims manager will look at a claim and look from a specific angle which is "how much can we pay out" and "how much can we avoid paying out" and they will put their interpretation onto what they think they will do, and here is the problem.

Marine insurance is going the way of car insurance and instead of simply taking people's word for what has happened as they previously often did they now look with a more cynical eye at things and this can be to the detriment of a boat owner. We also have to remember that insurance is a business and very big business, and every business has to make a profit, and a profit for shareholders dividends.

We also have to consider that many larger insurers are integrating many forms of insurance and instead of being a specialist in a specific field such as home insurance or marine insurance they are moving to cover most things and often do it by buying up other companies or launching their own new companies to offer this insurance and cover as many forms of insurance as possible, even if they appear to be different companies.

 

[jfm]

Only just seen this.

Y policy covers all risks of accidental damage and is UK law. There is ZERO doubt that the loss of a boat innocently moored in Rapallo counts as an accident. The Y policy doesn't define "accidental" so the word takes its ordinary EN meaning, which means not intentional. The fact that, say, the storm was a result of weather systems that can be analysed and predicted, and was always going to happen, doesn't make the damage to the boat (which is a different thing from the storm) not an accident. So to be clear - I'm saying the storm wasn't an accident but the damage to the boats was.

Plenty of preventable things are accidental: if you lose concentration and skid off the road, that is an accident even though the driver made a mistake/was negligent/could have prevented the crash. The point is that is wasn't intentional. A pregnancy is called an accident in ordinary EN if it wasn't intended, even though it involved a deliberate act (or 2, if you count the drinking beforehand ). Accident simply means an event (most commonly a bad/negative one) that occurred unintentionally. It means there was an absence of planning, intention, deliberate-ness, even if it was scientifically going to happen if you did what you did (lean sideways on your ladder too much and scientifically you will fall - that is still an accident provided it wasn't intended).

If an insurer argued in UK that boats lost in Rapallo were not lost accidentally they would never win. They would (a) struggle to find a UK solicitor to run that argument B2C for them bearing in mind regulatory laws; (b) they would lose at ombudsman level; (c) if relevant they would lose at court. There is just no doubt on this.

So I don't buy BBen's analysis in #19. Accidents and naturally occurring disasters are not mutually exclusive concepts. I also don't buy Assassin's analysis in #21. I don't give a damn what some claims manager might say and I only care that I win in the end which is determined by the contract. I'll take a bad claims manager and a good contract, rather than vice versa, every time. You will often have claims manager resistance at €1m+ but that's just normal - you deal with them.

The pantaenius policy is perfectly fine on this point but I'm afraid it is significantly worse imho on other points which is why I left Pants a few years ago (when they re-worded their policy) and switched to Y whose policy I believe is better.

 

[Momac]

So, perhaps scope for Y Yacht to argue that the boats smashed up in Rapallo were not accidentally damaged, but caused by natural occurrence....

I don't think so.
Seems like an accident plain and simple in this case.

 

[MapisM]

There is ZERO doubt that the loss of a boat innocently moored in Rapallo counts as an accident.

Now, that's going to save me some time wasted reading a pretty boring contract - something which ranks pretty high among the many things which I'm not missing of my previous working life... I owe you a bottle of good wine! :encouragement:

 

[Piers]

Anyone thought of asking Y for an answer?

 

[Momac]

Perhaps someone with a boat damaged in the Rapallo storm would indeed be talking to their insurers.
I doubt whether any insurer would comment other than to the insured in the event of a specific claim.

 

[petem]

Anyone thought of asking Y for an answer?

I think I'd rather trust JFM's interpretation of the policy than anything Y might say.

 

[Piers]

I think I'd rather trust JFM's interpretation of the policy than anything Y might say.

Agreed, but it would still be good to get an answer - I've emiled them since I, too, am insured by them.

 

[petem]

Agreed, but it would still be good to get an answer - I've emiled them since I, too, am insured by them.

Sorry Piers, I'd forgotten about your recent storm scare. Hope all is well with your boat now.

 

[Piers]

Sorry Piers, I'd forgotten about your recent storm scare. Hope all is well with your boat now.

Hi Peter, Yes, I think so. However, Marine and General will be inspecting the only areas about which I have a concern, namely the cleats and fairleads. Thanks for asking. It was certainly traumatic at the time, far more so than anything I encountered when flying for BOAC/BA!

 

[Piers]

Just had an email from Y, the key words of which I now share, with their permission:

"Of course Y Yacht Insurance, like most others, would cover storm damage in a marina."

 

[jordanbasset]

Just had an email from Y, the key words of which I now share, with their permission:

"Of course Y Yacht Insurance, like most others, would cover storm damage in a marina."

Bleeding obvious really, surprised anyone was questioning it

 

[MapisM]

Bleeding obvious really, surprised anyone was questioning it

Yeah, as if the previous 30+ posts were all along the lines of...
'Course that's covered, why on earth it shouldn't, you blithering idiot?

 

[jfm]

Anyone thought of asking Y for an answer?

Hmm I would stop and think before doing that, in general. If you have already entered into a contract and you ask a question that allows your counterparty to say no or write something that creates wriggle room in the future, you haven't done yourself any favours. The point being that you have no control over how the reply is drafted. If you have something to trade that's fine, but in this case you're asking for something without giving anything up.
Y are a decent team and wouldn't play fast and loose, and the point I'm making is generic not aimed at Y

 

[Piers]

Hmm I would stop and think before doing that, in general. If you have already entered into a contract and you ask a question that allows your counterparty to say no or write something that creates wriggle room in the future, you haven't done yourself any favours. The point being that you have no control over how the reply is drafted. If you have something to trade that's fine, but in this case you're asking for something without giving anything up.
Y are a decent team and wouldn't play fast and loose, and the point I'm making is generic not aimed at Y

Already did - see #31

 

[sorabain]

Hmm I would stop and think before doing that, in general. If you have already entered into a contract and you ask a question that allows your counterparty to say no or write something that creates wriggle room in the future, you haven't done yourself any favours. The point being that you have no control over how the reply is drafted. If you have something to trade that's fine, but in this case you're asking for something without giving anything up.
Y are a decent team and wouldn't play fast and loose, and the point I'm making is generic not aimed at Y

Would that wriggle room work both ways? e.g. if they respond saying "yes of course we cover it", but then later try to avoid a claim for the same would you be able to bring that in as well as the original contract? Just wondering since if anyone did come back with anything with weasel words then they're probably going to lose customers at next renewal, which hopefully is more regularly than epic storms.

 

[jfm]

Already did - see #31

Fair enough. Y are a good firm with much integrity and it's nice to see their response. My point holds true in general though, I believe.

 

[jfm]

Would that wriggle room work both ways? e.g. if they respond saying "yes of course we cover it", but then later try to avoid a claim for the same would you be able to bring that in as well as the original contract? Just wondering since if anyone did come back with anything with weasel words then they're probably going to lose customers at next renewal, which hopefully is more regularly than epic storms.

Yes that's all true. You can bring it up if there is a dispute, and they will if it suits them. I guess I'm saying just as a general rule stop and think before you create this sort of correspondence.

 

[rubberduck]

Yes that's all true. You can bring it up if there is a dispute, and they will if it suits them. I guess I'm saying just as a general rule stop and think before you create this sort of correspondence.

Indeed, if it aint broke ........

 

[jfm]

bottle of good wine! :encouragement:

Excellent thanks! Next time I'm in S.Sardinia