Am I insured or not?

[Irish Rover]

My current insurance policy will expire next week. I got a renewal notice a couple of weeks ago. I paid the premium yesterday and got my new policy. I emailed them to get the usual Greek cover policy. Got a call today telling me they'd quoted me in error, as their new underwriter doesn't cover boats based in Türkiye. I told them if they had something to say please put it in writing in an email. Email came after a few hours saying, inter alia,
"Unfortunately we are unable to offer cover this year due to us no longer having underwriting authority to insure vessels that are based in Turkey."
I replied saying, inter alia,
"You say you are unable to offer cover, but the reality is you did offer it, and I accepted your offer. I paid in full and you issued my policy and a payment receipt. I believe we have a valid contract of insurance which you cannot legally cancel at this stage."

 

[AntarcticPilot]

My current insurance policy will expire next week. I got a renewal notice a couple of weeks ago. I paid the premium yesterday and got my new policy. I emailed them to get the usual Greek cover policy. Got a call today telling me they'd quoted me in error, as their new underwriter doesn't cover boats based in Türkiye. I told them if they had something to say please put it in writing in an email. Email came after a few hours saying, inter alia,
"Unfortunately we are unable to offer cover this year due to us no longer having underwriting authority to insure vessels that are based in Turkey."
I replied saying, inter alia,
"You say you are unable to offer cover, but the reality is you did offer it, and I accepted your offer. I paid in full and you issued my policy and a payment receipt. I believe we have a valid contract of insurance which you cannot legally cancel at this stage."

However, they may not be legally able to provide insurance for regulatory reasons, in which case the contract is voided by force majeure. They should return your premium.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Or there may be a right to cancel by either party written in the T&Cs.

 

[Irish Rover]

However, they may not be legally able to provide insurance for regulatory reasons,

I guess if that's the case they'll tell me so and provide proof.

 

[ylop]

If it were me - I would be taking out another policy because there must be some risk that someone points out a clause that says "policy only comes into force when accepted by underwriter" or "we can cancel the policy at any time". They do of course have to refund you in full. Pursuing an underwriter for a future claim sounds hard work given they are likely to say it was outside our agreement with the broker. Pursuing the broker may be fruitless if they are of limited funds. The broker probably has indemnity insurance - but the indemnity insurer is likely to say as soon as the broker said not insured they were off the hook, because you were now aware of the risk.

I'm not convinced AntarcticPilot's force majeure is real in the normal sense of the word as it usually has to be an extraordinary and unforseeable occurence. I certainly wouldn't want to try enforcing such terms internationally across multiple jurisdictions. If the new policy proved much more expensive - perhaps there is a claim for the difference.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

If it were me - I would be taking out another policy because there must be some risk that someone points out a clause that says "policy only comes into force when accepted by underwriter" or "we can cancel the policy at any time". They do of course have to refund you in full. Pursuing an underwriter for a future claim sounds hard work given they are likely to say it was outside our agreement with the broker. Pursuing the broker may be fruitless if they are of limited funds. The broker probably has indemnity insurance - but the indemnity insurer is likely to say as soon as the broker said not insured they were off the hook, because you were now aware of the risk.

I'm not convinced AntarcticPilot's force majeure is real in the normal sense of the word as it usually has to be an extraordinary and unforseeable occurence. I certainly wouldn't want to try enforcing such terms internationally across multiple jurisdictions. If the new policy proved much more expensive - perhaps there is a claim for the difference.

Force Majeure is any circumstance outside the contracting parties' control. In this case, the regulatory environment is beyond either the insurer or @Irish Rover's control. It was a routine clause in all the contracts I was involved in when I was working; the expected situation was inability to provide field facilities, but that could well have arisen from changes in regulations, especially concerning the use of aircraft (there was in fact a change in the regulatory environment for aircraft operating from the Falklands that threatened our Antarctic operations).

 

[benjenbav]

Quibbling about the width of an angel’s wingspan is all well and good. But in the OP’s position I would assume not covered, get alternative cover in place pdq and then sort out refund and any consequential grievances.

 

[Irish Rover]

As far as I can determine they are not saying they are legally prohibited from covering my boat. It seems it's down to a change of underwriter. They actually said

"We do have two sister companies who still can insure vessels based in Turkey"

I assume I'll hear from them tomorrow.

 

[ylop]

Force Majeure is any circumstance outside the contracting parties' control. In this case, the regulatory environment is beyond either the insurer or @Irish Rover's control.

I could see that argument applying if it were triggered in the middle of a policy year, but I don’t know that it makes any sense to claim force majeure for situations that one of the contracting parties was aware of before entering the contract. i just checked my policy and it does not have such a clause - but it does have a “we can cancel with X days notice, if we can no longer insure you” clause.

 

[Poignard]

Force Majeure is not something that is implied in a contract. There has to have been a clause expressly defining it, and the circumstances in which it may be applied.

Perhaps you are thinking of Frustration of a contract but that would not be available if the event that frustrated the performance of the contract had been reasonably foreseeable.

The broker could not claim frustration if he had been negligent.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Quibbling about the width of an angel’s wingspan is all well and good. But in the OP’s position I would assume not covered, get alternative cover in place pdq and then sort out refund and any consequential grievances.

100% agree with this.

 

[LittleSister]

Force Majeure is any circumstance outside the contracting parties' control. In this case, the regulatory environment is beyond either the insurer or @Irish Rover's control.. . .

I can't see that the existence of a regulatory framework could in itself be considered force majeure, not least because if that were the case almost every other contract in most of the world would be void. A change in the regulatory environment could well be force majuere, if, for example, it changed to newly preclude the (previously valid) underwriter from being an insurer within the jurisdiction. But there has been no such change in the regulatory framework, as far as we are aware.

All that has happened is that the broker/agent has changed its procedures from one that is consistent with the (seemingly unchanged) regulatory framework to one that is not consistent. That is entirely within the broker/agent's control, and therefore not force majuere, to my thinking.

That said, I think the OP will be on a hiding to nothing by trying to force the broker/agent to offer something they are not offering or able to provide. I think it must unlikely to succeed for various reasons, but even if it were capable of succeeding, the stress and cost of achieving success would not be worth it.

I think he must accept that the broker/agent made a mistake (as should they!), but he might also press for some discount on any increase in premium required to secure insurance with the alternative underwriter in recognition of the the broker/agent's error and the trouble this has put him to.

 

[Irish Rover]

Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions. It's easy to see why there are so many rich lawyers around, and why it can take years to get a case into court. I'm sticking to my simple position at the moment - offer, acceptance, consideration, contract. Let's see what today brings.

 

[ChromeDome]

When the insurance company announces that they won't insure you, with some sort of explanation, it's obviously not a risk you want to take: having a claim with someone who has said in advance they won't cover.

I would find an insurance company that covers your potential claims and can operate in the legislation that applies in your location. It is really undesirable for e.g. a British insurance agent to have to stand in a courtroom in Turkey and argue a case in Turkish language and according to their customs. Most likely a defeat.

Be aware, that boat insurances are not standardized so prices can't be compared without a detailed analysis of the fine print. Some are cheap because they reduce the value based on age (sort of theoretical depreciation). After some years they'll give you close to nothing, which I believe you'd not be interested in.

For your inspiration:
Several insurance providers offer coverage for leisure boats in Turkey, with options ranging from local specialists to international companies.

Local Turkish Providers

- E.G.G. Yachting: Provides comprehensive coverage including Hull Insurance (damage from charters, owners, or nature) and Yacht Liability Insurance (third-party claims).

- Turkey Boat & Yacht Insurance: Offers two main plans:
- Basic Insurance: Combines third-party liability and fully comprehensive coverage at competitive rates.
- Top Insurance: All-risk coverage with benefits like "new for old" replacements and guaranteed fixed taxes.

- Fimar Sigorta: Specializes in Marmaris-based yacht insurance, covering risks like theft, fire, and accidents. Policies are customizable for private yachts and charter fleets.

- Gala Yachting: Partners with leading Turkish and global insurers to provide tailored coverage, emphasizing quick online quotes.


International Providers

- Chubb: Offers Masterpiece Boat Select policies with features like total loss settlement (120% of insured value), liability protection, and emergency towing coverage.

-Pantaenius Yacht Insurance: A leading international provider specializing in marine insurance solutions, including coverage for leisure boats. While headquartered in Germany, it operates globally with 14 branches and serves over 100,000 clients.

For leisure boat owners in Turkey, Pantaenius offers potential coverage options, though direct consultation is recommended to confirm regional applicability.

 

[Bouba]

The only thing unusual is that they are refusing your claim before you make it....most insurance companies wait till after the claim

 

[Irish Rover]

A bit of back and forth today via email. Neither of us has closed the door. Their explanation
3 sister companies "each have different underwriters." My sister co "were previously underwritten by Navigators and General who were part of Zurich, as of the beginning of the year Navigators and General are now part of Geo underwriting, who unfortunately have a different underwriting criteria, meaning we can no longer offer certain cover we could offer previously."
I've maintained my position that I have a valid legal contract of insurance, fully paid and issued.
I've taken the precaution of submitting a formal complaint, as required by the policy, before making a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
I've told them I don't care what corporate name is on my policy and I'd accept it if they want to reissue it in the name of one of the other sisters. They're now talking to their sisters.
On hold until Monday now, I assume.

 

[ylop]

Financial Ombudsman Service in the U.K.? Based on a claim my wife currently has with them, your policy will have renewed again before you actually get a resolution there!

 

[ashtead]

It would seem to me that the broker you deal with in turn has a wholesale broker in N&G . When N&G brand was sold by Zurich as part of the sale Z ceased to provide cover and the new owners of the N&G brand source cover from another underwriter which had a more restricted licence in geographical terms. So by mistake your brokers renewed I suspect not being aware of change in market coverage or (they were told by N&G and forgot)
Any way there might be negligence here by your brokers but if they have alternative cover at same rate then unless you have say some religious objection to new insurers I am struggling to see what loss has arisen. A small payment for stress and inconvenience from your brokers
might be in order if they can source alternative compliant cover but you cannot rely on the non compliant cover you believe you have purchased. I would suggest a €100 type payment for the hassle plus take the alternate cover. I suspect it’s an issue caused not by change of criteria but where the new underwriters can cover risks compared to Zurich.

 

[MontyMariner]

I've told them I don't care what corporate name is on my policy and I'd accept it if they want to reissue it in the name of one of the other sisters. They're now talking to their sisters.
On hold until Monday now, I assume.

That sounds reasonable, if they want to maintain good will they should be able to sort something out with a sister Co.
To go elsewhere may well involve you requiring a new survey which would be a PITA.

 

[ChromeDome]

I still believe that it's a risk to enter into a contract meant to create certainty, with someone who creates uncertainty before we've even started.

It's about eliminating foreseeable risks and when there are good alternatives, there's no reason to insist on a bad deal.