Any insurance recommendations (NOT Y Insurance)

[petem]

Great work TwoHooters and if the value of the boat is a 'life changing' amount, time well spent.

 

[jrudge]

After these last few posts, maybe I will be telling the insurer when I buy the policy how I have made up the "Agreed Value".

i.e.
Find an appropriate second hand boat that is for sale and list its price.
Then add an estimate for each of the extra items that I have installed on the boat.
For example, my new synthetic teak, Coppercoat bottom, new cockpit covers, modern toilets etc
List the "replacement value" for each item
The total being the "Agreed Value"

Of course, this assumes that I get a good "Agreed Value" policy.

At the end of the day it will come down to what can reasonably be agreed with you and the insurer.

You cant profit from insurance, its aim is to put you back in a position before the loss.

A boat with new covers, modern WC, coper coat etc will ( in my view) be slightly more saleable - but these things would not alter its value in any material way. As we see on here must buyers are blind to the true cost of works. Same with houses. Ones not done up regularly sell for crazy money as the people clearly have no idea of the cost of quality renovation.

A substantial refit of which the above was part probably would impact its value.

In my case with Y I told then I bought the boat for X, did - insert long list- which in my view makes the boat worth Z. They agreed. So all that really matters is the insurer agrees and you dont mind paying the inflated premium that the cover will carry.

 

[TwoHooter]

Looking at jrudge's post I find myself thinking that in a world where we are dealing with insurance agents, not brokers, perhaps a key differentiator should be their willingness to (a) agree a value in writing based on evidence supplied to them, and (b) confirm in writing what unclear policy wording means - in the past on this forum we have discussed the question of whether a permanent connection to shore power is allowed or not and this thread has lots of examples of what one might call "grey areas" - a term I usually hate but it is relevant here.

An insurance agent who simply says 'That's the policy, can't change anything, take it or leave it' is going to be less attractive than one who enters into correspondence and removes doubt from important areas.

 

[jrudge]

I dont think you will find that they will amend clauses in the policy unless you are a huge customer and have lawyers involved.

The challenge is that when it all goes wrong the policy is all that matters. Clearly a letter from a broker in response to a clear question given a clear answer will carry some weight, but only some. When I had a software business the T and C said something to the effect of dont listen to the salesman - only changes signed by a director are real. I suspect the policy says something similar - most documents do.

 

[petem]

Looking at jrudge's post I find myself thinking that in a world where we are dealing with insurance agents, not brokers, perhaps a key differentiator should be their willingness to (a) agree a value in writing based on evidence supplied to them, and (b) confirm in writing what unclear policy wording means - in the past on this forum we have discussed the question of whether a permanent connection to shore power is allowed or not and this thread has lots of examples of what one might call "grey areas" - a term I usually hate but it is relevant here.

An insurance agent who simply says 'That's the policy, can't change anything, take it or leave it' is going to be less attractive than one who enters into correspondence and removes doubt from important areas.

I'm not a lawyer / expert in this field but as far as I know, Y had a 'Binding Authority' from Amlin and Topsail have one too from N&G. This enables them to make changes to their policies as they see fit.

I can't remember the details, but I know that I was advised to have an alternative corrosion clause inserted in my Y policy and they accepted this change. I also had the automatic fire extinguisher clause temporarily waived by Y so that we could continue to use the boat for the duration of our holiday following an accidental discharge of the engine bay fire extinguisher. They have also agreed to extend 3rd party cover for my maintenance guy whenever he takes the boat for sea trials.

It's important to note that I only ever contact insurers to increase my cover, not to see clarifications that can potentially limit it.

 

[Chris_Robb]

At the end of the day it will come down to what can reasonably be agreed with you and the insurer.

Ah - now thats the point. It would be good to know that a policy has not got contradictions or clauses that create uncertainty. There is no point in agreeing a value if the agreed value clause in undermined later in the contract. I do not agree with those prepared to accept some wordings - Insureres will not be nice to you in the event of a bog claim - there is a lot of complacency here! IMHO

 

[petem]

Ah - now thats the point. It would be good to know that a policy has not got contradictions or clauses that create uncertainty. There is no point in agreeing a value if the agreed value clause in undermined later in the contract. I do not agree with those prepared to accept some wordings - Insureres will not be nice to you in the event of a bog claim - there is a lot of complacency here! IMHO

Chris, if you're suggesting I'm being complacent I can assure you I'm not! Whilst my share in our boat is less than the value of my car, it is a syndicate boat so I want the insurance to be as comprehensive as possible.

Regarding the "changes in the condition, market value or use of the vessel; " a lawyer friend with a multi million £ boat is not concerned about this clause and will be renewing with Topsail.

Secondly, even if the you interpret the clause as literally (incorrectly) as you do, if the market for Targa 34's drops through the floor then I'll be able to pick up a replacement at a lower cost.

Finally, I suspect that a compromise will be required somewhere as there aren't any policies out there that are perfect in every way.

 

[TwoHooter]

I dont think you will find that they will amend clauses in the policy unless you are a huge customer and have lawyers involved.
The challenge is that when it all goes wrong the policy is all that matters. Clearly a letter from a broker in response to a clear question given a clear answer will carry some weight, but only some. When I had a software business the T and C said something to the effect of dont listen to the salesman - only changes signed by a director are real. I suspect the policy says something similar - most documents do.

I take your point but in this context while the policy is a contract with the underwriter and is sacrosanct the commercial transaction is with the broker/agent . If the broker/agent tells me in writing that I am covered while the boat is unattended and connected to shore power, and the underwriter later says they won't pay a claim because they consider this to be negligent, do I have a claim against the broker agent? In reality this is an academic question because it's so difficult and expensive to get anywhere with legal action these days.

I'm not a lawyer / expert in this field but as far as I know, Y had a 'Binding Authority' from Amlin and Topsail have one too from N&G. This enables them to make changes to their policies as they see fit.

Now that is interesting. I've added it to my checklist. Does the broker/agent have authority to agree policy changes or clarification. Thanks.

 

[Hooligan]

I must thank you Chris for the very clear way you lay things out.
Your last post made me think about "change in value"
I've put in air con - change in value (I didn't tell Y about this, guess I should have)
I've replaced all the upholstery with which was tatty and damaged - change in value or just normal maintenance to retain value and make it sell-able.
Hmmmmm?

In line with what JRudge also said one of the issues re upgrading a boat is whether it is actually recognised in resale value ie the value of the boat. So I too added quite a bit of things such as watermaker, and like you upgraded certain things. I also had a total loss and have the experience here of this with the insurer that anyone with Y used to have as I believe they used to only work with Amlins until recently. In my case the insurer agreed to repair my boat. The repair bill ended up being greater than the value of the insured sum and they met the cost. During its repair i added a watermaker, replaced the teak (horribly expensive) and a few other things. When it was all done i gave the insurer the value of the boat including all the upgrades but they came back and wanted a valuation from an independent value. this came out at quite a bit less which i challenged. the value said that upgrading teak, watermaker etc would add to value but would never be reflected 100%. The insurer used the valuation report. Now i see that others have agreed a value with their brokers, which is great. But i suspect that were one to do a huge amount of work and suddenly ask your broker to substantially increase insured value then very likely you will be asked for a outside valuation. The underwriters clearly do not wish to suffer losses from people who simply increase the sum insured and then “scuttle” the boat. I am sure no one here would do that but as i said before, the loss adjuster i used said that at least 75% of claims are suspect, especially in a total loss situation and even more so when the boat market is soft ie tough to sell boats.

 

[Portofino]

Secondly, even if the you interpret the clause as literally (incorrectly) as you do, if the market for Targa 34's drops through the floor then I'll be able to pick up a replacement at a lower cost.

Finally, I suspect that a compromise will be required somewhere as there aren't any policies out there that are perfect in every way.

Hit the nail on the head P .
Thats the point of market value over agreed , which they like .
Say you insure it X on a agreed value and its market value drops over time to a significant degree .
It now means should there be a loss you will profit with the difference if you took the cheque and went back in .
If you did not re enter then in effect the ins Co has bailed you out of depreciation.
So unscrupulous guys hard up who have an agree value of £100 K ( pics , doc , etc sent in ) and due to market forces its replacement can be gotten for £55-70 K , are incentivised NOT to sell it via a broker , but to torch it or sink it out deep .

Thats why Mkt value or given a replacement for the ins Co is less risky .
As you said and many others idea is not to profit , or turned around to put you back in the same position.

Highly customised or uber OCD chaps or both looking for reasons to spend on there “baby “ , sorry hobby .Just have to suck it up .
Once bought a used Cayenne at auction came with all the history .Was £46 K basic with every box ticked , final invoice was £78 K .The sat nav was not cleared and had every premier ship footy club address and one or two training grounds on it as well as the” managers ‘ home address .
Point is its insurance quote , the extras the value thing was just as AN Other from the value guide .
I would not expect i would @ short notice be able to find another like it .Sure plenty about .
You cannot with a boat within reason imho be able to find a highly personalised/ customised version after a total loss .

Thats the risk you take every time with insurance be it cars or boats if you deviate from stock .
For piece of mind keep to stock .

 

[Hurricane]

At the end of the day it will come down to what can reasonably be agreed with you and the insurer.

You cant profit from insurance, its aim is to put you back in a position before the loss.

A boat with new covers, modern WC, coper coat etc will ( in my view) be slightly more saleable - but these things would not alter its value in any material way. As we see on here must buyers are blind to the true cost of works. Same with houses. Ones not done up regularly sell for crazy money as the people clearly have no idea of the cost of quality renovation.

A substantial refit of which the above was part probably would impact its value.

In my case with Y I told then I bought the boat for X, did - insert long list- which in my view makes the boat worth Z. They agreed. So all that really matters is the insurer agrees and you dont mind paying the inflated premium that the cover will carry.

OK let me make an example.
Virtually all the second hand P67s have vac toilets.
You and I know that these are (as previously described) "the work of the devil".
And I think that both of us wouldn't want a boat with vac toilets again.

My boat has electric toilets that I fitted myself.
So, in the event of a total loss, I would want my policy to cover the replacement of the boat and then have enough additional funds to have a contractor to install equivalent toilets to the ones that I have installed. Thus, in this instance, bringing the replacement boat back to the standard of the lost boat.
Both the insurance company and I could easily accept the second hand value and my premium would be calculated accordingly.
But I want my policy to cover more that the replacement - I want it to return the boat to its original state and I am prepared to pay more on the premium in order to have this cover.
If the "Agreed Value" between me and the insurer is meaningless, then I shouldn't be paying more on my premium.
I believe this is the crux of the problem.

 

[Northern Star]

Just done my renewal with MS Amlin and all sorted on-line for £219 a year with no survey required on a 35 ft steel boat from 1986 that Towergate and GJW were insisting on even though the boat has never been off the Thames and was checked three years ago!

 

[Hooligan]

I agree with JRudge here. And i think Hurricane has also hit the nail on the head re comment on Agreed Value. Perhaps worth adding my experience as i effectively had a loss that could be defined as total. The first thing that happens is you get a loss adjuster. This is now the most important person in your life. In my case the LA first tried to figure out whether this was self inflicted ie given the damage was so great had i done it on purpose. When he was satisfied re this the next most important thing was a complete history of the boat ie maintenance etc etc. The fire precautions also were asked for - my issue was an electrical fire. I can absolutely guarantee that had they decided to write my boat off rather than fix it, then we would have had a discussion that surrounded replacement value of a new boat of equivalent standing. So lets say insured value was 400k and replacement value was 375k, i would have been having a huge argument. I think one would then start to have the argument re the extra work etc etc and maybe you win out but I believe that ultimately this is the debate you will have. I think in the end what saved me was the fact that I keep every bill electronically and I literally replied by return to every question he asked by forwarding all records. He said no one had ever done this. This then poses a question mark for those who do their own maintenance - i don’t so not an issue for me. My suggestion to those that do is to keep every scrap of evidence that you can that you have done what you have done - oil receipts, even photos perhaps. I may be wrong but i am sure that if i had gone back and said i did it all myself and had no maintenance bill this would have lead to more debate. At the end of the day no document is perfect and so this boils down to a few simple things - the loss adjuster attitude (and yours to him/her), records that show that you have done what you should have been doing and then a negotiation with the underwriter (not broker). Sorry if this is all well know to all and boring but this is my experience and not one I had planned for. If you also recall the fate of Dustywings who lost his boat overboard and how long it took him on what frankly was a cut and dry case - the boat fell off the ship, then it is never as straightforward as it seems. that said I do not believe that insurers try to rip anyone off. they just do not want to put you in a better boat than the one you lost. And I can hand on heart say that in my case Amlins were very very good and fair in their response.

 

[jrudge]

OK let me make an example.
Virtually all the second hand P67s have vac toilets.
You and I know that these are (as previously described) "the work of the devil".
And I think that both of us wouldn't want a boat with vac toilets again.

My boat has electric toilets that I fitted myself.
So, in the event of a total loss, I would want my policy to cover the replacement of the boat and then have enough additional funds to have a contractor to install equivalent toilets to the ones that I have installed. Thus, in this instance, bringing the replacement boat back to the standard of the lost boat.
Both the insurance company and I could easily accept the second hand value and my premium would be calculated accordingly.
But I want my policy to cover more that the replacement - I want it to return the boat to its original state and I am prepared to pay more on the premium in order to have this cover.
If the "Agreed Value" between me and the insurer is meaningless, then I shouldn't be paying more on my premium.
I believe this is the crux of the problem.

They will say a toilet is a toilet.

Take it to the next level. Your boat had 700 hours on it. Re replacement 800. What do you want them to do.

If the old one had a gyro and the new one didn't then fair enough. likewise water maker maybe and so on.

They will just give you money . You find the boat.

 

[TwoHooter]

I suggest that one of the take-aways from this thread is that we should all keep detailed records. Hooligan's post emphasises that.
As already mentioned, I keep our log book as a spreadsheet and record every little thing that happens, good or bad, and I'm thinking of exporting it as a pdf and sending it to the broker/agent at renewal.
I also try and get all invoices sent to me electronically but I think maybe an evening spent photographing old paper invoices (scanning is way too slow) would be time well spent.
I also photograph everything I do and could easily send a loss adjuster a link to my dropbox folder with all the boat maintenance pictures - I have a separate folder for scenery and personal pictures.
I do basic maintenance and some improvement work myself - but I would hope that my records are adequate to prove I have done what I say I have done.
Right now I am kicking myself, it turns out I forgot to photograph the new anodes at the end of the last liftout. All I have is pictures of the old anodes. Duh.

Concerning insured values, does anyone know what happens with collectables? Classic cars for example. Suppose someone buys a classic car at auction and pays the buyer's premium + VAT. If they were to sell it at auction for the same hammer price they might get not much more half their investment back after paying the seller's premium + VAT. Can they insure that car for the total cost? If so and they run short of money surely they have a huge incentive to "lose" the car and claim on their policy?

 

[Hurricane]

They will just give you money . You find the boat.

Thats the deal that I want.
But, as I have said earlier, I don't make insurance claims.
This is all about peace of mind.
And I'm prepared to pay a little extra to be able to replace my pride and joy in the event of a total loss.

 

[Momac]

I have enquired with Saga and they have returned with the same price as previous quotations from 2017 and 2020 (within a couple of pounds).
Saga were more expensive than Y at one time but Y were higher in 2020 by about £25,
Not sure if it works but I have attempted to attach the Saga policy wording.

 

[DavidJ]

Thanks for enclosing your Saga policy.
Didnt like the exclusion
(l) loss, damage, liability or expense arising from such vessel or boat(s) being left unattended off an exposed beach or shore

 

[Seejay]

And so when and where, legally, is the demarcation line between an “exposed” and “unexposed” shore??!

 

[TwoHooter]

That's a dreadful exclusion.
Tie off to a Sea View Yacht Club visitor's buoy (Isle of Wight) and go ashore for lunch. Another boat hits yours and does a lot of damage. It's unattended. It's arguably off an exposed shore. Not covered. Tough.