Beware electrolysis not covered by insurance.

[moondancer]

My boat suffered a leak just before she was hauled out. Spotted low in the water by some kindly folk in the RSA to find her with water about 6 inches deep in the cabin. After bailing her out and being recovered it was clear that water had got in through a seacock.

Not much damage, and could have been a lot worse. In fact restricted to replacing the battery and also all seacocks with an anode and some wiring being replaced. Indeed the estimate from the boat yard being around 1600.

I decided to claim on the insurance - never having claimed before in umpteen years of ownership. Seemed a straightforward claim and the insurance company sent a surveyor.


The surveyor concluded the leak was caused by some electrolysis between the skinfitting riser and the seacock fitting. This was the same view as the boatyard and mine. Very common apparently.

All well and good until the insurance company tell me that electrolysis is excluded from my policy - far too common you see. To be honest I hadn't read the small print.

So a cautionary tale. Check the small print of your policies and double check the connections to your anodes!

I am a bit peeved.

 

[MrCramp]

Who was the insurance policy with? Which underwriter/policy wording and broker?

 

[moondancer]

who they are

The insurers are gjw direct , through polestar in leigh. Not really blaming them as i should have read the policy but it is their standard policy and presumably common to everyone.

I imagine that most skin fitting failures could be put down to electrolysis which is why the risk is excluded.

Pretty down about it as I will have to do the rewiring work myself now.

 

[tillergirl]

I am sorry you suffered this and thank goodness you didn't sink. I know its difficult to be fair to insurance companies as they collect the money and then seem to find ways of avoiding payout but in fairness electrolysis is a maintainance issue and no insurance company pays out for fair wear and tear. It's a bit like saying that if the deck/cabin joint leaks on TG because of lack of attention and rots the deck half beams (been there) I can claim for those repairs. Clearly I can't. If I can demonstrate some accident that caused the leak which went unnoticed then I would be covered - not though I would find it easy to prove that was the cause of the leak.

First item in my policy's list of exclusions: "Wear, tear, gradual deterioration and breakdown" Also in there is 'defective parts causing loss' which makes you think but of course in that cause the owner's claim is against the part manufacturer. The other exclusion is acts of recklessness. I remember with my previous boat when the engine failed tacking out of a narrow creek with too much sail up and no time or space to reef and thinking that I was doing something very silly. I might have been in trouble if I had piled her up. Another point excluded is transit by land, air or sea. So every fourth winter when I have her lifted, the moment the crane lifts me I am on their insurance and then on the short road journey to the yard I am on the lorry's insurance. T'is a minefield, that's sure.

I think your post is a very timely and useful reminder. Funnily enough I did have a poke around my cockpit drain skin fittings from the inside on laying up thinking they had been out of sight quite a while.

 

[MrCramp]

The insurers are gjw direct , through polestar in leigh. QUOTE]

Thanks for the info. I was with GJW and son is with them. Thinking about this I suppose it is a reasonable exclusion but we will both examine our seacocks even more carefully this winter, and perhaps be more inclined to replace after this post. Hope the work dosn't take you too long.

 

[Athene V30]

I know it doesn't help you but I must say GJW were very helpful resolving my situation last year when the (now previous) boat was effectively a constructive loss.

 

[Pye_End]

Insurance should be there for things that go wrong. Imagine if the boat had sunk, and a rather larger salvage bill had to be paid - think you would be more than 'a bit peeved'.

The problem with things like this is that you know what you know, but you don't know what you don't know! I could understand GJW digging their heels in if you find something amiss, know it is a potential big problem, but ignore it none the less. However, if there is a fault and you don't have a clue that it is there (say there are no signs on the fittings, and the last professional survey had no comment to make), then how are you going to know?

GJW used to have a reputaion for paying up when you needed them. Has this now changed?

I find this post all rather worrying.