lanerboy
Well-Known Member
that's not what they told me !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would be interested to hear of their reply Gary. I was only speaking a couple of weeks ago to the chap who runs their out of hours claim line and who is their claims assessor. His opinion is that if a vessel should sink due to failure of a seacock, the liability to reinstate the boat would be met with the exception of the seacock itself.
Would you mind elaborating a bit jhr? What loss/incident did they not pay out on?
Go figure!We will not cover... damage resulting ..., It does provide cover for the resulting damage
Well, several big names insurers have done just that to posters on these very forums, and upon appeal to the Ombudsman they won on that point. That is first hand not urban myth - I have the files right here next to me showing this.Would it be fair and/or reasonable to repudiate a claim for sinking based purely on a failed seacock? No
Sent an e-mail to current insurer today & was not impressed with the response, which I will not publish apart from this bit " Sinking per se is not an insured peril" which made me laugh, it being a boat & all that, so will be going with HKJ in the next few days when I get time, no hurry as she is out of the water at the moment, & that is fully covered lol.
Thanks to JFM again for all your work on this.
I wouldn't count on HKJ paying out if boat sinks, I know someone who suffered a flooded engine bay while boat was winterised afloat and they don't want to help at all, they wouldn't even send a surveyor to asses why boat sunk, the boat was purchase a few months earlier, was surveyed and recommended repairs carried out. The premium has been paid up to date for last couple of years while this has been ongoing and boat is on hard standing. With this in mind I would be very careful with HKJ.
More details, why are they refusing.
More details, why are they refusing.
Maybe it was insured with another company?
Having just looked at the last six pages and no doubt more to follow including other insurance entries it crossed my mind to look at Pantaenius policy.
Without looking in depth the Insurers are not fully shown which is a touch sneaky in my humble opinion .Ace European are listed as the lead underwriter with the policy overall written by a group of European Insurers has any one asked Pantaenius who precisely these companies are and for access to relevant financials?
For all we know a % of risk could be underwritten by an insurer that operates out of the salt mines.
I would not be happy with that.
Having just looked at the last six pages and no doubt more to follow including other insurance entries it crossed my mind to look at Pantaenius policy.
Without looking in depth the Insurers are not fully shown which is a touch sneaky in my humble opinion .Ace European are listed as the lead underwriter with the policy overall written by a group of European Insurers has any one asked Pantaenius who precisely these companies are and for access to relevant financials?
For all we know a % of risk could be underwritten by an insurer that operates out of the salt mines.
I would not be happy with that.
Well I suppose you get what you pay for.
I'm sure for less cover you can get a lower premium.
Why not go the whole hog and save £318 by just not insuring - after all you dudnt claim last year.
£300 odd doesn't sound like much for a years fully comp insurance - how much cheaper do you expect it to be?