Boat Insurance - Crew Number Conditions

[Scubadoo]

Hang on a minute. I just looked at GJW docs online 5 mins ago and the clause is still there. Wasn't that very same point - their alleged intention to remove it - discussed on here maybe 6 mths ago? I discussed it privately with their management about a year ago - they asked me by private email what I didn't like about their policy.

Maybe they remove it for those who ask, and dupe everyone else - I don't know.

Generally other insurers with agreed value (Y and Pantaenius for example) insure for agreed value, without the sneaky "but we can give you a second-hand boat instead, worse than the one you lost" clause.

Let's be clear: that crummy clause is still in GJW's policy online as of 5 mins ago and they deserve no praise at all on this point. .

Hi JFM,

I did say either removed or will be removed, as you have said it is still there and is something I will again discuss with them when I look to renew or change insurers in a few months.

This is the actual email after a conversation with them back in early January 2018..."I can advise with regards to Policy Wording Section 2.c(iv) Replacement Option – when the policy wording is re done then this section will be taken out, but we would discuss with you about your preference regarding payment rather than replacement and we have never implied this cause to date"

Good to know about the agreed value with the other insurers, I will keep that in mind with I consider my renewal options, Thanks.

 

[jfm]

Hi JFM,

I did say either removed or will be removed, as you have said it is still there and is something I will again discuss with them when I look to renew or change insurers in a few months.

This is the actual email after a conversation with them back in early January 2018..."I can advise with regards to Policy Wording Section 2.c(iv) Replacement Option – when the policy wording is re done then this section will be taken out, but we would discuss with you about your preference regarding payment rather than replacement and we have never implied this cause to date"

Good to know about the agreed value with the other insurers, I will keep that in mind with I consider my renewal options, Thanks.

Understood - you did indeed say that. Thing is, what use is "will be taken out"? Do they deserve praise, or me lightening up on criticism of their policy, because of this? I don't think so. They have been on this for over a year and still haven't delivered.

As regards the soft promises and "preference", forget it unless the numbers are tiny. Say you buy a new boat £2.5m and 5 years later similar but inferior ones sell at £1.5m. Entirely realistic. If you suffer a total loss there is NO WAY the GJW underwriter will give you a cheque for £2.5m. No way.

That email is carefully worded and don't read into it a meaning that you'd like but which isn't actually there. They promise merely a discussion. Sure, they would "discuss" with you paying you £1.5m rather than handing you an inferior used boat that they're about to buy for £1.5m. But I doubt the discussion on giving you £2.5m will last long.

Once you're arguing over a big number they get heavy/legal (got tee shirt) and they read and apply what has been said with precision. Which of itself is fine by the way, imho.

If you doubt me just reply to their email and ask in relation to "your preference" whether they would pay the £2.5m if that were your preference. Post their reply

Even the agreed value underwriters might wriggle in my example scenario (depending on the detail) but at least you would have some decent ammo and you would only need help (if any) aiming the gun.

 

[Boat2016]

Understood - you did indeed say that. Thing is, what use is "will be taken out"? Do they deserve praise, or me lightening up on criticism of their policy, because of this? I don't think so. They have been on this for over a year and still haven't delivered.

As regards the soft promises and "preference", forget it unless the numbers are tiny. Say you buy a new boat £2.5m and 5 years later similar but inferior ones sell at £1.5m. Entirely realistic. If you suffer a total loss there is NO WAY the GJW underwriter will give you a cheque for £2.5m. No way.

That email is carefully worded and don't read into it a meaning that you'd like but which isn't actually there. They promise merely a discussion. Sure, they would "discuss" with you paying you £1.5m rather than handing you an inferior used boat that they're about to buy for £1.5m. But I doubt the discussion on giving you £2.5m will last long.

Once you're arguing over a big number they get heavy/legal (got tee shirt) and they read and apply what has been said with precision. Which of itself is fine by the way, imho.

If you doubt me just reply to their email and ask in relation to "your preference" whether they would pay the £2.5m if that were your preference. Post their reply

Even the agreed value underwriters might wriggle in my example scenario (depending on the detail) but at least you would have some decent ammo and you would only need help (if any) aiming the gun.

Here is the email I received from GJW, all the insurers I have dealt with and I’m not talking marine here will only pay out market value so if you insure for £2.5 m and a couple of years down the line you had a total loss and market value is then £1.8m that’s all they would pay ? or are you saying with Y you would get the full £2.5m regardless of the age or condition of boat ?

Further to our telephone conversation, I now have pleasure in attaching revised renewal terms as discussed. I have also attached a copy of Plain Language Policy

I can confirm that we will agree to delete the “Replacement Option” under Section 2 of the policy (page 9) . We have never actually used this wording and have taken the decision to remove it in a new policy that is currently being drafted. I further confirm that in the event of a total loss and subject to policy terms and conditions we will pay the sum insured stated on the policy schedule.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me

 

[Portofino]

Yeh there’s normally an agreed value written down . Which for deprecating assists like most boats tends to decrease as the ownership period progresses.
How ever here’s my experience
With the nearly new Sunseeker the re instatment value was the same for the 1 st few years then decreased .
I remember a conversation with the ins Co ,they instigated it about the value and from then on every year we kinda agreed
The premium was adjusted accordingly in my favour .

Then with a Ferrari values were rising by £10-20 K pa , so again a conversation with the underwriter, this time to up the pay out figure and premiums adjustments north to reflect .
In the end it was insured for 2x of my bos .

Back to boats , I have recently up,d the agreed value on the Itama ,with the underwriter s agreement after yet another conversation, and the premium reflects the extra risk .As replacement only 20 hulls are rising in value .

They look at and broadly know market value s .

 

[jfm]

Here is the email I received from GJW, all the insurers I have dealt with and I’m not talking marine here will only pay out market value so if you insure for £2.5 m and a couple of years down the line you had a total loss and market value is then £1.8m that’s all they would pay ? or are you saying with Y you would get the full £2.5m regardless of the age or condition of boat ?

Further to our telephone conversation, I now have pleasure in attaching revised renewal terms as discussed. I have also attached a copy of Plain Language Policy

I can confirm that we will agree to delete the “Replacement Option” under Section 2 of the policy (page 9) . We have never actually used this wording and have taken the decision to remove it in a new policy that is currently being drafted. I further confirm that in the event of a total loss and subject to policy terms and conditions we will pay the sum insured stated on the policy schedule.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me

Shipping insurance is different from life and general. You can lawfully and enforceably insure a ship for an agreed value in the uk but not with a view of profit. Very complex which is why I made the ammo point above.

Good going that you got your GJW policy fixed to bring it up to Pantaenius and Y standards on this particular point. I still see no reason to heap praise on them given that you had to work at it. Their default wording and I expect 99% or whatever of their policies are poor on this point, and in addition their policy has other shortcomings imho that I've listed before so won't repeat here.

 

[Scubadoo]

Understood - you did indeed say that. Thing is, what use is "will be taken out"? Do they deserve praise, or me lightening up on criticism of their policy, because of this? I don't think so. They have been on this for over a year and still haven't delivered.

As regards the soft promises and "preference", forget it unless the numbers are tiny. Say you buy a new boat £2.5m and 5 years later similar but inferior ones sell at £1.5m. Entirely realistic. If you suffer a total loss there is NO WAY the GJW underwriter will give you a cheque for £2.5m. No way.

That email is carefully worded and don't read into it a meaning that you'd like but which isn't actually there. They promise merely a discussion. Sure, they would "discuss" with you paying you £1.5m rather than handing you an inferior used boat that they're about to buy for £1.5m. But I doubt the discussion on giving you £2.5m will last long.

Once you're arguing over a big number they get heavy/legal (got tee shirt) and they read and apply what has been said with precision. Which of itself is fine by the way, imho.

If you doubt me just reply to their email and ask in relation to "your preference" whether they would pay the £2.5m if that were your preference. Post their reply

Even the agreed value underwriters might wriggle in my example scenario (depending on the detail) but at least you would have some decent ammo and you would only need help (if any) aiming the gun.

I don't doubt you, all good information which I will take onboard when I renew, it would be nice to have that £2.5m problem though