Boat insurance renewal - I'm a bit miffed

[Angele]

My boat insurance is due for renewal on 1 April.

I got an email from my existing insurance broker on 5 March with details for the renewal. Same premium as last year, so I just added it to the "to do" list rather than action it immediately - no point in handing over the money earlier than I need to.

Yesterday, with less than a week today before my current policy expires, I opened the attachments to the email only to discover that not only is the policy document different, but it is a different underwriter. I got on the 'phone to the broker and they confirmed that, yes, they were placing my business with a different insurer to get the best price (although the premium was simply the same as last year's, rather than lower). I pointed out that their covering email had made no mention of a change in the terms of the policy and, if I had not checked, I might have ended up "renewing" without realising that the cover provided by the new policy was different.

The response was that the cover was the same. Yet, the policy document is totally different. So, overnight I have done a clause by clause comparison of the two policies and the statement of my broker that the cover is identical is blatantly incorrect. There are a couple of significant limitations in cover that I find unacceptable. The list of items for which a reduction in pay-out "new for old" is extended to cover spars, machinery, propeller, batteries and nav equipment. Also, the new policy excludes any claim for "accidental loss of or damage caused solely to Machinery unless ..... the boat and the Machinery are less than five years old". The guy on the other end of the 'phone tried to persuade me that this was (a) standard -total rubbish, since it isn't in my existing policy; and (b) entirely justifiable because why should insurance cover mechanical breakdown (relying on reference to the word "solely"). I pointed out that this exclusion was not restricted to mechanical breakdown, and there must surely be things that could happen that only damaged the "Machinery" and not anything else that was not down to mechanical breakdown.

Anyhow, I have asked them to requote me on the basis of my current insurer, with the existing policy conditions. I don't want to name and shame the broker, since I might still take out a policy through them if the price is right. But, as a plan B I have sent off a request for a quote to Y-yacht, since I have heard good things about them on here.

The main reason for being miffed is the total absence of any mention in the email from the broker that the basis upon which my "renewal" was based was predicated on a different insurer with different (albeit not totally dissimilar) policy terms. :disgust:

Am I just a grumpy OG?

 

[doris]

Very noble of you to give them a second crack. Insurance is a contract of legally defined trust. You can't trust them so why stay.

 

[Talulah]

When i told my existing broker that I was not renewing through themselves they were a bit peeved. In the conversation I cited many of the things that had come up in discussion on the Mobo thread.
One of the things I mentioned was the definition of 'adequately crewed'. What did it mean? It transpired that the previous insurer did not include single handed sailing during the hours of darkness as adequately crewed. The brokers response was they all exclude single handed sailing in the dark. This is not true. "Y" insurance is up to 18 hours single handed. So all those trips I did single handed in the dark from Lymington back to Gosport in the dark when it was just me and the dog were not covered. When was I going to find this out? Only when a claim was turned down.
This highlights why I hate taking out insurance and dealing with insurance companies.
Our dog is insured through Direct Line. A recent claim had various deductions because a) we don't pay for any meals the vet provided whilst the dog was in recovery at the vets b) we cap the amount we reimburse on ....
None of these things do you find out until after a claim.

 

[Angele]

One of the things I mentioned was the definition of 'adequately crewed'. What did it mean? It transpired that the previous insurer did not include single handed sailing during the hours of darkness as adequately crewed. The brokers response was they all exclude single handed sailing in the dark. This is not true. "Y" insurance is up to 18 hours single handed. So all those trips I did single handed in the dark from Lymington back to Gosport in the dark when it was just me and the dog were not covered. When was I going to find this out? Only when a claim was turned down.

My old policy covered me for single handing passages up to 24 hours, so I deduced that this includes night sailing as my geographical coverage doesn't extend to the land of the midnight sun.

One strange thing in the Y-Yacht policy is that passages over 18 hours must have at least two people of board and that all of them must be suitably qualified or experienced to take command. So, I could sail two-up with someone else who is competent, but not three-up if one of them is a novice. A bit silly that, as I have pointed out in my quote request to them.

 

[Stork_III]

This highlights why I hate taking out insurance and dealing with insurance companies.
Our dog is insured through Direct Line. A recent claim had various deductions because a) we don't pay for any meals the vet provided whilst the dog was in recovery at the vets b) we cap the amount we reimburse on ....
None of these things do you find out until after a claim.

Unless you read the policy, key facts page 3 "What is not covered".

 

[longjohnsilver]

Why not phone your existing insurance co and tell them you're thinking of moving. I'd bet that they will give you a more competitive quote with the same terms you have now. And by cutting out your (incompetent) middleman there's an even greater saving to be had.

 

[sailorman]

Why not phone your existing insurance co and tell them you're thinking of moving. I'd bet that they will give you a more competitive quote with the same terms you have now. And by cutting out your (incompetent) middleman there's an even greater saving to be had.

its not necessarily a competitive cover we req, its knowing what we are actually covered for & what we ARE NOT

 

[longjohnsilver]

its not necessarily a competitive cover we req, its knowing what we are actually covered for & what we ARE NOT

Appreciate that, but the OP has stated that he's looked at and examined all the clauses in his existing and proposed insurance contract.

But it is very easy to miss what many would expect to be an industry standard, as evidenced by the long thread on Mobo.

 

[l'escargot]

...The main reason for being miffed is the total absence of any mention in the email from the broker that the basis upon which my "renewal" was based was predicated on a different insurer with different (albeit not totally dissimilar) policy terms. :disgust:

Am I just a grumpy OG?

Did the email not suggest that you check all the details prior to renewal? I insure through a broker and am not surprised if they change me to a different insurer now and again, that is partly the reason that I use a broker - to shop around for me.

 

[Angele]

Did the email not suggest that you check all the details prior to renewal? I insure through a broker and am not surprised if they change me to a different insurer now and again, that is partly the reason that I use a broker - to shop around for me.

In the covering email, not even a hint that things had changed:

Dear Mr XXXXXXX

Re: Vessel: “ANGELE”

We note from our file that your cover falls due for renewal on the 01/04/2014.

The annual premium quoted is GBP xxx.xx, which is inclusive of No Claims Bonus, Insurance Premium Tax and Admin Fee (if applicable), as set out in the attached renewal quotation.

Note the use of the word "renewal". Now, when you open the quotation, it says who the insurer is and that is the first hint that things were different.

If the broker, having shopped around, was recommending a switch of insurer, I would have thought that was a pretty fundamental point and one which I would expect to be highlighted to me.

I have now got a quotation from Y-Yacht and it is marginally less than I am paying at the mo. I'm still waiting for my existing broker to come back to me with a quotation from my existing insurer. But, if they were truthful in their assertion that the reason for moving me to a new insurer was to get the cheapest premium, that is probably now academic.

 

[Richard10002]

With respect - next time you will open and read the attached renewal.

Not saying you shouldn't be miffed, merely that you trust most businesses and people at your peril.

 

[Angele]

With respect - next time you will open and read the attached renewal.

Not saying you shouldn't be miffed, merely that you trust most businesses and people at your peril.

You are right there.

I have read the attached renewal, although admittedly this time I didn't do so until less than a week before the expiry date (giving me relatively little time to sort out alternative arrangements when I discovered that I didn't like what I saw). Next year I will read everything carefully upon receipt.

 

[Angele]

Just taken out my new policy with Y-Yacht.

What efficient service, and a pleasure to do business with them. :encouragement:

....Let's hope it is the same if ever I have to make a claim :ambivalence:

 

[Lucky Duck]

You are right there.

I have read the attached renewal, although admittedly this time I didn't do so until less than a week before the expiry date (giving me relatively little time to sort out alternative arrangements when I discovered that I didn't like what I saw). Next year I will read everything carefully upon receipt.

My renewal invitation was waiting for me when I arrived home today, the very last bullet point (although in bold) noted that there were changes to the policy terms.

A quick read through the booklet gave me the impression it was intended for speed boats and the like (ie not be left unattended on a mooring, etc.)

Unfortunately as I sail short and single handed rather a lot the odd terms in the Y Yacht policy regarding maximum passage length makes me rather wary of changing to them

 

[sailorman]

Just taken out my new policy with Y-Yacht.

What efficient service, and a pleasure to do business with them. :encouragement:

....Let's hope it is the same if ever I have to make a claim :ambivalence:

They monitor YBW posts :angel:

 

[AntarcticPilot]

My broker once recommended an alternative policy. It was substantially cheaper, but although it was from a major insurance company, it read as if the insurers had never seen a boat, never mind understood anything about its use and operation! Needless to say, I stuck with the well-established firm of marine insurers I was with already.

 

[doris]

Unfortunately as I sail short and single handed rather a lot the odd terms in the Y Yacht policy regarding maximum passage length makes me rather wary of changing to them

Try pants then, they are often only marginally more expensive if at all and the solo problem is sorted.

 

[GrahamM376]

Unfortunately, with insurance you don't necessarily get more cover with more expensive policies. The advantage of going through a broker though is that he is supposed to obtain the cover you asked for and if there are deficiencies/loopholes, he can be sued - assuming he's still in business. Go direct to an insurer and the onus is on you to check the detail.

Our insurers, Towergate, have always covered single handed day or night with no crew restrictions and have no exclusions for being left unattended as Pants do. They have now reworded the policy to cover damage due to corrosion/gradual cause, which several haven't.

 

[mcanderson]

I've recommended them before and I will again - Pantaenius.

 

[rotrax]

I've recommended them before and I will again - Pantaenius.

Their quote for my boat was almost three times the amount I was paying, using Bishop Skinner as Broker.

I did get a 10% discount for RNLI membership with BS.