volvopaul
Well-Known Member
All interesting reading , I'm going to give this Y insurance a go for a quote as they cover the reason for this post.
Boat insurance
- Thread starter volvopaul
- Start date
jfm
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I'd take Panataenius every day of the week in prefence to that Allianz policy:
1. Allianz doesn't cover losses "in respect of .. or caused by; wear and tear, deterioration..." That's a different form of wording from several others and there is no express mention of galvanic/electrolytic, and you have (AIUI) the email confirming, so you might be ok on the seacock fizz scenario. It's clearer cut with Pants and the few others who've got on top of this point, imho
2. I don't like the 3P cover for the same reasons I've criticised others and praised Pantaienius and new HKJ
3. Clause 3.B.3 imposes a seaworthiness condition. This is imposed to an extent by statute on all marine insurance policies, and there's nothing one can do about that, but I don't like it being added as a wide contractual term in the way it has been done here. It's too easy to argue that a boat wasn't seaworthy after the event.
3.B.5 is impossible, arguably, for most flybridge boats to comply with. To comply, you need control and monitoring of engine room fire extinguishers at every helm station; many boats have monitoring but I don't recall seeing control at both helms on a production flybridge boat). I expect any prospective customer could get them to relax this term without much effort
Last edited:
Firefly625
Well-Known Member
Quick update, had a query and sent an email to Y last night. This morning before their office opened I had a response from Barrie Sullivan (MD of Y insurance)... Got to say I'm a little staggered at their level of service. Just excellent.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Barrie is an experienced yachtsman & it shows in his dealings with customers
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Sorry for my ignorance but who is Y insurance? Sounds like a good company
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Y Yacht insurance
based in Plymouth
do a search, get an on-line quote, then phone Barrie
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Thanks, I thought I knew most of the insurance cos in boating but I've never heard of Y. Did they used to be called something else before?
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
Barrie is the ex MD of Pants, and has set out on his own (about 3 or 4 years ago IIRC), setting up Y.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
As #88
Barrie went cruising for a while after Pantaenius, then came back & set up Y Yacht Ins.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Thanks just seen the website. Is Y offering the same kind of comprehensive cover as Pants and is Y a broker rather than an insurance co? If Y is a broker, which insurance cos are they using? Just interested as my renewal is coming up soon
sailorman
Well-Known Member
They are a broker & have their own deal / wording with underwriters
as a rough guide my premium is 0.45% of insured value
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
...and yes, their cover is pretty good.... very similar to the Pants policy, and specifically (and what led me to them in the first place), like Pants, have very sensible policy wording on the consequential risk cover which was the basis of this thread.
Firefly625
Well-Known Member
As is mine..
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Thats pretty competitive compared to my existing premium with Nav & Gen. So the question then becomes how come they can offer Pants level of cover but not charge higher Pants premiums? Is Pants a broker as well or are they the actual insurer? Who are Y insuring with to get Pants type cover if it isn't Pants?
pks1702
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Thanks, thats interesting. Actually as a customer you would hope and expect that a broker would be working on your behalf when it came to a claim. One of the reasons I have stuck with my existing broker, Bishop Skinner, and my insurance co, Nav & Gen is that they very efficiently and fairly handled a couple of claims on my behalf many years ago. However, I'm thinking that its time for a change as Nav & Gen have the 'corrosion and electrolysis' clause in their policy whereas Pants and I guess, Y, don't
KevB
Well-Known Member
Well, so far Y have come in considerably cheaper than my current insurance with GJW @ £95 Cheaper. HKJ have quoted £25 more than my current insurance. Just waiting for a reply from Pant but it looks like Y will get my business.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
I've just received my quote from Pants and it is a whopping 50% higher than my existing premium. The insured value of the boat is the same of course but the excess and 3rd party liability limit are also the same as my existing policy so it is difficult to understand why the premium is so much higher. The Pants policy does cover N European waters as well as the Med and of course doesn't have the dreaded blanket electrolysis and corrosion exclusion clause so I was expecting a higher premium but not this high. Difficult one for me this. I recognise that the Pants policy is better but is it worth a 50% hike in premium?
Anyone compared the Y policy and Pants policy in detail?
Anyone compared the Y policy and Pants policy in detail?
burgundyben
Well-Known Member
I think so. Its for each boat owner to decide the level of risk they are prepared to accept.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Depends -if you could fit brand new seacocks every season for less than the 50 % hike ?
