Boat insurance

longjohnsilver said:
This is what GJW said to me last November:

We are aware that concern has been expressed by some of our Policyholders as to certain exclusions contained in your Policy of Insurance and we wish to put your mind at rest.

Your policy does not cover physical loss or damage to the vessel caused by “wear, tear …. corrosion …” and although similar exclusions appear in other policies in the Yacht insurance market, the precise terms vary.

It is not and has never been our intention to avoid payment of claims where “wear, tear…corrosion…” could not have been identified by proper maintenance.

You can rest assured that we would never damage our good reputation of which we are justly proud by taking unfair points against our Insured.


Kind regards


Kevin Williams
Underwriting Administrator
Click to expand...


So why havent they changed their policy wording since you received that confirmation
 
We left Pants this year,due clause requiring visit to boat every 28days.We are based in Spain
not due back till February and I said I would then put in place a log of visits by third party similar
to what I have implemented at home.
After about 10 days I had to chase for a response,not what I expected from Pants!
They said no!
So moved to Y yachts.(ex pants uk boss)
 
longjohnsilver said:
This is what GJW said to me last November:

We are aware that concern has been expressed by some of our Policyholders as to certain exclusions contained in your Policy of Insurance and we wish to put your mind at rest.

Your policy does not cover physical loss or damage to the vessel caused by “wear, tear …. corrosion …” and although similar exclusions appear in other policies in the Yacht insurance market, the precise terms vary.

It is not and has never been our intention to avoid payment of claims where “wear, tear…corrosion…” could not have been identified by proper maintenance.

You can rest assured that we would never damage our good reputation of which we are justly proud by taking unfair points against our Insured.


Kind regards


Kevin Williams
Underwriting Administrator
Click to expand...
And as expl in prev thread that email isn't worth the electrons it's written on IMHO :)
 
jfm said:
And as expl in prev thread that email isn't worth the electrons it's written on IMHO :)
Click to expand...
+1

You are signing up to the insurance T&C's.

If their meaning is different to the terms, then the ONLY correct course of action is to vary those terms on the policy.

You just don't know what the prevailing economic, or market conditions will be at the time of a claim, and good intentions won't hold sway in front of a judge.

Personally, I don't understand why some insurers won't change them*... this subject has been running for 3 years now.

* Presumably, they can't get traction with a common underwriter.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix of Hamble said:
+1

You are signing up to the insurance T&C's.

If their meaning is different to the terms, then the ONLY correct course of action is to vary those terms on the policy.

You just don't know what the prevailing economic, or market conditions will be at the time of a claim, and good intentions won't hold sway in front of a judge.

Personally, I don't understand why some insurers won't change them*... this subject has been running for 3 years now.

* Presumably, they can't get traction with a common underwriter.
Click to expand...

Conversation with underwriter:

Yo, Freddie, we want you to keep the price of this policy down to get market share. How we do it?

U/W: If we remove this class of claims we will be ahead.

Trebles all round
 
benjenbav said:
Conversation with underwriter:

Yo, Freddie, we want you to keep the price of this policy down to get market share. How we do it?

U/W: If we remove this class of claims we will be ahead.

Trebles all round
Click to expand...
Suspect you're right.... but when that 'class of claims' includes a substantial removal of cover for consequential loss, then caveat emptor.
 
Phoenix of Hamble said:
+1

You are signing up to the insurance T&C's.

If their meaning is different to the terms, then the ONLY correct course of action is to vary those terms on the policy.

You just don't know what the prevailing economic, or market conditions will be at the time of a claim, and good intentions won't hold sway in front of a judge.

Personally, I don't understand why some insurers won't change them*... this subject has been running for 3 years now.

* Presumably, they can't get traction with a common underwriter.
Click to expand...
100% agreed Phoenix. And of course your first stop will generally be FOS, not a judge, and there a junior will process the case. As regular readers know I've taken 2 cases for forumites whose boats sank/busted where these clauses (corrosion) were directly in point. Both involved life-changing £££ amounts. Insurers refused to pay under the corrosion exclusion clauses, and in one case both levels of the FOS agreed with insurers. Please, nobody read these clauses and think "i'll be ok" or "Insurers will be nice if I make a big claim". Do as Phoenix says and get a written policy that covers the typical range of risks a boater faces.

We won both the 2 forumite cases 100% plus interest BTW, but by clever footwork and not by winning the argument on the meaning of these clauses

BTW Phoenix, sadly one of the reasons insurers are slow to change policies is the friction in doing so. They have to rewrite the policy, then the key facts, then the communication to renewers about the changes, and get lawyers approval of every sentence. You can imagine. Tis a shame, and a bit of a crummy excuse often, but that's part of the story. Hey ho. If enough customers make them do it and they choose to seize the market opportunity, they can bite the bullet and change the policy, as HKJ have done
 
Thanks VP for raising this subject again. I completely missed Lanerboy's thread from last year. I have been with Navigators & General for a long time largely because some years ago they were very fair in settling 2 claims one of which was actually caused by a corrosion related issue. However I have just checked the wording of my current Navigators and General policy and there is quite clearly an exclusion for "loss or damage resulting from electrolysis, osmosis or like conditions". Whether there was or not when I made that claim many years ago, I don't know but that's immaterial now. I will be telling my broker that I won't be renewing with N & G again because of this unless they change their policy document between now and my renewal date in June. I'm guessing of course that they won't so my question to forumites including the estimable Mr jfm is apart from Pantanius and HKJ, which other insurers do not have this kind of exclusion cause in their policy?
 
Deleted User said:
which other insurers do not have this kind of exclusion cause in their policy?
Click to expand...
I can't think of any Deleted User except for Y (see my last para about Y). And btw I think you're doing the smart thing in avoiding this potential problem - I speak from the still quite recent experience of the two posters on here who got caught out by this very clause and had the fun sucked out of their boating

If you choose pants, which is an excellent policy imho, just remember the "inspect @28 days" point someone raised recently. Of no interest to a Mr weekly boater like me, but might affect you in winter. I suppose you have a oerson who can email you every couple of weeks saying "Boat checked ok".

If you choose HKJ, on a big £m boat/experienced user case such as you, ask for a tweak to the corrosion clause, which I understand they will give. As written, it contains language to protect HKJ from the slapdash boat maintenance that they sometimes see in the small-boat end of the market (which they target) Pantaenius language is ok - they don't serve that market segment.

What you want I think is the total deletion of current 4.10 and replacement by "4.10 wear and tear, or weathering". As an explanation, the words "wear and tear or weathering" are plucked straight from HKJ's own definition of Gradual Deterioration, and so the effect of my suggested amendment is that you get rid of just the electrolysis/corrosion stuff but leave in the wear and tear stuff which of course should be excluded. My understanding is that HKJ will do this for your class of boat+experience so as to compete credibly with Pants in that market segment, but I cannot be sure, and it's their choice of course. Give it a try! Just to be clear, I accept that HKJ need their standardised 4.10 for the market sector they cover, but personally I would never buy the policy (or recommend it for a boat with significant value) unless the modification I've described were made. HKJ know this - we have discussed at some length

Docs here http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Haven_All_risk-rev-2.pdf

As regards Y, my understanding is that they will write a policy now using the current HKJ language, which on a boat like yours is good if you get the 4.10 modification, but as of about April 2015 they will have new clauses that might be better than HKJ's and suitable for bigger boats like your Freti. Dunno when your renewal date is - mine is May 2015 helpfully!

BTW, I find HKJ, Y and Pantaenius folks universally nice and professional to deal with, through the whole organisation top to bottom, so on that general front I recommend those 3.
 
Last edited:
I'm insured with Pants. Post #22 stated that pants had refused to accept logged third party inspections. So is a visit by the insured in person mandatory?
 
Would accept 3rd party visit but would not agree to wait till i visit the boat and made arrangement
in February.My policy expired 8th January.
 
Asm said:
I'm insured with Pants. Post #22 stated that pants had refused to accept logged third party inspections. So is a visit by the insured in person mandatory?
Click to expand...
I think you have misread #22 Asm. The critical word is "then" in the 2nd line. As I read it, Beebok in #22 said to Pants he would put in place inspections starting Feb 2014, and not before, but could he be forgiven for breaching the clause in the meantime. Not unreasonably, Pants have said no.

That is NOT a case of Pants saying they will not accept 3rd party inspections and will only accept policy holder inspections, and indeed the clause very clearly does not stipulate policyholder-only inspections. The exclusion clause is this: "[you are not insured for] Sinking resulting from gradual water ingress when the Vessel is left unattended and un-inspected for a period exceeding 28 days". The unattended/uninspected is written in the passive voice

Folks can make up their own minds about this. It doesn't bother me in the slightest because my boat is never untouched for 28 days due to having perma-crew. If you are worried about this clause keep this in mind though:

1. The wording doesn't affect the whole policy. It only affects sinking from gradual ingress, and not for example sudden ingress or fire or storm.

2. I smile at the irony that Pants give unequivocal cover for a fizzing seacock, with the condition of monthly inspection, and then beebok in #22 says he is leaving Pants in protest and has gone to an insurer who (imo) gives very limited/no cover for the fizzing seacock at all, even if you check the boat hourly. I can't be the only person to see the comedy in that can I?
 
Last edited:
If you choose pants, which is an excellent policy imho, just remember the "inspect @28 days" point someone raised recently. Of no interest to a Mr weekly boater like me, but might affect you in winter. I suppose you have a oerson who can email you every couple of weeks saying "Boat checked ok".
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up on that. Yup you're right. Between Oct and April we tend not to see the boat but normally leave it in the hands of a yard. Whether that is sufficient to satisfy the 28 day clause I don't know. However this year I have got somebody looking after the boat in Sardinia permanently so it shouldn't be an issue. I've heard good things about Pants generally from others

What you want I think is the total deletion of current 4.10 and replacement by "4.10 wear and tear, or weathering". As an explanation, the words "wear and tear or weathering" are plucked straight from HKJ's own definition of Gradual Deterioration, and so the effect of my suggested amendment is that you get rid of just the electrolysis/corrosion stuff but leave in the wear and tear stuff which of course should be excluded. My understanding is that HKJ will do this for your class of boat+experience so as to compete credibly with Pants in that market segment, but I cannot be sure, and it's their choice of course. Give it a try! Just to be clear, I accept that HKJ need their standardised 4.10 for the market sector they cover, but personally I would never buy the policy (or recommend it for a boat with significant value) unless the modification I've described were made. HKJ know this - we have discussed at some length

Docs here http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Haven_All_risk-rev-2.pdf
Click to expand...
Thats really useful. Many thanks
 
Thanks for raising this again Paul. I read the last thread started by Lanerboy and made a mental note to check my policy at renewal time (April/May) but Deleted User has answered the question for me as we are with Nav and Gen. Sounds like Pantenius is the one to go for so I'll be getting a quote. Thanks guys :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

steved
Original boat paperwork
2
Replies
30
Views
948
steved
steved
Frogmogman
My next boat.
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
fredrussell
F

Share this page

Top