Boat insurance

Greg2 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

I've been waiting two days now for the quote. Wil report back in due course, thanks all for replies so far.
 
volvopaul said:
I've been waiting two days now for the quote. Wil report back in due course, thanks all for replies so far.
Click to expand...

My renewal on the V48 must be a similar time to yours VP, so I have also asked for quotes from HKJ, Y and Pants. I have one from HKJ, waiting for Pants, and have asked Y for their position on corrosion. Y have given an indication of what they'd charge subject to a detailed proposal. Both HJK and Y are cheaper than GJW by a worthwhile margin, so looks like I will be moving.
 
I'm also about to renew my insurance and, of course, this thread is very interesting.

I can report that Premier Marine Insurance/Towergate Mardon (with whom I've insured for 4 years) increased my premium by 25%. No accident, nor claim or even explanation - despite asking their call operators three times. They just said we've decided to apply an increase - perhaps related to the problems listed on this site.

Decided to try Y Insurance and they've been very realistic. Quote is competitive and their terms on latent defects seem clear:

"1 COVER
THE COVER PROVIDED BY THIS INSURANCE IS SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS IN THIS POLICY WORDING AND THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE.
PLEASE NOTE THE PARTICULAR LIMITATIONS RELATING TO MACHINERY
SPECIFICALLY IN CLAUSE 3.13
1.1 The Insured is covered for:
1.1.1 all risks of accidental physical loss or damage to the and/or other
insured property specified in the Certificate of Insurance;
1.1.2 loss or damage caused by Latent Defect in the Vessel (excluding the
cost or expense of repairing or replacing the defective part);"

Obviously I stand to be corrected as there are serious experts on this forum who have always been kind enough to offer their knowledge but this seems about as clear as you can get.

The rest of the terms and condition also seem equal or better.

Awaiting a call from their MD on Monday and hope to finalise insurance then.
 
@kcrane: I'm sure you know this but IMHO the position on corrosion is what the policy says not what some email might say, generally. So I hope you're actually asking them to tweak the wording! (As I am btw. Awaiting an answer. Happy to compare notes)

@Andrew: I'm maybe missing you point, but hardly any of the discussion on here has focussed on latent defect clauses so i'm curious about why you're focussing on them
 
Last edited:
jfm said:
@kcrane: I'm sure you know this but IMHO the position on corrosion is what the policy says not what some email might say, generally. So I hope you're actually asking them to tweak the wording! (As I am btw. Awaiting an answer. Happy to compare notes)

@Andrew: I'm maybe missing you point, but hardly any of the discussion on here has frosted to latent defect clauses so i'm curious about why you're focussing on them
Click to expand...

Confessing now...

I was interpreting latent defects as covering matters such as electrolysis and corrosion. Proper re-reading shows that these are specifically NOT covered in the policy. Perhaps the cover is not as good as I had hoped.
 
Pantenaeus quote can in a around £700 more than I'm paying now , so taking into account the point I have focused on which is electrolysis I'm not sure if pay the extra to cover 4 sea cocks of which are visually good condition . I will be speaking to them next week to try and tweak there quote. I will also look at others for quotes to take to current insurer as I believe like many loyalty to the same company is a thing of the past .
 
volvopaul said:
Pantenaeus quote can in a around £700 more than I'm paying now , so taking into account the point I have focused on which is electrolysis I'm not sure if pay the extra to cover 4 sea cocks of which are visually good condition . I will be speaking to them next week to try and tweak there quote. I will also look at others for quotes to take to current insurer as I believe like many loyalty to the same company is a thing of the past .
Click to expand...

When i got a quote from pantenaeus a couple of years ago it was close to double GJW so didn't change. Now changing boats I have requested a full quote from Y insurance for new boat. should get quote tomorrow, we will see what that's like..
 
jfm said:
@kcrane: I'm sure you know this but IMHO the position on corrosion is what the policy says not what some email might say, generally. So I hope you're actually asking them to tweak the wording! (As I am btw. Awaiting an answer. Happy to compare notes)
Click to expand...

Agreed... and I got a reply detailing the relevant clause:

[3. Exclusions… The insured is not covered for…]
3.4 any loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly arising from:
3.4.1 lack of reasonable maintenance
3.4.2 wear and tear;
3.4.3 gradual deterioration, weathering or damp;
3.4.4 corrosion or electrolysis;
3.4.5 damage caused by insects or marine life;
3.4.6 mechanical breakdown;
3.4.7 accumulation of rainwater or snow in or on the Vessel unless resulting from rare and extreme weather conditions.
However if any of the following causes of loss results from one of the excluded causes under section 3.4 above the Insurer will pay for the resulting direct loss or damage; FIRE, SINKING, SUBMERSION, RIGGING FAILURE, COLLISION OR STRANDING.

I read that as saying they don't cover the damage to a component caused by corrosion or electrolysis, so you can't claim to have a seacock replaced. BUT, if the seacock fails and results in a sinking or submersion, then they will pay out. Do others read that the same way?

PS - like VP my Pants quote is very high, too high to consider given HKJ came in much lower.
 
kcrane said:
Agreed... and I got a reply detailing the relevant clause:

[3. Exclusions… The insured is not covered for…]
3.4 any loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly arising from:
3.4.1 lack of reasonable maintenance
3.4.2 wear and tear;
3.4.3 gradual deterioration, weathering or damp;
3.4.4 corrosion or electrolysis;
3.4.5 damage caused by insects or marine life;
3.4.6 mechanical breakdown;
3.4.7 accumulation of rainwater or snow in or on the Vessel unless resulting from rare and extreme weather conditions.
However if any of the following causes of loss results from one of the excluded causes under section 3.4 above the Insurer will pay for the resulting direct loss or damage; FIRE, SINKING, SUBMERSION, RIGGING FAILURE, COLLISION OR STRANDING.

I read that as saying they don't cover the damage to a component caused by corrosion or electrolysis, so you can't claim to have a seacock replaced. BUT, if the seacock fails and results in a sinking or submersion, then they will pay out. Do others read that the same way?

PS - like VP my Pants quote is very high, too high to consider given HKJ came in much lower.
Click to expand...

[3. Exclusions… The insured is not covered for…]
3.4 any loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly arising from:


3.4.4 corrosion or electrolysis;


So a write off @ your expense & having paid for insurance premium too
 
Last edited:
kcrane said:
I read that as saying they don't cover the damage to a component caused by corrosion or electrolysis, so you can't claim to have a seacock replaced. BUT, if the seacock fails and results in a sinking or submersion, then they will pay out. Do others read that the same way?
Click to expand...
To me that reads like a total contradiction

On the one hand they say

3.4 any loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly arising from

and on the other hand they say

However if any of the following causes of loss results from one of the excluded causes under section 3.4 above the Insurer will pay for the resulting direct loss or damage

I don't know why they haven't just deleted clause 3.4.4 or qualified it to exclude replacement of the failed item itself

Btw I am also waiting for a Pants quote. Do you mind me asking how much more expensive your quote was? No need to quote numbers, just % to give me some idea what I can expect. Thanks
 
Deleted User said:
Btw I am also waiting for a Pants quote. Do you mind me asking how much more expensive your quote was? No need to quote numbers, just % to give me some idea what I can expect. Thanks
Click to expand...

HKJ was 15% less than GJW (who I have been with for 2 years) whilst Pants was 30% higher, so same thing another way, for every £100 that GJW want, HKJ want £85 and Pants want £130.
 
Given that insurance is a balancing act with risk across multiple clients, in general, are YBW forum members likely to be a better risk (they tend to be more knowledgeable, informed, interested) or a worse risk (they tend to use their boats more, push them a bit further)? I am wondering if it would be worth a broker offering a discount through the forum to pull in the extra business?
 
kcrane said:
HKJ was 15% less than GJW (who I have been with for 2 years) whilst Pants was 30% higher, so same thing another way, for every £100 that GJW want, HKJ want £85 and Pants want £130.
Click to expand...
Thanks, 30% is quite a premium but then you only know whether a policy is worth the paper it's written on when you make a claim
 
kcrane said:
Given that insurance is a balancing act with risk across multiple clients, in general, are YBW forum members likely to be a better risk (they tend to be more knowledgeable, informed, interested) or a worse risk (they tend to use their boats more, push them a bit further)? I am wondering if it would be worth a broker offering a discount through the forum to pull in the extra business?
Click to expand...
Good point and possible marketing opportunity for a savvy broker. Btw its also worth asking whether there is any discount for RYA membership or for RYA qualification. Its also worth playing off one insurer against another. I got a few quid off my premium last year by getting a quote from a competitor and threatening to go elsewhere
 
kcrane said:
Given that insurance is a balancing act with risk across multiple clients, in general, are YBW forum members likely to be a better risk (they tend to be more knowledgeable, informed, interested) or a worse risk (they tend to use their boats more, push them a bit further)? I am wondering if it would be worth a broker offering a discount through the forum to pull in the extra business?
Click to expand...
Or, is there a collective bargaining opportunity here for a guaranteed pool of customers?

We could probably gather a pretty substantial group together to negotiate a premium!
 
I must confess I have stuck with GJW. Ten days into our first ever policy with them, we had to make a £2000 claim when we picked up a large rope in the Needles Channel. Wrecked all four props, and had to have bearings replaced in the outdrives. They agreed it instantly, told me to get the work done straight away - all they wanted was a couple of pictures and a copy of the quote and final invoice. To me, that sort of service is worth sticking with, especially after a bad experience with Knox Johnston over a stolen liferaft.
 
nicho said:
I must confess I have stuck with GJW. Ten days into our first ever policy with them, we had to make a £2000 claim when we picked up a large rope in the Needles Channel. Wrecked all four props, and had to have bearings replaced in the outdrives. They agreed it instantly, told me to get the work done straight away - all they wanted was a couple of pictures and a copy of the quote and final invoice. To me, that sort of service is worth sticking with, especially after a bad experience with Knox Johnston over a stolen liferaft.
Click to expand...
jfm has stated all insurers (well most) are very pleased to pay out for small claims, its the "big one" that some baulk at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

steved
Original boat paperwork
2
Replies
30
Views
923
steved
steved
Frogmogman
My next boat.
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
fredrussell
F

Share this page

Top