Boat insurance

Just about to change from Traffords to Y
2002 Sealine S37 in Spain
Traffords £497
Y £415
The only thing that Y was more specific on is:

"loss, damage, liability or expenses arising from the Vessel or other Boat
being left unattended off an exposed beach or shore, unless the
Insured can see the Vessel at all times and can return to the Vessel
within 15 minutes"
I take it that this at anchor and not a fixed buoy.
Is it worth a challenge?
 
Last edited:
DavidJ said:
Just about to change from Traffords to Y
2002 Sealine S37 in Spain
Traffords £497
Y £415
The only think that Y was more specific on is:

"loss, damage, liability or expenses arising from the Vessel or other Boat
being left unattended off an exposed beach or shore, unless the
Insured can see the Vessel at all times and can return to the Vessel
within 15 minutes"
I take it that this at anchor and not a fixed buoy.
Is it worth a challenge?
Click to expand...
Would apply to a buoy as well as anchor imho. Not worth challenging though imho; you gotta be a bit practical here and this is just too small a point and premium imho for the u/writers to be bothered looking at it individually. The Y policy is so much better than Traffords anyway, imho!
 
So current insurance is with GJW but just renewed with Y. Thanks JFM for all the time an effort picking the bones out of the policies..

As a slight aside, at the weekend I removed my old seacocks and was dead certain I was going to replace them with Forespar Marelon but just couldn't bring myself to order 'plastic' skin fittings and seacocks. So was on the phone to a well known supplier and about to order bronze fittings but was persuaded (didn't take much) to buy DZR brass instead, as the bronze seacocks have CW617 brass balls and also the valve shaft and packing body are CW617 brass, which isn't DZR.
Don't know whether it would be an issue but maybe worth checking if you're going to buy bronze that the bit's inside aren't non DZR brass.
 
Final result is that from next month I will be in the Y team, premium was a match for GJW renewal which gives better cover relating to the corrosion issues.
 
Yes certainly makes one think of the power of tinternet forums & it's contributors.
Insurance is all about risk & what level you wish covered! We use GJW & have found them to be excellent people to deal with. We made a claim some years ago & they helped us all the way & we received payment in full for the claim within 10days.
So speak as you find.
MM1
 
Last edited:
mm1 said:
Yes certainly makes one think of the power of tinternet forums & it's contributors.
Insurance is all about risk & what level you wish covered! We use GJW & have found them to be excellent people to deal with. We made a claim some years ago & they helped us all the way & we received payment in full for the claim within 10days.
So speak as you find.
MM1
Click to expand...

I found GJW excellent to do business with but then again my boat hasn't sunk due to corrosion of the seacocks...
 
Deleted User said:
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?
Click to expand...

Mike - a bit late to this thread as its on the MOBO section.

I picked up on this clause in December before my renewal and queried it with Nav and Gen. This was the reply:
(In italics is in the contract)
We will not cover :
- Wear, tear, depreciation or gradual depreciation.
- Loss or damage, resulting from electrolysis, osmosis or like conditions.

They answered:
This means we would not meet the costs of replacing/repairing any part of the insured vessel which failed owing to the action of one of these. It does, however, provide cover for the resulting damage/loss caused by the failure.
The acid test for any clause in any contract is that it must be fair and reasonable. For example : Would it be fair and/or reasonable to expect all seacocks to be dismantled and checked every year ? No, probably not. Would it be fair and reasonable to repudiate a claim for sinking based on a failed seacock ? The answer is, no.
Whilst a regular maintenance programme will almost always protect your vessel, there will always be situations where the loss or damage was not reasonably foreseeable, and in these incidences your Navigators and General policy would be there to support you and get you back in the water.
The overriding concern for all boat owners, and skippers, is to ensure that the vessel they choose to go to sea in should be seaworthy for their own safety and that of their passengers.

We trust the above is helpful and will put your mind at rest with regards to the protection and security provided by our policy.

I have written back to ask them to SAY that in the contract if that is what they mean. Having read this thread over the last hour, it is clear what the additional wording should be along the lines of that mentioned in an earlier thread.


“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.

Anyway - I am waiting for a reply from them on this - reading this thread it seems that any side email is irrelevant to the main contract. (Thanks JFM for your insight)

I am loath to change from Nav and Gen because for a 20 year old rag and stick job, they have the best rig cover which is almost a new for old. I was not at all happy with Pants cover on this (back in 2000) which said the would effectively only pay the life left in the rig - ir a whopping betterment clause. If we had lost the whole rig then they may only have paid 1/4 of the cost of replacement - which was too big a cost for me to stand. I don't know what they do currently.
 
After all this it looks like I will be staying with GJW because Y insurance want a survey report which I think is bonkers on a 10 year old boat, the norm is 20 years for insurance renewals.
 
mm1 said:
Yes certainly makes one think of the power of tinternet forums & it's contributors.
Insurance is all about risk & what level you wish covered! We use GJW & have found them to be excellent people to deal with. We made a claim some years ago & they helped us all the way & we received payment in full for the claim within 10days.
So speak as you find.
MM1
Click to expand...
Just in case there is any doubt over it, I want to emphasise that I'm speaking as I find. I personally worked at length on Seahope's case and the Scuttlebutt posters' case (they want to be anon). I have all the correspondence first hand from big name insurers and claims handlers refusing to pay for the whole boat sinking when the seacock fizzed, using the same corrosion clause that is in GJW's policy. I also have all the correspondence with both levels of the Ombudsman process, where the Ombudsman supported the insurers in refusing to pay out for loss resulting from corrosion

And I've always said that insurers pay out small claims with no quibble - I bet your GJW history involves a small claim

Just saying; just speaking as I find.
 
volvopaul said:
After all this it looks like I will be staying with GJW because Y insurance want a survey report which I think is bonkers on a 10 year old boat, the norm is 20 years for insurance renewals.
Click to expand...

Paul, have you something unusual? I renewed with Y today and Sue specifically said they didn't require a survey. Our boat is 13 years old. Maybe something to do with value?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

steved
Original boat paperwork
2
Replies
30
Views
924
steved
steved
Frogmogman
My next boat.
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
fredrussell
F

Share this page

Top