Corrosion - Towergate Insurance

[Bosun Higgs]

My surveyor said that my rigging should be inspected (and of course the insurance will want it so...) so I've had the mast taken down so I can check it over.

I've found it to be all good for 7 year old stainless standing rigging, I've had a damn good look and wiggle over the entire length and around the swaged fittings on every wire, but will the insurance company accept my word for it?

After all, my fairly specialist engineering qualifications aren't in marine materials, crevice corrosion or work hardening of rolled stainless wire...

Thats impossible to answer. My own insurance company accepted my inspection on my last boat, but then I worked in the steel industry for years and I did check the key areas with a magnifying glass and not just a waggle. In my experience, these decisions often depend as much on how you go about talking to the insurer and the luck of who you get to talk to - likely Sidedrum simply got off on the wrong foot with RSA and the discussion became confrontational. Can happen. Has done to me.

 

[Otter]

All of this has spurred us on to create a proper maintenance record file on paper. We have a routine for checking items but I can see that it would be very helpful in a claim situation to have it - though best kept at home!

 

[langstonelayabout]

All of this has spurred us on to create a proper maintenance record file on paper. We have a routine for checking items but I can see that it would be very helpful in a claim situation to have it - though best kept at home!

Exactly what I've done for my boat, and the companies where I've worked producing project and product as-designed, as-produced, as-delivered and as-maintained statements of buildings, aircraft, electronics systems and software builds...

The $64,000 question is, of course, will the insurers accept my words, skills and records. I guess I'd best get their answer (in writing, of course). Time for an email to N&G.

 

[sailorman]

Exactly what I've done for my boat, and the companies where I've worked producing project and product as-designed, as-produced, as-delivered and as-maintained statements of buildings, aircraft, electronics systems and software builds...

The $64,000 question is, of course, will the insurers accept my words, skills and records. I guess I'd best get their answer (in writing, of course). Time for an email to N&G.

Or check if their "Legal Expenses" cover will support you :sleeping:

 

[GrahamM376]

Have made some more progress with Towergate. Following my finding of a corroded through hull, as outlined in post 25 of this thread http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...eplaces-or-at-least-removed-and-checked/page3
I wrote to Towergate asking if they would have paid out if the boat sank through this defect. Prompt reply this morning from their MD.

Hi Graham

Happy New year to you.

I am back from the London Boat Show where I had the chance to discuss the corrosion issue with various company underwriters.

As stated before, I wish to clarify our intentions relating to claims involving corrosion to exclude the replacement of parts damaged by corrosion but include resultant consequences, unless the loss has resulted from “gross neglect” of the craft.

We are currently working on an acceptable and clear wording.

In your own case, you give a classic example of an otherwise well maintained craft sinking as a result of a defect that was not reasonably detectable by the average owner. There is no doubt whatsoever that any resultant claim would have been fully covered.

I will let you know as soon as we get a draft wording and will welcome your input together with other members of the forum.

Kind regards

Nigel Mills FCII |Chartered Insurance Broker | Managing Director

It's now obvious they have moved away from the blanket exclusion - Loss or Damage due to Corrosion and I will publish their proposed new wording for comment, once received.

 

[langstonelayabout]

Very different to N&G who have put into my policy that they won't cover damage to craft through sinking that occurs due to leaking hull fittings.

Still, I can reinsure somewhere else next summer...

 

[sailorman]

Very different to N&G who have put into my policy that they won't cover damage to craft through sinking that occurs due to leaking hull fittings.

Still, I can reinsure somewhere else next summer...

I would re-insure tomorrow :encouragement:

 

[GrahamM376]

Very different to N&G who have put into my policy that they won't cover damage to craft through sinking that occurs due to leaking hull fittings.

Still, I can reinsure somewhere else next summer...

Do what I have done. I was quite happy about the service I had from Towergate when I made a claim and then Tranona spoiled my day by pointing out the exclusion for loss or damage due to corrosion.

When I contacted them, saying that following bad publicity I and others would be going elsewhere, they have reacted very well in changing the policy terms.
We all need to have a go at insurers and let them know what we want and not just accept their standard terms.

As things stand now, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Towergate.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Hopefully they will do a better job than HKJ who haven't changed their standard terms some 2 years after saying on these forums that they were going to do so in respect of consequential damage from mechanical breakdowns and the like.

Edit - just noticed on the MoBo forum that they issued some revised words yesterday, spooky!

 

[Otter]

I would re-insure tomorrow :encouragement:

Are we OK with Y Yacht on this clause SM?

 

[GrahamM376]

After several months of negotiations, the new policy wording arrived today from Towergate and I would appreciate comments - is it an improvement or am I missing loopholes? Remember, it affects your policy as well if you're insured with Towergate.

The starting point:-

Your insurers will not pay for:
- loss or damage caused by wear and tear;
- loss or damage caused by corrosion;
- loss of value because of age and use;
- loss of value of your boat after it has been repaired;
- the cost of repairing or replacing any part that is lost or damaged because it was faulty;
- the cost of putting right any fault caused by somebody else’s mistake or if they do not finish
any repair work or alterations;
- any damage that is not repaired as well as a total loss in any period of insurance;
- scratching, denting or bruising while your boat is being transported;
- sails split by the wind or blown away while they are set, unless the spars that they are
attached to are damaged at the same time;

I received this this morning:-

Graham

I have attached the revised section of our policy wording which will replace the existing wording for all new and existing policyholders.

The intention is to clarify our position that losses due to corrosion, or any form of gradual deterioration, that could not have been discovered by normal inspection / maintenance would be covered by our insurance policy.

There is a new definition of Gradual Deterioration which is linked to the revised wording (changes in red)

We think this will give protection to responsible owners without opening insurers to claims where the principle cause of the loss is the absence of maintenance.

We are in the process of reprinting our documentation but I can confirm that any new claim received would be viewed in the light of the new wording.

Kind regards

Nigel Mills FCII|Chartered Insurance Broker | Managing Director



Gradual Deterioration

The continuous degradation of Your Boat caused by, wear and tear, rust, rot, oxidation, corrosion, electrolytic or galvanic action, wasting or weathering.

We will not pay for:

Loss or damage caused by:

1.3.7.1 Gradual deterioration, unless the Gradual deterioration could not have been identified by routine inspection and /or prevented by, servicing, maintenance or recommended replacement in accordance with engineers, surveyors or manufacturers advice.;

1.3.7.2 osmosis;

1.3.7.3 Insects, marine borers, barnacles, marine growth, fungi or molluscs;

1.3.7.4 scratching, denting or bruising while Your boat is being transported;

1.3.7.5 sails split by the wind or blown away while hoisted or unfurled, unless the spars that they are attached to are damaged at the same time.

Graham.

 

[sailorman]

Give jfm the heads up

 

[GrahamM376]

Give jfm the heads up

He should see it on the Motor Boat forum.

 

[vyv_cox]

1.3.7.1 Gradual deterioration, unless the Gradual deterioration could not have been identified by routine inspection and /or prevented by, servicing, maintenance or recommended replacement in accordance with engineers, surveyors or manufacturers advice.;

Trying to put this into the context of seacock/skin fittings/hose tail failures. As can be seen regularly on PBO and in my Inbox, it is far from easy to recognise dezincification and even more difficult to identify the seriousness of the condition. In the past fortnight an owner who had carried out the recommended strong heave on the hoses suffered a hose tail fracture only days later. Many of the major builders still supply brass fittings, to which any insurer could reference the Random Harvest findings and throw out a claim. HR's statement on their selection simply says that it is the owner's responsibility to check - but how?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Trying to put this into the context of seacock/skin fittings/hose tail failures. As can be seen regularly on PBO and in my Inbox, it is far from easy to recognise dezincification and even more difficult to identify the seriousness of the condition. In the past fortnight an owner who had carried out the recommended strong heave on the hoses suffered a hose tail fracture only days later. Many of the major builders still supply brass fittings, to which any insurer could reference the Random Harvest findings and throw out a claim. HR's statement on their selection simply says that it is the owner's responsibility to check - but how?

Perhaps the insurers would say that if you can't be sure that your seacock material is in good condition, you should replace them with ones of which you are sure. I think that might be reasonable?

 

[vyv_cox]

Perhaps the insurers would say that if you can't be sure that your seacock material is in good condition, you should replace them with ones of which you are sure. I think that might be reasonable?

It's too vague IMHO. There have been seacock failures in unusual cases in only 2-3 years. So do I buy a new HR, Malo, X-yacht, etc., and immediately replace all the brass seacocks just in case?

 

[JumbleDuck]

It's too vague IMHO. There have been seacock failures in unusual cases in only 2-3 years. So do I buy a new HR, Malo, X-yacht, etc., and immediately replace all the brass seacocks just in case?

Don't the manufacturers say the seacocks they fit are good for five years? If so, I think you should replace them after five years.

 

[GrahamM376]

1.3.7.1 Gradual deterioration, unless the Gradual deterioration could not have been identified by routine inspection and /or prevented by, servicing, maintenance or recommended replacement in accordance with engineers, surveyors or manufacturers advice.;

Trying to put this into the context of seacock/skin fittings/hose tail failures. As can be seen regularly on PBO and in my Inbox, it is far from easy to recognise dezincification and even more difficult to identify the seriousness of the condition. In the past fortnight an owner who had carried out the recommended strong heave on the hoses suffered a hose tail fracture only days later. Many of the major builders still supply brass fittings, to which any insurer could reference the Random Harvest findings and throw out a claim. HR's statement on their selection simply says that it is the owner's responsibility to check - but how?

I put my own case to Nigel Mills recently. My through-hulls passed survey 12 months ago but it was pointed out that as they were 25 years old it would be prudent to replace. This winter, one broke up on removal. Nigel's response was that as all reasonable precautions had been taken by inspecting, they would have paid out if it failed whilst afloat.

Quite what would happen in the case of incorrect materials having been used, I don't know. Will pass your comments on to Towergate.

 

[TradewindSailor]

Graham. Am I right in thinking they have removed "- loss of value of your boat after it has been repaired;". This is Loss of Perceived Value". It all comes down to what you are insuring the boat for.

If you boat is damaged due to negligence of another person you should be entitled to the 'Loss of Perceived Value' in addition to the repair cost as this is the only way you will be placed back into a similar 'financial' position prior to the accident.

If the damage was not the fault of anyone else then I assume it is down to the contract you have with your insurers.

Consider a boat with a value 100,000 which has been severely damaged. Repair quotes range from 65,000 to 75,000. Your insurance company will almost certainly pick the cheapest ..... but the repairs may not be to such a high standard. Either way with such significant repairs the boat will be less desirable than a similar undamaged boat, resulting in an addition loss of perceived value. The loss of perceived value for the cheaper repair may be more than that of the more expensive repair.

If the total losses plus the salvage value is more than the replacement value you should expect a 'total loss' if claiming against a negligent party under English Law. What would you get if making a claim through your insurers? Are you happy with that?

I am not a lawyer, and only have limited personal experience in this type of matter.

 

[GrahamM376]

Defining corrosion and what is or isn't covered has been the sole point of my discussion. JFM has made a valid point on the Motor Boat forum which hasn't been covered - Nigel Mills has confirmed to me in one of his letters that whilst the defective part isn't covered, the consequential loss would be. However, this isn't stated in the amended wording so I've bounced it back to Towergate.

Under the original exclusions, loss of value after repairs wouldn't be paid. That exclusion no longer applies in the new version above. Whether it would be covered under another section, I don't know.

Nigel Mills has been made aware of the threads and maybe he will read them but I have no idea whether he will become involved in answering questions here. I am passing comments to him for clarification but, at the moment only about the area under discussion.

P.S. I also am not an insurance expert either, my previous knowledge was about business cover and airfield & glider insurance policies so I'm learning as I go, hence my request for people to oversee what's going on.