Definition of laid-up?

[Robert Wilson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Searush
I contacted my insurers when I first decided to leave SR in over winter, they weren't bothered, but sent me a schedule that said 12 months in commision. I suppose I ought to tell them I've craned her out this year.

OK, another task for tomorrow.

Dont bother phoning you are covered

I would suggest that a polite call (letter is better) to advise them the boat is out of the water, then a follow-up when it's put back in is a wise way to treat the Insurer. I reckon they react better when they are kept up to date, and it shows the insured is "on the ball".

Even follow-up calls with a confirmatory letter. May be a bit of extra work, but belt-and-braces is best with Insurers. IMHO

 

[sailorman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Searush
I contacted my insurers when I first decided to leave SR in over winter, they weren't bothered, but sent me a schedule that said 12 months in commision. I suppose I ought to tell them I've craned her out this year.

OK, another task for tomorrow.




I would suggest that a polite call (letter is better) to advise them the boat is out of the water, then a follow-up when it's put back in is a wise way to treat the Insurer. I reckon they react better when they are kept up to date, and it shows the insured is "on the ball".

Even follow-up calls with a confirmatory letter. May be a bit of extra work, but belt-and-braces is best with Insurers. IMHO

we are 12 months "In commission" in or out, as long as in the marina.

 

[lw395]

Most insurers want to know the normal location of the boats they cover.
Certainly with a boat on a swinging mooring, they want to know where it is.
You need to check the original proposal form to ensure the 'laid up' location has not been stated as 'ashore'.
If that was the stated intention when the insurance was first taken out, then they may have a case.
Some boats, e.g. wooden ones are very hard to insure laid up afloat.

I would suspect that the insurance co is well aware this is a major claim and that the claimant will challenge their stance.

 

[iain789]

Update

When my friend called the company on Monday, he was blankly told that he was not covered because the boat was afloat. No ifs, no buts, no discussion.

Yesterday he phoned them again, and asked to be put on to a senior person. Without explaining the circumstances, he asked if the company considered his marina a safe place to overwinter a boat. Without hesitation the answer was yes. (It certainly should have been as a couple of hundred boats do just that, and it is about as sheltered as you can get).

Armed with that information, and also with the definition of laid-up above, he then told him about his claim. They still haven't accepted the claim, but have asked him to supply repair estimates and photos of the damage, so perhaps some progress is being made. I hope this is down to some over jealous employee looking for some way to reject a claim, but it has cost my pal some sleepless nights and a lot of anxiety, as there will be several thousand pounds worth of damage (complete rewiring for a start).

I await developments.

 

[wotayottie]

Question is, does anyone know what the marine insurance industry generally defines as laid-up?

There's another question - why bother with anything other than a 12 months afloat / in use policy? Every time I have checked my insurance costs, I've found the price the same whether I have a specified laid up period or not.

 

[awol]

Next problems will be is he insured for consequential damage, damage arising from mechanical failure, slow flooding, or any of the other various exception clauses found in boat policies?

 

[sailorman]

There's another question - why bother with anything other than a 12 months afloat / in use policy? Every time I have checked my insurance costs, I've found the price the same whether I have a specified laid up period or not.

its all to do with exposed / unattended moorings over winter

 

[sailorman]

Next problems will be is he insured for consequential damage, damage arising from mechanical failure, slow flooding, or any of the other various exception clauses found in boat policies?

There are times when cheap insurance isn't worth it
or come to that being under insured

 

[NormanS]

There's another question - why bother with anything other than a 12 months afloat / in use policy? Every time I have checked my insurance costs, I've found the price the same whether I have a specified laid up period or not.

You will probably find that if your boat is normally on a swinging mooring, the insurance company want you to be either "Laid up", or in a marina berth. That is what mine tells me.

 

[wotayottie]

You will probably find that if your boat is normally on a swinging mooring, the insurance company want you to be either "Laid up", or in a marina berth. That is what mine tells me.

Mine is on a swinger during the summer and a pontoon during the winter. Before that is was on a river mooring all year and no issue. As a result I 've had it on 12 months in service insurance all along not least to keep flexibility for the years when I did take it out in winter

 

[wotayottie]

Next problems will be is he insured for consequential damage, damage arising from mechanical failure, slow flooding, or any of the other various exception clauses found in boat policies?

Got to say that sea cock failure doesnt come under my definition of accident so much as poor maintenance. He might get away with it but he will be lucky if he does. Insurance doesnt cover neglect.

 

[sailorman]

Got to say that sea cock failure doesnt come under my definition of accident so much as poor maintenance. He might get away with it but he will be lucky if he does. Insurance doesnt cover neglect.

nobody mentioned neglect so far

 

[lw395]

Got to say that sea cock failure doesnt come under my definition of accident so much as poor maintenance. He might get away with it but he will be lucky if he does. Insurance doesnt cover neglect.

Failure of a seacock or skin fitting could be caused by old age and corrosion.
Or it could be a defect in the parts fitted.
Or an error in the way they were fitted.
Or damage, e.g. mechanic winterising engine.
Or by an electrical fault on the yacht or on the pontoon.

 

[mainsail1]

As someone who dealt with insurance claims for over 20 years I can assure you that most accidents are really due to negligence of some kind and if Insurance Companies did not pay this type of claim they would pay very few claims!
If your boat has been reasonably maintained and the damage was not deliberate on your part, a claim for damage resulting from a seacock failure is covered under all such policies that I know of.
Turning to the 'Laid up' issue, if the policy definition does not specifically say that 'laid up' means 'ashore' you should be covered.

 

[bitbaltic]

There's another question - why bother with anything other than a 12 months afloat / in use policy? Every time I have checked my insurance costs, I've found the price the same whether I have a specified laid up period or not.

Excellent point.

Mine's marina based with 12 month in commission insurance. That covers her to be either ashore (in the marina) or afloat, as I choose. Presumably because 'in commission' attracts more risk than laid up in any form.

I don't know but suspect that policies which specify a period of laying up (however it is done) are likely to be offered to owners of boats kept on swinging moorings etc. all the evidence here is that marine insurance premiums are quite low with respect to house/car/common or garden insurance. Is it possible that 12 months in commission insurance can be negotiated on an exposed mooring for relatively little extra premium?

 

[savageseadog]

As someone who dealt with insurance claims for over 20 years I can assure you that most accidents are really due to negligence of some kind and if Insurance Companies did not pay this type of claim they would pay very few claims!
If your boat has been reasonably maintained and the damage was not deliberate on your part, a claim for damage resulting from a seacock failure is covered under all such policies that I know of.
Turning to the 'Laid up' issue, if the policy definition does not specifically say that 'laid up' means 'ashore' you should be covered.

Indeed, many claims are negligence. What isn't covered usually, is gross negligence.

 

[sailorman]

As someone who dealt with insurance claims for over 20 years I can assure you that most accidents are really due to negligence of some kind and if Insurance Companies did not pay this type of claim they would pay very few claims!
If your boat has been reasonably maintained and the damage was not deliberate on your part, a claim for damage resulting from a seacock failure is covered under all such policies that I know of.
Turning to the 'Laid up' issue, if the policy definition does not specifically say that 'laid up' means 'ashore' you should be covered.

That is no different for car ins is it. These days its always "somebody's" fault

 

[DAKA]

As someone who dealt with insurance claims for over 20 years I can assure you that most accidents are really due to negligence of some kind and if Insurance Companies did not pay this type of claim they would pay very few claims!
If your boat has been reasonably maintained and the damage was not deliberate on your part, a claim for damage resulting from a seacock failure is covered under all such policies that I know of.
Turning to the 'Laid up' issue, if the policy definition does not specifically say that 'laid up' means 'ashore' you should be covered.

There is a huge difference between say negligently dropping a sledge hammer on a seacock, snapping it off which is an accident and will be covered under the accidental damage section, against say negligently not checking the seacock once a year for corrosion and depending on type of material negligently not routinely exchanging it (brass), if the seacock is brass or unstamped and hasnt been changed for years then there could be a problem as others have stated. Electrolysis which destroys brass is excluded under most policies . A Broker might attempt to get you paid out on your claim less the value of the seacock. Good luck.

 

[wazza]

Our policy actually states that the boat must be laid up ashore between certain months.. always good to check the smallprint.

 

[mainsail1]

Insurance policies such as this pay for loss or damage caused by an event. In this case, the event is that the stopcock failed and damage was then caused to other bits of the boat by water.
Getting technical for a moment, the thing which caused the event is not paid for by the Insurance but the damage that is caused to other bits of the boat is paid for.
Now, in practice, the item that caused the problem is often so insignificant in cost compared to the claim that the Insurance company just includes it anyway.
An insurance company will not start arguing the toss about the level of maintenance unless it is VERY obviously poor. Turning down a claim because you have not inspected your stopcocks annually is not going to happen unless it actually states this as a requirement in the policy.
Many years of dealing with claims has made me conclude that the vast majority of Insurance companies pay valid claims without a problem and that that they are not looking for tricks that can allow them to avoid paying their customer.