Do all insurers require a survey?

[rob2]

Strange isn't it? When I bought my first house, the "surveyor" must have only slowed the car momentarily, 'cause the owner asked when he should expect a visit. It never happened but I was charged for a condition survey.

When I bought my boat, the surveyor wasn't too delighted to have me there, but I was three counties from home and wasn't going to spend the day in the pub (getting old, I guess). In the event I had to find half the things he was looking for... The report sounded like a condemnation and made insurance difficult , even though the parting remark was "lovely boat and in good condition, too". I am with Saga (told you I was getting old) who didn't even ask about a survey!

Other experiences with surveyors have not raised them in my estimation. My mate's boat was ashore and undergoing major deck surgery when vandalised, a sledgehammer was put through the main bulkhead and rigging damaged to try to bring the mast down. On the basis of the repairs in progress, the claim was rejected as the boat was not seaworthy!

People who don't do their own maintenance may get good value out of a survey, but I know every part of my boat and there are better things to spend money on.

Rob.

 

[gavin400]

I had my boat surveyed last close season (not for insurance purposes), the report stated quite clearly that there was evidence of extensive osmosis.

I had the boat grit blasted back to the gel coat and found no osmosis whatsoever (the 'blisters' appeared to have merely been in the many coats of antifouling).
The grit blasting removed some loose filling in the gel coat (done at some point in the past by a previous owner - the boat dates from 1970).
I filled, sanded and applied 8 coats of Gelshield 200.

The problem I now have is that I have a survey report which is incorrect - how do I explain to insurance companies or prospective new owners that the survey is wrong?

 

[Tranona]

Two possibilitiers. Explain the work you have done with photos if possible. Get the surveyor back to do moisture readings again, and confirm following the rmedial work there is no sign of osmosis.

 

[Refueler]

Do they ever do that, though? Suppose your rigging fails and you are dis-masted at sea. Obviously something broke, so it wasn't strong enough. Is the insurer going to challenge the seaworthiness of the vessel? No doubt a loss adjuster would be called and no doubt gross negligence could be used to reduce a claim but a vessel that seemed to be in perfectly good order, that had evidence of being maintained? I've not heard of it happening. Has anyone else?

Many moons ago ... I had my previous boat broken into at Havant Quay ... they stripped her of everything they could ... sails, flags, fishing gear etc.
I claimed and with Ins. + Household Contents came to a settlement. The suit of sails was replaced with a Furling gear fwd.

Later the forestay ripped out of deck and boat suffered various damage to pulpit, stemhead, mast etc.

Boat was sitting in a yard in Bembridge awaiting claim to be agreed and work to start on repairs.

Unknown to me ... Ins. Co. sent a Surveyor to assess damage and I received a letter telling me that my Claim was refused and that they also required return of PREVIOUS claim payout otherwise they would prosecute for false claim !!

WOW ... !!!!!!!!

I asked what the hell was going on ... and received reply that they had information that my claim previously was false and that therefore they had right to reclaim, as well as null and void my cover.
They finally stated what the false claim was ( as per THEIR decision) ... I had claimed for sails that boat could not possibly use - Spinnaker. The Surveyor had checked the boat and he could not see how a spinnaker could be used and therefore determined I claimed falsely.

DOUBLE WOW !!!!

Being in the 'game' it didn't take long to find out who the Surveyor was ... I contacted him - much to his surprise and eased out of him the situation.
He had been asked by Ins. Co. to investigate my boat and find any possible item that could be used to refuse the claim based on PREVIOUS claim !! He said that his observations indicated that I would not be able to fly a spinnaker as I did not have uphaul / downhaul gear to operate the pole.

First thing I did was to inform Yard owner that any further trespass on my boat would be dealt with along with his liability of allowing access. Second Ins. Co was informed in writing that I was intending to pursue them for wrongful action and I required an apology and re-instatement of claim immediately.

Full details were forwarded of method of flying a Spinnaker without 'hauls to refute the Surveyors report.

I also offered a Joint Surveyor inspection to clear away any possible questions .. which they accepted.

So we agreed on a Surveyor who attended the boat, confirmed my details and claim ...

I received then a Total Loss Offer which was way below the market value of the boat. Leaving me with Yard bills and other costs.... and no boat.

I refused the offer and again stated I would pursue them in court. At this Ins. Brokers refused to negotiate anymore and informed me of Underwriters Fax number to deal direct. Insurance Cover was also terminated as of that moment.

I dealt with Underwriter direct who refused to increase settlement above the 50% claim mark, but eventually agreed that I could keep the boat with the settlement.
Before agreeing I checked with Yard that we could repair boat and cover bills with that and they agreed.
Underwriter then got his acceptance from me.

I contacted another Ins. Broker and asked cover ... they wanted to know circumstances of previous cover. I passed them correspondence and details, I hid nothing. They replied that they had no problem giving me straight cover without any loadings or penalties. They basically indicated that this was not first case they had heard of this Broker acting in such way.

it is interesting to note that the First Brokers who gave all the trouble soon stopped trading ... then a little while later started up again with VERY similar name ... same directors etc.

Before anyone asks me to Name and Shame ... I cannot. IPC Magazines were threatened previously when I did Name and Shame, of Legal Action by the Ins. Broker Co. and thread was pulled, I was warned accordingly.


So believe it - Some Ins. Brokers think they can do what they want ... they don't care about you or me ... this one showed clearly that he had no interest in his clients. He was only there to do Underwriters bidding.

 

[Dazedkipper]

Yes, get it surveyed!

Irrespective of whether an insurer requests a survey or not I suggest you should have one for the following reasons. Firstly, it gives you an professional's opinion of the condition of the craft and may highlight deficiences that you have not noticed. More importantly though it is an independent ststement as to the condition of the craft at the time of survey. What this means is that you can prove the soundness of the vessel should you ever need to make a claim. I speak from experience as my ex-insurers never requested a survey but when I had to make a claim they rejected it on the grounds that, without a survey, I could not prove the vessel was sound before the claim! Needless to say I do not insure with them and now have in place a full survey.

 

[rumtoddy1]

Changed to pantaenius 2 years ago when my previous insurer St margarets only told me at the time the renewal request was sent that they required a survey.
Answered a lot of questions with pantaenius and they covered me straight away.
Yes they may charge a bit more but having now been with them for 3 years they now have extended my cruising grounds to belgiu, Holland etc free of charge. St Margarets used to charge every year for a 2 week extension

 

[Manuel]

Irrespective of whether an insurer requests a survey or not I suggest you should have one for the following reasons. Firstly, it gives you an professional's opinion of the condition of the craft.

Can you define or describe 'professional' in the context of a yacht surveyor, on a pan-European basis?

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Can you define or describe 'professional' in the context of a yacht surveyor, on a pan-European basis?

One whom the local yotties recommend!

 

[Manuel]

One whom the local yotties recommend!

Yes, that's probably as good a definition as any. What we'd really like is a proper qualification, preferably with international recognition, that justifies the massive hourly rates charged. These people charge as much as a doctor, surgeon, or in some case, almost as much as a dentist! It is astonishing that there is no proper qualification. I looked at becoming a surveyor some years ago and was offered a few courses open to anyone from a few weeks at a cost of a few hundreds of pounds to a month or so and a few thousands. But it is clearly impossible to give anyone the depth and experience they need in such a short time particularly if there is no previous engineering or mechanical background. It is a confidence trick. Both the novice surveyor (who is probably well-meaning and honest) and the customers are the victims.

 

[nct1]

Unless you are a structural marine engineer, or have a new boat, I would ask why you would not want a survey (other than the cost of course).

Sure surveyors vary (as do MOT inspectors), but ultimately it is worth having a good trained engineer check out the boat as experience has shown they do pick up on things the great untrained (myself included) will miss, that could make the difference in an unplanned force 7.

Just a thought.

 

[Manuel]

Unless you are a structural marine engineer, or have a new boat, I would ask why you would not want a survey (other than the cost of course).

Sure surveyors vary (as do MOT inspectors), but ultimately it is worth having a good trained engineer check out the boat as experience has shown they do pick up on things the great untrained (myself included) will miss, that could make the difference in an unplanned force 7.

Just a thought.

Why a "Structural marine engineer"? Would a typical structural marine engineer consider himself, necessarily, qualified to trade as a pleasure yacht surveyor?

What is a "good trained engineer"? Do they differ from 'bad' trained engineers, or untrained engineers? and what qualifications do the 'good' ones get? Surely the question is "how does one know that the 'surveyor' is properly qualified and experienced to advise?"

 

[Tranona]

Can you define or describe 'professional' in the context of a yacht surveyor, on a pan-European basis?

It is difficult enough to get agreement on what is "professional" in far more important contexts than yacht surveying. For big ship surveying there are requirements to be accepted by classification bodies.

However small boats are so diverse and needs of clients equally variable which makes it difficult to define what is needed. People get into the business through many different routes and stand or fall on their ability to get repeat business and avoid claims!

As to their fees, like so many "professional" people who earn their living doing one off reports for individual clients, what you see of the inspection is about 25-30% of the work actually done in providing you with a report. Nobody gets rich out of yacht surveying. If you can do 100 private surveys a year you are doing well. Each one of those private clients needs finding, discussion of the brief, the actual inspection, typically including travel taking a day and a day writing up the report and then dealing with client queries.

Compare the income you get from that sort of regime, out of which you have to pay all your own expenses, professional indenmity insurance, training and updating etc - never mind the taxman! with what a well qualified person can earn in a salaried position.

So, why do people do it? Some do it part time as they have other income, some do it to gain experience, most do it because it is a pleasant way of earning a reasonable living and most clients are delightful people to deal with.

 

[dovekie]

Surveyors / insurance etc

What an interesting discussion - and the variety of views and experiences will allow us all to defend our own current decisions.

I am struck by the high cost of insurance, the uncertainty that insurers will actually pay out on proper claims, the varied cost of surveyors, and the varied worth of what they report.

Having read it all, I'm sure many surveyors could educate me on some aspects of my (elderly) boat and I may one day seek their help. Meanwhile I'll stick with third party only insurance. If it sinks, so be it. Cumulative savings to date far exceed the value of the boat.

 

[nct1]

Why a "Structural marine engineer"? Would a typical structural marine engineer consider himself, necessarily, qualified to trade as a pleasure yacht surveyor?

What is a "good trained engineer"? Do they differ from 'bad' trained engineers, or untrained engineers? and what qualifications do the 'good' ones get? Surely the question is "how does one know that the 'surveyor' is properly qualified and experienced to advise?"

Why not a Structural marine engineer ? i.e. a marine engineer that understands the structural design, maintenance and the weak points of pleasure craft.

In the context of the original post, I am suggesting that many of us on older boats are tempting fate trying to dodge an independent review by someone who knows what they are doing, sometimes because we try to ignore things we should really be fixing, but mostly because we are simply not aware of what to look for in the first place.

A "good trained engineer", well that is easy", my experience has been that an experienced marine engineer who then trained as a surveyor was able to provide a lot more useful information than a pure surveyor who appeared to be more interested in covering his "you know what". So I would class him as a "good trained engineer"

There are good and bad MOT inspectors, but overall we are better off with a process that regularly reviews the integrity of vehicles, than if we did not have it, and it would be laughable to reject the MOT process on the basis of a bad experience with an inspector.

So I re-iterate my original point, unless you happen to be qualified to fully check your boat out, owners of older boats should see the survey carried out by a good trained engineer (with survey qualifications) as a necessity rather than an imposition IMHO.

 

[oldharry]

Meanwhile I'll stick with third party only insurance. If it sinks, so be it.

Yes, and if it sinks in the middle of the fairway and causes an obstruction you will have to either remove it, or pay the local harbour authority to do it for you. Or they will do it anyway and send you the bill. And divers and lifting tackle along with support boats, tug to remove the wreck once it has been lifted, storage and subsequent disposal of the derelict could all add up to a good few £K's.

Fine if you are willing and able to accept the risk - but a worthwhile saving? Not IMHO.

 

[paulstevens]

It's actually easy

NEVER:

1. Employ a surveyor without getting lots of local recommendation.
2. Employ a surveyor who gets most of his work from Insurance companies trying to minimise claims, he has sold his soul. So ask him on the phone.

If you aren't happy with the fee quoted then shop around. I lose loads of business because i quote a fee sufficient to give me time to do the job properly. Younger. more hungry, (but equally proficient) folk may quote less.

If you are affronted by your insurers demanding surveys then lobby hard to change the system. There are certainly many here capable of self certification.

There are hundreds of **** surveyors out there, so boycott them by doing 1. above.

 

[Avalon]

My "third party only" insurance includes up to £50K wreck removal. Should be enough.

 

[agurney]

...
I know of one case where the lady needed to sell her modern BenJan yacht after a divorce. She was an experienced yachtswoman and was not using the yacht but she put a couple of Camping Gaz cylinders in one of the deck lockers, in harbour, while sorting her things out to move off the boat. The surveyor saw the cylinders there and declared that she had an illegal gas locker. .. .

Similar experience. Midwinter ashore I emptied my eternal lockers, including the outboard's empty petrol can, into the cabin so the surveyor could have maximum access ... and ended up with a warning about the safety problems of having a fuel can inboard!

 

[Refueler]

I had my boat surveyed last close season (not for insurance purposes), the report stated quite clearly that there was evidence of extensive osmosis.

I had the boat grit blasted back to the gel coat and found no osmosis whatsoever (the 'blisters' appeared to have merely been in the many coats of antifouling).
The grit blasting removed some loose filling in the gel coat (done at some point in the past by a previous owner - the boat dates from 1970).
I filled, sanded and applied 8 coats of Gelshield 200.

The problem I now have is that I have a survey report which is incorrect - how do I explain to insurance companies or prospective new owners that the survey is wrong?

Do you have records of the blasting and purchase of the Gelshield ? Do you have photos of the work undertaken ? Can you get a letter from blaster saying he did the work or the hire co. who hired the blaster - a receipt for rhe rental ? All these indicate work done and should be accepted.

 

[Refueler]

You can get third party insurance from the Basic Boat Liability Company without a survey. You can buy the insurance online (www.basic-boat.com). The insurance is underwritten by Royal and Sun Alliance plc.

This is how I insure my boat, as I resent the requirement to have an expensive survey every few years which would only tell me a fraction of what I already know after owning the boat for some twenty years and sailing her for many thousands of miles.

By insuring my boat in this way I have saved myself many thousands of pounds over the years which can be spent on maintaining the boat and upgrading equipment when necessary.

If I smash up or lose my boat myself, I will have to pay for the repairs - or not have a boat. I would accept that as my punishment for being careless - or unlucky.

BBL is with you - not the boat. Where do you state boat name or model ? I was very happy with BBL when I kept boat in UK.

I was told by various and Brokers that BBL was not accepted by Marina's / Clubs due to lack of Wreck Recovery Cover .... NOT true. BBL does have Wreck Recovery Cover and is suitable for any marina etc.
I was sorry that they couldn't cover me out here but I'm outside their geographical region. I therefore went with Nautima, Germany who's cover also is without survey BUT is for the boat and it's actions.