Got any questions for a marine insurance boss?

[Rob MBM Editor]

We're doing an interview with a marine insurance boss in MBY.

If you have any general, printable questions you'd like us to put to the bloke, email me at rob_peake@ipcmedia.com

Questions are meant to be fairly pithy so don't hold back.... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Whitelighter]

Ok, here is one I have often asked for an explanation on but never got an answer.

When dealing with vessels left at anchor, a lot of insurance policies stipulate that if the hull speed is below a certain amount (usually 18knts) then the vessel will be insured if left unattended at anchor, but not if the hull speed exceeds this.

My question is this, if the vessel is at anchor, what the hell has the hull speed got to do with the assessed risk?

 

[maybh1]

When trying to negotiate down the cost of our last insurance quote - I mentioned that my husband had Yachtmaster Practical Offshire only to be told that qualifications made no difference to the cost of insurance. Why?

 

[duncan]

" a lot of policies" ?

 

[duncan]

this seems to vary with insurer according to the lengthy thread a few months ago on scuttlebutt

 

[Whitelighter]

[ QUOTE ]
" a lot of policies" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, the last three i Have had - Bishops SKinner, GJW and Mardon (or was it Marsdon?)

 

[jhr]

My car insurance has a 60% no-claims discount, on my boat it's 15% maximum. Why?

 

[duncan]

now you h ad me checking my Mardon Policy wording! - any suggestions where I should look?

it's not anywhere obvious and I have checked in detail now.

there is an optional clause relating to moorings, restricting them to summer use etc but it's not in force in my case and makes no reference whatsover to anchoring.

/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

If I smack the boat into something and claim, its my fault and I expect to lose my no claims. If someone smacks into me and its his fault I expect home to lose his no claims. If someone nicks something from me, and it was as secure as your policy requires then why do I still lose the no claims? Yes, I know that "no claims" may be self explanatory but as the police will do nowt anyway I get stuffed twice. Now if you stated a policy where NC was not lost for theft...

 

[npf1]

Standing rigging - the general rule is that most surveyors and insurance companies want the rigging replaced at 10 years. Is it applied as a blanket rule and under what circumstances will an insurer allow longer?

I think I'm correct in saying that corrosion and stress related fatigue/work hardening of wire are the reasons why this is the case. But, in terms of amount and type of use there's a huge difference in terms of stress or the rigging between the average racer and cruiser.

To provide a specific example, a professional rigging inspection stated 'good as new', over engineered, we know boat was hardly used etc. A few months later, during a periodic insurance survey, the surveyor stated 'looks to be in very good condition' but in his report stated must be changed soon as approaching 10 years. Insurers see comment and insist on change. Rigger says "looks good to me, shame to junk it, but that's boats for ya, it'll be £XXXX". All this seems very ad hoc to me - is it?

 

[fluffc]

Why are ferro boats hard to get insured?

Be interested to know the facts and figures involved in underwriting ferro, and wether the difficulty is because of a perceived risk, or an actual risk based on numbers.

 

[mjkinch1]

When someone hit my boat, the claim was paid, but the comment added by the insurance company that they suspect it was casued by mechanical failure rather than bad driving.

The comment was:

"there is evidence that the incident was caused by a malfunction in the engine controls of our client and therefore, strictly speaking, he was not negligent and neither he not his insurers can legally be held liable. It appears that the defective part had not arisen due to a failure of our insured to maintain his yacht and was simply a failure that could not reasonably have been predicted. Under marine law negligence could not therefore be proven and this would have to have been treated as an unfortunate incident handled by your own insurers."

So basically I would have to claim on my insurance even though they hit me, providing the above can be proven. Is that correct?

 

[duncan]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone hit my boat, the claim was paid, but the comment added by the insurance company that they suspect it was casued by mechanical failure rather than bad driving.

The comment was:

"there is evidence that the incident was caused by a malfunction in the engine controls of our client and therefore, strictly speaking, he was not negligent and neither he not his insurers can legally be held liable. It appears that the defective part had not arisen due to a failure of our insured to maintain his yacht and was simply a failure that could not reasonably have been predicted. Under marine law negligence could not therefore be proven and this would have to have been treated as an unfortunate incident handled by your own insurers."

So basically I would have to claim on my insurance even though they hit me, providing the above can be proven. Is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

yep - you have to be able to prove negligence; see comment recently by G Whelan (RYA Legal) to a thread on here.

 

[mjkinch1]

well good job the same doesnt apply to cars....Luckily the Insurance company paid up, but I hopeI never have to challenge a judgement like that.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

This is interesting. So, if I have an equipment failure and take out another boat, if it isn't insured I can just thumb my nose at him and he can;t do anything about it?

Good job they run car insurance the same way. Brakes failed, so tough luck!

 

[Sneds]

Agree, seems a bit of an unfair get out clause to me!