Heads-up. Craftinsure anchoring exclusion

I've inserted a few comments in colour. By the way, you don't have to agree or believe a word I write. I'm just saying what i think.
CLB said:
Surly they could only give you a manky old reliant robin, if you insured a manky old reliant robin, or something very similar, with them. That is misapplying the metaphor

If you Insured a Jag, you would expect a Jag back [No I wouldn't] and if the condition, miles, service history or optional extras were significantly different [I'm not at all suggesting the old boat and the replacement boat would be significantly different - you are missing my point completely], I would imagine it would be a easy option to turn down, and a case to win if they persisted. If you're happy with that, then go ahead. But if I lose my jag, I want money not a jag. That is entirely my choice, and anyone who wants just a used jag they didnt choose for a new jag they did choose, then go right ahead and choose craftinsure.

I am insured with Craft Insure, so have a genuine interest in this thread. This is the clause in my policy that I think you refer to [yes, that's the clause]:

In the event of total loss or constructive total loss, we will pay £My valuation or at our option, provide a replacement boat of a similar age, size and type.

Just how similar would the boat need to be. It wouldn't be difficult to prove that say, my £100k boat is being replaced with a boat worth only £70k. Boat values, unless a rare or unique boat, are quite easy to find. My central point isn't about how different or similar the replacement boat is, although that is an interesting and quite important sideshow. For sure, the replacement boat can be a bit different. My fundamental point is do you want new-for-old money (the £1m in my example) or are you happy with a second hand boat (worth roughly £600k in my example) that they choose? To state the obvious, that's a £400k difference even if they play nicely and offer you an identical used boat to the one you lost.

Has anyone every fallen foul of this clause? Someone in Holyhead must have been insured with Craft Insure I would have thought. I don't know, but it is a no brainer that they will hand you a £600k boat instead of £1m cash. You'd have to live on a very strange planet to think you'd get £1m. Indeed, they might well offer you £600k cash, using the leverage that this clause in the contract gives them, or they might say "Choose your own second hand boat of same spec and vintage, and we'll pay for it". But that's a £400k hit compared with other policies (using my hypothetical numbers).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OK, I see your point. It does seem based around the fact that you would expect to receive £1m for a boat that may only now be worth £600k, (new for old) but if your insurance company is happy to pay out on that basis, then that is certainly a plus point for that policy. Most of us have bought used, so a new for old policy is probably less relevant.

I would be happy to receive what my boat is currently valued at in the policy, and yes I think I would be happy to receive a (very) similar boat as a replacement, although I doubt they would find one that is similar enough for me to be happy with for less than the insured value of my boat, but that's another matter. I bought well and have insured for a realistic value. All similar boats for sale seem to be around 10-20% higher than my insured value.

Thanks for your input, it has certainly brought this clause to mine, and others, attention and will no doubt factor into the process when renewal comes around.
 
EugeneR said:
Just reviewed my policy with Craftinsure which includes the below exclusion:

"Claims arising from [boat name] being stranded, sunk, swamped or breaking adrift whilst unattended except on a recognised mooring."

Am I correct in reading that to mean that, if I am anchored off Shell Beach or in Newtown Creek, a trip to the pub would leave me uninsured?!

Seems to exclude normal, every day anchor and explore type activity...
Click to expand...

I've had this exclusion on my insurance policies for many years. In asking for a definition, I've always been told they wouldn't tell me until after a claim was made. Seemed like backing a firm horse to me.
 
petem said:
Are you sure? Can you post a link to the policy?
Click to expand...


I,ve been away now I can access the policy That “ line of sight “ business was last year .

One can never be sure until it’s time to claim imho .
Why provide ammo for them to refute a claim unnecessarily?

I had a email exchange with Coleman’s questioning this issue as initially the Amlin based policy was silent on leaving the boat unattended @ anchor.

Not excluded or included, covered either .

So I asked Coleman’s for clarification.
That’s what they wrote back to me in previous years and “ agreed “ after consulting the underwriters .
It’s entirely reasonable for Med use imho .
How ever the latest policy is pretty clear section J 1.10

As others above have inferences similar , you can’t for example in your case visit the Balearic Islands then find the marinas are full then after a family emergency need to rtn to the U.K. so dump the boat unattended in a “ nice “ Cala for what thought was a couple of quick days that ballooned into week or so @ anchor and expect to be covered .
While you are away there’s a total loss and no 3p involved, Er and you did that relying “ on what @Y Claire said “

But I,am only paying approx 1/2 of what Y quoted for the same Amlin based policy .

I was happy with line of sight or no further than 1/2 hr to rtn .
For example visiting Mike F , MarkC ,s and Shane’s boat - or taking the dog to shore ,typical unattended activity.

How ever it seems your hospital scenario is covered , as others can easily operate the boat .
This year it feels improved section J general exclusions 1.10 .
.FE8BB70B-07D2-4171-8010-1FC9552EDD63.jpg

272C1338-98B9-4470-93FA-3D735C744651.jpg

It’s Amil 2001 syndicate based .
It’s ok with the forum insurance gripes namely electrolysis , pay out agreed value and 18 hrs / 24 hrs single handed fwiw .
 
Porto, unless I am mistaken your current policy is underwritten by Amlin whereas I suspect your previous one was underwritten by Zuirch (as is the current Sunseeker Shield / Colemans one). That's why you are seeing completely different exclusions.

One can never be sure until it’s time to claim imho .
Why provide ammo for them to refute a claim unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

As others above have inferences similar , you can’t for example in your case visit the Balearic Islands then find the marinas are full then after a family emergency need to rtn to the U.K. so dump the boat unattended in a “ nice “ Cala for what thought was a couple of quick days that ballooned into week or so @ anchor and expect to be covered .
While you are away there’s a total loss and no 3p involved, Er and you did that relying “ on what @Y Claire said “
Click to expand...

Can you let me know on what legal basis 'Y' or Amlin could refuse the claim if I did what you describe above?
 
petem said:
Can you let me know on what legal basis 'Y' or Amlin could refuse the claim if I did what you describe above?
Click to expand...

No .
Personally I would not get into that scenario despite no seemingly time limit to leaving the boat unattended with Amlins policy .
They could argue leaving the boat unattended for excessive periods at anchor is outside what a normal mariner would do or act like , verging on and transgressing responsible actions .
Sure it’s an accident it’s sunk and been washed away / smashed up in a storm etc while your left it unattended and the Amlin policy says “ all risks “ inc swamping ( if over 17 ft ) .Claire @Y says it’s ok too to leave yours unattended?

But the onus will be on you to bring them to court and make them pay out .

Are you suggesting if folks are happy with the agreed value written in the policy ( the payout ) then rarther than go through the rigmo role of brokers , fender kickers , buyers surveys etc you simply just wait until November and anchor it off shore and walk away and wait for a storm them expect said payout ? Then if successful keep doing over and over agian ?

Depends if “ all risks “ includes reckless behaviour whereby the only outcome is a total loss .
,I don’t know ( one for JFM :encouragement:)

View attachment 76898

Btw I,am still in the line of sight camp and indeed if it’s choppy busy or windy I volunteer to stay aboard on watch duty anyhow .
 
Last edited:
Porto why are you bothering your brain with and posting on here about clauses that clearly say they are relevant only to boats under 17 feet? Your boat is an itama 40 something. Some days this forum feels like a Monty python sketch.
 
jfm said:
Porto why are you bothering your brain with and posting on here about clauses that clearly say they are relevant only to boats under 17 feet? Your boat is an itama 40 something. Some days this forum feels like a Monty python sketch.
Click to expand...

It’s an exclusion , so anything over 17 ft is covered from swamping / sinking if left unattended?
I took it for small open speed boats left on buoys , low freeboard etc that sort of thing .

Have I got that wrong I ask ?
 
Portofino said:
It’s an exclusion , so anything over 17 ft is covered from swamping / sinking if left unattended?
I took it for small open speed boats left on buoys , low freeboard etc that sort of thing .

Have I got that wrong I ask ?
Click to expand...
I just can't follow your logic at all - there is no clarity in your prose.

The clauses you are spending time on relate only to small boats under 17 feet, so they are irrelevant in this discussion. So, why are you posting all this drivel?
 
jfm said:
I just can't follow your logic at all - there is no clarity in your prose.

The clauses you are spending time on relate only to small boats under 17 feet, so they are irrelevant in this discussion. So, why are you posting all this drivel?
Click to expand...

Pete was enquiring about this “ drivel “ more specifically he reguested this

https://www.msamlin.com/content/dam...sks Policy Wording 2019.pdf.downloadasset.pdf

And for balance here’s Y ,s - almost identical but quoted 2x the £
http://www.yyachtinsurance.com/Jan2019/Y Policy Booklet_1A_01-19.pdf

So where is the boat left unattended at anchor cover part in all this “ drivel “

My logic ( which I,am requesting your view ) is that section J 1,10 is a negative exclusion to over 17 ft AND excess of 17 knots .
They won’t pay out for sinking / swamping if under 17 ft AND speeds over 17 knots if left unattended ( can be anchored I,am assuming) not OR over 17 knots .

So because my boat , peters and yours fall outside that exclusion bigger than 17 ft they will pay out if left unattended like at anchor and they sink / swamp .

Remember It’s the unattended at anchor issue that’s the OP,s oringinal point .

If I am reading this as bolox then where is cover for leaving the boats unattended @ anchor with Amlin ?
Previously with Sunseeker shield ,Peters correct in that recall it was Zurich based and I obtained prior written agreement to leave the boat unattended- the line of sight / 1/2 he rtn time thingy ?

Sos where this cover lurking in the Amlin policy ?
 
Portofino said:
if it’s choppy busy or windy I volunteer to stay aboard on watch duty anyhow.
Click to expand...
Blimey, reminds me of... "What good is my happiness? It is poverty, filth and miserable self-complacency", just to follow the o/t started by the esteemed Her Professor Nigelpickin! :rolleyes:

Me, if it's choppy busy or windy, I'd rather move elsewhere.
Btw, your pic of the Capri faraglioni is a perfect example of one of the world's nicest anchorages which sadly is a true PITA, most of the time.
 
jfm said:
Good advice N and I'm going to take it.:encouragement:
Click to expand...

I shall persevere. I'd like to say that we usually get there in the end, I just wish that were true!

Portofino said:
Pete was enquiring about this “ drivel “ more specifically he reguested this

https://www.msamlin.com/content/dam...sks Policy Wording 2019.pdf.downloadasset.pdf

And for balance here’s Y ,s - almost identical but quoted 2x the £
http://www.yyachtinsurance.com/Jan2019/Y Policy Booklet_1A_01-19.pdf

So where is the boat left unattended at anchor cover part in all this “ drivel “

My logic ( which I,am requesting your view ) is that section J 1,10 is a negative exclusion to over 17 ft AND excess of 17 knots .
They won’t pay out for sinking / swamping if under 17 ft AND speeds over 17 knots if left unattended ( can be anchored I,am assuming) not OR over 17 knots .

So because my boat , peters and yours fall outside that exclusion bigger than 17 ft they will pay out if left unattended like at anchor and they sink / swamp .

Remember It’s the unattended at anchor issue that’s the OP,s oringinal point .

If I am reading this as bolox then where is cover for leaving the boats unattended @ anchor with Amlin ?Previously with Sunseeker shield ,Peters correct in that recall it was Zurich based and I obtained prior written agreement to leave the boat unattended- the line of sight / 1/2 he rtn time thingy ?

Sos where this cover lurking in the Amlin policy ?
Click to expand...

It's not lurking anywhere. It's an All Risks policy that simply states:

What is covered
1 Whilst ashore or afloat, being lifted, hauled out or launched, in transit by road,
rail, air or car ferry the Vessel is covered for losses arising from:
1.1 all risks of accidental damage;
 
petem said:
I shall persevere. I'd like to say that we usually get there in the end, I just wish that were true!



It's not lurking anywhere. It's an All Risks policy that simply states:

What is covered
1 Whilst ashore or afloat, being lifted, hauled out or launched, in transit by road,
rail, air or car ferry the Vessel is covered for losses arising from:
1.1 all risks of accidental damage;
Click to expand...

Yes peter I see that but it would be more reassuring if it said anywhere words along the lines of ——-

Inc sinking and swamping if left at anchor unattended........... but it doesn’t so you have to read what it doesn’t include the exclusions .
Perhaps narrow the timeline for the usual Med or Newton creek shoreside activity say for no more than 4 hrs or whatever for clarity to stop the leave the boat in a Cala unattended in November for a week or so due to unforeseen circumstances.
But it does not specifically say anything about leaving the boat @ anchor unattended.

The word “ unattended “ only appears in the section J 1,10 . The exclusions
That of course could be in say a marina s well as it does not specify @ anchor anywhere.I was assuming ( righty or wrongly)
They are using the double negative language to exclude in a kinda if it’s not excluded then it’s included if you see my meaning ? They obviously have considered swamping/ sinking of unattended boats
They have mentioned “ unattended “ in clause j 1.10 -
Furthermore
Take a look at @ J 1. 9 the fire clause they exclude first and then qualify .So they have considered the fire risk and defined what’s covered saying you are excluded “ unless “ and go on the list the requirements .
That’s the logic iam using and requested JFM to comment because there’s a lot of folks on here with this Amlin policy .
More for friendly forum reassurance as you infer .

So they exclude sinking / swamping if unattended first then qualify by saying it only applies to less than 17 ft .


Anyhow thanks for perseverance :encouragement:

I have contacted both Coleman’s and Amlin direct requesting clarity on the “unattended “ at anchor cover with the Amlin .

As mentioned I did get a written reply previously with the Sunseeker shield ( Zurich based ) along the lines of line of sight / 1/2 hr return .When they covered my previous boat which was a Sunseeker which as many do often was left unattended @ anchor .

That was “all risks “too and as said silent on unattended at anchor issue and I did not rely on that I sought additional written clarification.

JFM,s right on the point policy wording changes all the time this clause J1.10 is new this year btw .

Hope this helps everyone on Amlin .
 
Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but with a policy that is All Risks, then surely all risks are covered unless it is expressly excluded? To start adding in 'what-ifs' can only weaken the position of the policy holder in the event of a claim.

Edit: Incidentally I received my Y renewal quote this week and although very happy to renew with them I did ask Coleman for a comparative quote - it was 40% more, and although I couldn't be bothered to read their wordy 36 page policy, I did find this - We will not pay for any claims arising from the vessel being stranded, sunk, swamped or breaking adrift whilst unattended except on a recognised mooring.
 
Last edited:
I have just read my Y policy following this thread. It is as you say " All risks etc..."

It actually says

1.1 all risks of accidental damage;

I suspect it comes down to an interpretation of "accidental". If you leave the boat in a mythical Cala over winter unattended.

Accident is defined Wikipedia tells me as

an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

So would it be unexpected that the boat ends up on the rocks of left for weeks on anchor? Probably not.

Would it be unexpected if the same happened on a nice sunny afternoon in calm weather whilst you had lunch on shore for an hour? Probably yes.

A real example ( nothing untoward happened). Friend anchors off Portals. Went to Marine Land. Parked tender where he should not have. Marina towed it away. By the time he found it weather was up and he did not feel safe heading to the boat and moving it at night. He booked a hotel. The boat was fine. This I assume is ok as it was not expected. However a leave it for an hour clause works against you - as you left it for longer.

This is JFM territory not mine, but I think most would probably assume it is a matter of degree - but of course it is actually a matter of contract as JFM says. Which hast benefits but also makes lawyers wealthy!
 
Sounds a bit like my comprehensive car insurance. All risks but if you leave the keys in the ignition and a petrol station while paying up and it's stolen it's your loss (etcetera). Looking at a policy point in isolation to the whole document can be deceiving or as said, lawyer territory.
 
jfm said:
Pete I don't fully agree that. What separates them is also the fundamental non-edge terms in the contract.

Say you buy a new boat for £1m and after 5 years it is worth £600k and sinks and you have a good insurance claim, and lets assume the insurers stick to their contracts.

With Y you get a money payout of £1m, if that is the number you have agreed to insure it for and have paid a premium based on on £1m (roughly 0.5%, iirc).

With CraftInsure you'll have paid similar premium (perhaps slightly less - I'm not sure and don't care) and they say "We're not giving you cash. We have found a 6 year old similar used boat, same model as yours but has the 525hp not 575hp engines, and the 9kva genset not 17, and only 50 hours more on the clock. Where would you like us to deliver it?"

Seriously. This is my point.
Click to expand...

OK I've never got a quote from Y because I assumed they would be more. Because of the info you've given I decided to test just how much more their premium would be to get the benefits of extra cover as you describe.

Now the insured values are the same but it isn't quite like for like. The craftinsure excess is £270 wheras Y chop it up into £200 for the hull, £100 for the tender etc. On some claims eg a tender you'd be better off with Y, on a total loss the excess would be more with Y as they would all add.
As a small claim is more likely we'll call that a dead heat.

So the additional premium payable to Y compared with craftinsure is..........

-1%.
Yep, that really is a minus sign.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top