Heads-up. Craftinsure anchoring exclusion

EugeneR

EugeneR

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Hamble
Visit site
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Clause is not on my Craftinsure policy but mine is for none tidal waters

Territorial Scope:
Ashore or afloat on inland non tidal waters and interconnecting tidal waterways of the UK, including the Broads, and the river Thames not seaward of the Thames Barrier.
 
Lots of boat insurance policies have exclusions for unattended anchoring. Rightly so, in my opinion.
 
I queried that with my Craftinsure broker. I said that I always have the boat in sight as my forays are to the beach etc and they said that was acceptable. I think the exclusion applies if it's out of sight and care for a length of time that you would be unable to respond to dragging etc.
 
I specifically require that my boat is insured when at anchor even if out of line of sight. I heard of a crew who went ashore for a pizza in Mallorca, anchored well but the wind picked up massively and very quickly and the boat ended up on the rocks and sunk. The insurers refused to pay out because buried in the small print was a clause just like that! In my experience most insurers will accept that even if out of sight, as long as the boat has been competently anchored, it's covered. I'd insist on that tbh!
 
What's really needed here is a definition of 'unattended' from Craftinsure, if it's not in the policy somewhere. If not I think there is plenty of wiggle room there for them to not pay out.

The dictionary definition of unattended is "not being watched or taken care of". So eyes on the boat from the beach may be ok, but then there could be arguments around distance..
 
Last edited:
Mines line of sight or within 1/2 hr to get back on if not . Med based . Beach ,Pizza, restaurants etc .
They don’t want you leaving it unattended at anchor for extended periods .
Amlyin based .
 
Fair enough, and I accept that unexpected 'it happens. But the truth be told, insurance be damned, I'd never anchor up and leave the boat unless I was absolutely sure it was safe and well dug in regardless of wind or tide change and I say this without hubris as I've witnessed so many people actually struggle to anchor correctly even when going through the motions correctly and that not always the case either. I also deploy anchor watch alarms that will text me if the boat moves outside a prescribed arc (tide and wind shift) or drags amd am in the habit of setting up sight lines along the beach for a quick visual reference. Only takes a couple of stones or twigs spaced effectively to be accurate.
 
AdeOlly said:
The dictionary definition of unattended is "not being watched or taken care of". So eyes on the boat from the beach may be ok, but then there could be arguments around distance..
Click to expand...

When I have queried it with different insurance companies, they have always accepted that 'in sight' was acceptable, so being on the beach or even in a beach front restaurant where you could see the boat, was OK.

Having seen, and even been involved in rescuing boats that have been terribly anchored, I would not want to have to cover the risk of anchoring with no provisos. One boat I rescued, that was within metres of rocks, I placed back on anchor. When I spoke with the owners, they said they didn't realize they had to put more line out to allow for the rise of the tide. This was in the CI, where tides are up to 10m. I think they dropped the hook till it hit the bottom, let out a few more metres and went to the pub. When I got onboard, the line was straight down from the bow and the anchor not even touching bottom.
 
I wouldn’t insure with a company with that exclusion. We may be off shopping or out for a meal in town or on a day out exploring the area in a hire car. Of course we would be anchored as safely as possible and have looked at the weather but an unexpected squall from the opposite direction or more likely other boats dragging onto us could cause major damage.

We haven’t yet spent a whole night staying ashore but I would want that covered too.
 
So the tens of boats anchored in Newtown every weekend to go to the pub which is out of sight would not be insured with a clause like this. Ok, theu closed the pub now but you get the point, it's not realistic.

It used to be "exposed off a lee shore" or similar, and even then I questioned it.

Well, I'm off to Y unless someone can correct my interpretation. Anchoring and exploring is what part of what it is about.
 
EugeneR said:
Am I correct in reading that to mean that...
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct.

If it matters you might want to get a different insurer e.g. Y.

By the way, Craftinsure sell the Zurich policy. As I've written on here before with details, there are plenty of other profoundly unsatisfactory (in my opinion) clauses in that policy that would make me run a mile even before I got to the unattended anchoring clause. Just for starters, their electrolysis clause is among the worst in my opinion. Also, if you have a total loss they are not required to pay you cash equal to the insured amount and are free instead to find you a replacement boat of their choosing, which can be slightly older than, slightly smaller than, and similar rather than the same as, the one you lost. I ask you, why does anyone at all buy this policy, ever? I guess the answer might be that they don't read it. I wish them well. Do yourself a favour and vote with your feet.

As regards the comments above along the lines of "rightly so", I think those people are misunderstanding insurance. Insurance is merely a contractual transfer of risk. If I carelessly drive my car into yours, totally my fault, then "rightly so" it starts as my problem and I need to make sure your car is repaired at no charge to you. But if I choose to pay a premium to an insurer to lay off my rightly so risk to them, then it becomes "rightly so" that the insurer pays, not me. I and the insurer should be free to make that deal if we both wish, and why would anyone call that not right?
 
Last edited:
The website for "Y" insurance is very off putting - it looks like something a couple of volunteers from the local sailing club have lashed together.
Six tweets in 7 years doesn't suggest they are in the current decade either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top