Heads-up. Craftinsure anchoring exclusion

[BruceK]

They have gone up then. Last year they were cheaper than 1% on a side by side quote. Unfortunately for me I bought a project boat and have pumped a significant amount of money improving it and it's value. Without a re survey and evaluation which I have just completed this year they would not insure it for more than it's purchase price whereas Craftinsure on listening to all I had rectified had no quibble in accepting my valuation. (Realistic and not based on the amount I pumped in which is never retrievable). My survey and evaluation now has come too late this year to change policies so I will look again next year at Y. But as JFM so eloquently put it, I have a manky reliant robin and not a BMW, so maybe I have a good fit.

 

[jrudge]

I changed my insured value with y. I told them what I thought it was worth post refurb a d schedules the work done. The value I detailed was simply a realistic selling price ( not a premium) where’s what I paid was a discount given it needed work if that makes sence.

They were fine with it ( the uplift was£50k) but of course the premium went up!

 

[BruceK]

Perhaps this may be down to being an existing customer and the ratio increase in value. My evaluation was a educated guess but because it is a low value boat increased the value by 30%. I am pleased to say that the surveyors evalution came back today with a value closer to 100% increase in value and he has a reputation of being hard to please and recommended by the Insurance company I am with so no bias there.
Of course 100 percent increase in pennies is still only pennies but at least I have clawed back almost all I have put into her which for me is a not insignificant sum.

 

[Portofino]

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;

As my previous posts I had a reply regarding this common syndicate Amlin policy Y and Coleman’s ( maybe others are using ) regarding the original OP,s question namely cover for specifically leaving the boat unattended @ anchor .

For the forums information despite the put down ridicules of a couple of posters ^^^ this information quote JFM “ this drivel “ and Nigel “staring into the abyss “ is imho pretty important for Amlin policy holders to know I,am more then happy to share for the benefits of other Amlin policy holders on the forum .

This is what’s come back .

“[Dear Mr ......(my name deleted ).......
I have been contacted by MS Amlin regarding your request for clarification of the ‘if left unattended at anchor “ situation for your vessel.
*
Our standard advise in this situation is that the vessel should remain in line of sight and you should be able to return to her within 30 minutes.
*
I have confirmed with the insurers that they are happy with this response and they have advised that they believe it to be a ‘fair and reasonable’ response.
*
I hope that this clarifies the situation for you.]”

For me personally as mentioned that’s what I’ve been doing anyway an old habit from Zurich days .
*Restaurant s , beach , dog walks , paddle board trips , swims ashore etc .

Hope this is clarifies those with Amlin where they are leaving the boat unattended @ anchor cover wise .

 

[Nigelpickin]

Hope this is clarifies those with Amlin where they are leaving the boat unattended @ anchor cover wise .

No, Porto, it does not. I have, and I posted very early on in this thread before the water muddied, absolute clarification that my Amlin underwritten policy provides cover whilst I am at anchor; with no caveats regarding a sighted vessel or BOB time.

So all you’ve done is muddy the water - but that’s probably my fault and I accept full responsibility for the confusion you’ve caused and I apologise wholeheartedly for any offense taken because of my honest opinions.

I would suggest - with the greatest respect - that this ‘line of sight’ clause is fake news with regards to the Amlin policy but you have effectively now written it into your contract.

It’s strange that I have the same underwriters but assurances that my boat can be left at anchor without conditions. Again, with the utmost respect, perhaps you asked the wrong question, to suit your earlier comments?

Anyway - if my renewal next year includes a ‘line of sight’ clause - I’ll know who to thank!

 

[jfm]

No, Porto, it does not. I have, and I posted very early on in this thread before the water muddied, absolute clarification that my Amlin underwritten policy provides cover whilst I am at anchor; with no caveats regarding a sighted vessel or BOB time.

So all you’ve done is muddy the water - but that’s probably my fault and I accept full responsibility for the confusion you’ve caused and I apologise wholeheartedly for any offense taken because of my honest opinions.

I would suggest - with the greatest respect - that this ‘line of sight’ clause is fake news with regards to the Amlin policy but you have effectively now written it into your contract.

It’s strange that I have the same underwriters but assurances that my boat can be left at anchor without conditions. Again, with the utmost respect, perhaps you asked the wrong question, to suit your earlier comments?

Anyway - if my renewal next year includes a ‘line of sight’ clause - I’ll know who to thank!

You're exactly right Nigel. This is far worse than mere drivel. The idea of inviting your contractual counterparty to dictate what the contract means after you have signed it is absurd. Anyone insured with Amlin would be well advised to not go down Porto's path: I suggest there is zero benefit to you in this and suggest you do not ask Amlin for any clarification this sort. With equal publicity (because I'm replying on same thread) I say to Amlin (with whom my boat is insured) that I wholly reject the view that Porto reports them as holding.

(Sorry Nigel for another abyss stare)

 

[luptonj]

Our standard advise in this situation is that the vessel should remain in line of sight and you should be able to return to her within 30 minutes.

Thanks, given, I've just checked my policy and it's with Amlin through Yachtsman Euromarine that is good to know.
I'm sure if the worst happened, you could challenge this given it's not spelt out in the contract, but I certainly wouldn't have the confidence to pay out a fortune in legal fees to fight it.

Will have to check out Y for next years renewal.

 

[Nigelpickin]

(Sorry Nigel for another abyss stare)

 

[IDAMAY]

Porto,

I really hesitate to dive in on this thread but I entirely agree with Nigel. I have just checked my Y (Amlin) policy and the only relevant reference is in General Exclusions which state:

"From sinking or swamping whilst the vessel is unattended afloat IF the vessel is less than 17 feet length overall AND the maximum designed speed is in excess of 17 kts unless agreed by us" My capitals in IF and AND!

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this does not and cannot apply to my vessel and I have no concerns about leaving it unattended, provided I have complied with the general conditions of the policy.


Like Nigel, I see no benefit in inviting insurers to lower the level of cover of my policy or increase my premium.

 

[jfm]

Yep you're right Nigel. Ok I'm definitely leaving now

 

[IDAMAY]

Sorry JFM for throwing a couple more fire lighters on.

 

[luptonj]

So if I leave my boat anchored for the day, come back to find it on the rocks and Amlin refuse to pay out, and don't accept my arguments that nothing in the policy restricted where and when I could anchor.
What are my options?

1. Financial Ombudsman? (would they cover marine insurance?)
2. Take them to court?

 

[Portofino]

It’s strange that I have the same underwriters but assurances that my boat can be left at anchor without conditions. Again, with the utmost respect, perhaps you asked the wrong question, to suit your earlier comments

Correct me if I,am wrong you posted “Clare’s “ advice who works for Y the broker ?
Can you copy any underwriter s advice from Amlin .

I contacted directly the head of underwriting at Amlins .Thats the broker who “ been contacted by MS Amlin “

That’s Amlin s reply to Coleman’s it you read the quote .

I would too prefer clarity not muddy waters and this surley clarifies the position regards potential refuting of claims of boats left at anchor ,an activity part and parcel of boating we all do hence the thread .

As JFM said all insurers pay out trivial sums to get arguably a good trip advisor type of ratings but total losses enact a whole legal different ball game .
If my boat sinks at anchor I’d rarther NOT face the full force of a refute if I thought the refute was entirely preventable .

JRudge mentioned a matter of degree - agree but it’s nice to know where the tipping point is and I believe get it in writing from the horses mouth .
They don’t normally like to be specific writing it down is a double edge sword, so for me I like the specifications, line of sight 1/2 hr etc - you can plan around that with certainty .
Surley folks / Amlin policy holders are better knowing this before leaving the boat unattended at anchor .

On a side issue it’s a pitty we can’t get hold of the successful refuted total loss claims history - and why .

 

[jfm]

So if I leave my boat anchored for the day, come back to find it on the rocks and Amlin refuse to pay out, and don't accept my arguments that nothing in the policy restricted where and when I could anchor.
What are my options?

1. Financial Ombudsman? (would they cover marine insurance?)
2. Take them to court?

Precisely. Never failed yet (see above).

Edit- yes ombudsman covers marine, though their ability to grasp a complex claim and to understand contracts is questionable. I prefer courts.

 

[IDAMAY]

So if I leave my boat anchored for the day, come back to find it on the rocks and Amlin refuse to pay out, and don't accept my arguments that nothing in the policy restricted where and when I could anchor.
What are my options?

1. Financial Ombudsman? (would they cover marine insurance?)
2. Take them to court?

And can you:

(a) point to an example of that happening in relation to Amlin's All Risks Policy.
(b) find another policy that provides better All Risks (the clue is in the title) cover at any price you would be prepared to pay?

Inviting an insurer to caveat your cover seems a bit daft when the policy wording is quite clear.

 

[Portofino]

You're exactly right Nigel. This is far worse than mere drivel. The idea of inviting your contractual counterparty to dictate what the contract means after you have signed it is absurd. Anyone insured with Amlin would be well advised to not go down Porto's path: I suggest there is zero benefit to you in this and suggest you do not ask Amlin for any clarification this sort. With equal publicity (because I'm replying on same thread) I say to Amlin (with whom my boat is insured) that I wholly reject the view that Porto reports them as holding.

(Sorry Nigel for another abyss stare)

Thing is J we are not combative lawyers, fighting this kinda stuff is ideally what most would like to know how to avoid if possible.
With all due respect your huge posts highlighting the £1M boat payout of £600;K and Reliant Robins etc useful in a way dodged the cover of unattended @anchor question .
And when I pressed you dangling clause j1.10 and PeteM ( and others ) assuming “ all risks “ you seem to have gone into
thread withdrawal mode .
Forcristsake surley now is the time for you to step up

 

[Nigelpickin]

Correct me if I,am wrong you posted “Clare’s “ advice who works for Y the broker ?
Can you copy any underwriter s advice from Amlin .

I contacted directly the head of underwriting at Amlins .Thats the broker who “ been contacted by MS Amlin “

That’s Amlin s reply to Coleman’s it you read the quote .

I would too prefer clarity not muddy waters and this surley clarifies the position regards potential refuting of claims of boats left at anchor ,an activity part and parcel of boating we all do hence the thread .

As JFM said all insurers pay out trivial sums to get arguably a good trip advisor type of ratings but total losses enact a whole legal different ball game .
If my boat sinks at anchor I’d rarther NOT face the full force of a refute if I thought the refute was entirely preventable .

JRudge mentioned a matter of degree - agree but it’s nice to know where the tipping point is and I believe get it in writing from the horses mouth .
They don’t normally like to be specific writing it down is a double edge sword, so for me I like the specifications, line of sight 1/2 hr etc - you can plan around that with certainty .
Surley folks / Amlin policy holders are better knowing this before leaving the boat unattended at anchor .

On a side issue it’s a pitty we can’t get hold of the successful refuted total loss claims history - and why .

I wholeheartedly and robustly reject your interpretations and comments in regards to Amlin’s all risk policy.

I would be happier if the mods would pull this thread now, I think there are reasonable grounds for them doing that?

 

[luptonj]

Precisely. Never failed yet (see above).

Edit- yes ombudsman covers marine, though their ability to grasp a complex claim and to understand contracts is questionable. I prefer courts.

Thanks, I guess the real worry is what it would cost in legal fees to take it to court. I imagine they rely on most people swallowing the loss rather than risk throwing good money after bad.

 

[luptonj]

And can you:

(a) point to an example of that happening in relation to Amlin's All Risks Policy.
(b) find another policy that provides better All Risks (the clue is in the title) cover at any price you would be prepared to pay?

Inviting an insurer to caveat your cover seems a bit daft when the policy wording is quite clear.

I'm not arguing either way, I'd just like to know where I stand.
To be clear, I wouldn't have asked for clarification myself, as I'm pretty sure I know which way they'll interpret it, but I am glad to know what the minimum is.

 

[Portofino]

I wholeheartedly and robustly reject your interpretations and comments in regards to Amlin’s all risk policy.

I would be happier if the mods would pull this thread now, I think there are reasonable grounds for them doing that?

They are not mine Nigel . Iam merely passing on info .
How and what others do with that info inc you btw it’s up to them .

There’s no grounds for mods to pull this thread because you disagree.
Back up your train of thought that’s all what’s needed not run away .


How do you think I would feel if in the future somebody on here Amlin covered lost there boat while unattended at anchor and then created a thread along the lines “ my insurer won’t pay out “ because they hired a car and dove inland overnight thinking they were covered and were now being forced through the courts etc .

And then it transpires after , they could have left somebody in attendance etc but thought it was ok to leave it .?