Heads-up. Craftinsure anchoring exclusion

[Portofino]

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.

Exactly why sleepwalk into a potential ins refute on a “claim unattended at anchor “ which could be a total loss .

 

[Nigelpickin]

They are not mine Nigel . Iam merely passing on info .
How and what other 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 .

Porto, you are the forums equivalent of a flat Earther. If you do not understand the points I made in post #65 then there is not much else I can say.

I don’t always wear my WWJFM do? T shirt but in regards to this thread, it’s dusted off and getting good use. Needless to say, my WWP do? Baseball cap is still in perfect, unused condition.

 

[Portofino]

I’ve just had a reply from Claire @ Y. She confirms that the policy covers us while at anchor and boat left unattended during daily shore visits and excursions.

So another + point for Y......

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!

Porto, you are the forums equivalent of a flat Earther. If you do not understand the points I made in post #65 then there is not much else I can say.

I don’t always wear my WWJFM do? T shirt but in regards to this thread, it’s dusted off and getting good use. Needless to say, my WWP do? Baseball cap is still in perfect, unused condition.

Nigel the difference between me and you , seems to me you are quoting a broker a week or so old , iam today copying MS Amlins position ..Both sets of advice contradicts- so let’s resolve it not scrap about mate .

I don’t ridicule people just work through.

I contact the head of underwriter team for marine leisure ins direct.Hence the few days silence of this post .
Via my policy details they replied to the broker who then contacted me passing on MS Amlins current position .

Out of a strong sence of preventing hassle to other Amlin users who there are many on here I repeat I have merely just passed that nugget on .The Broker Coleman’s was not aware that I had approached MS Amlins unwritting team .

I don’t understand why you are so upset about that , helping others avoid a ins refute and all that comes with it .

I want to enjoy the boat inc the knowledge where the boundaries lie cover wise in the underwriters mind when it’s left unattended at anchor .

I feel I ve twanged a nerve with you on this ? If so accept my apologies .

So what’s your particular problem adhering to the underwriters written advice on leaving it unattended @ anchor .
Surley it’s best to find out now ?

At the very least I do feel you are shooting the mesinger hear but I guess you need to resolve this contradiction of advice from your broker and there underwriter before leaving boat outside today’s MS Amlin s recommendation criteria for cover .

 

[Nigelpickin]

Nigel the difference between me and you , seems to me you are quoting a broker a week or so old

No Porto that is not the difference between you and me.

I have specific clauses written in to my policy, regarding cruising area, the ICW, named storms and hurricane season, the 36th degree - along with where my vessel can be left.
Every broad question that I have put to the coverholder has been answered by the coverholder - whether they pass this to the underwriter is not my concern, as I am in contract with the cover holder.
There are no contradictions.
Speak for yourself by all means but I use my boat very differently to the way that you use your boat. It is currently my home - last year I anchored for around 80 days and I did so in the knowledge that my experience and due diligence along with my all risk insurance policy protect me from physical and financial loss.

I exist in a community of world travellers who would be pretty stymied by a line of sight clause - but that is of no regard. I am happy with my policy and will continue to enjoy using my boat safe in the knowledge that I do so with appropriate cover.

 

[jrudge]

Which is jfm point. What does your contract say.

Porto you have now in effect changed yours for the worse by asking. Mine with y is all risks. There are no anchoring limitations. The end. It’s the contract.

 

[Portofino]

Which is jfm point. What does your contract say.

Porto you have now in effect changed yours for the worse by asking. Mine with y is all risks. There are no anchoring limitations. The end. It’s the contract.

It does not say anything , it’s silent hence the issue .
I mean I was wondering if I could motor single handed on a long trip - oh dam there’s a clause specifically saying 18 hr in every 24 etc means I know where I stand and can plan accordingly to stay covered , not break the contract and if found out end up in a refute battle .
Same applies to crusing area “ not E of “ ... what ever Etc etc .Simples easy to see the cut off s what’s not covered .

Your Y is from the same underwriter.

If you want to ignore the msg I passed on from them fine .

I have not a problem asking the underwriters anything btw rather know inadvance of there postion on a topic on cover rather than have to fight a refute case because of a misunderstanding.I suspect most on here would too .
After all they do invite you to ask .

@ Nigel re the term “ coverholder “ it’s my understanding it’s the underwriters MS Amlin who pay out claims not Y .

All of you with your heads in the sand ( ) ask Amlin if there’s any anchoring restrictions or ask your broker to ask your underwriter.
Why not ask don’t you want it in writing ?
Utterly bizarre the flak this has created .

This excerise has not changed how I use my boat btw , it was for the benefit of those other Amlin policy holders who are thinking about leaving the boat unattended at anchor more regularly and longer.
Where are the boundaries of reasonable useage ?

They will argue in the event of a claim for a total loss at anchor Its was unreasonable to leave it say overnight while you went ashore to a party and stayed over or end up 5 hrs having lunch in a market Sq ( loads of shoreside restaurants in view with space ) .
Unattended unable to rtn to move it ( dragging ) or beach it - slow leak , or it’s even nicked etc etc .
A 5 hr head start for me is 150 mile way .

 

[Nigelpickin]

Which is jfm point. What does your contract say.

Porto you have now in effect changed yours for the worse by asking. Mine with y is all risks. There are no anchoring limitations. The end. It’s the contract.

Plus 1 and I’m gone

 

[jfm]

We really need to end this because it's done to death and jrudge just summarised it well but rather than ignore I've made some quick comments in colour

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. Man up. If you make a big claim you will quite possibly have a fight. Emailing underwriters as you have done will now hurt you if you get delayed and 31mins at anchor whereas it hasn't helped you one bit @29 minutes. Sure it might have made you feel better, but that's a totally different point. This thread is about what you're covered for, not making a worrier less worried.
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 . That post dealt with a different point; it didn't dodge anything.
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 . I'm in Asia so I sign off at different time from Europe. Clause 1.10 is an exclusion from all risks that applies only to sub-17 foot boats. It is totally irrelevant. In an all risks policy if it's not excluded then it's included (broadly).
Forcristsake surley now is the time for you to step up [. It's like banging ones head against a brick wall though. This thread has become about your worries under your insurance policy, not about the policy itself.

 

[WhiskeyTownRacer]

I may be way off the mark here, and not sure if this thread needs more comments but here I go anyway.

Porto, the impression I get based on much of what you've written, indeed you have almost stated it without actually doing so explicitly, is that you seem to suggest that policies underwritten by Amlin apply equally you and to others who insure via Y Yacht. Forgive me if I'm making a ridiculous point but you do realise that your Colemans arranged policy could bear very little relation (theoretically, if desired by involved parties) with a policy arranged by Y Yacht and both still be inderwritten by Amlins, right?

 

[EugeneR]

My original intention was to make people aware of a possible anchoring restriction in the Craftinsure policy.

For me, contract trumps. The Y policy does not exclude unattended anchoring. After contract, I may rely on written comments from the broker or underwriter as far as I feel I can recover my losses from them should they get it wrong. Keeping in m8nd renewals as well, etc.

Perhaps naively, I expect those to be in my favor only - otherwise both parties need to agree. I am therefore concerned by jfm's earlier post suggesting the underwriter can unilaterally "clarify" things to be more restrictive than what is written in the contract.

 

[Portofino]

@ Whiskey Town Racer See post #51 we are indeed referring to the same base underwriters contract .Its as if both brokers and indeed some others have just copied and pasted the base MS Amlin .
Any differences are minute and irrelevant to the core “ unattended @ anchor “ question .
Having said that Nigel’s is atypical obviously he’s added other stuff for his cruising ground and personal situation on aboard .
Ideally as mentioned it would be nice imho to have seen a direct reference/ clauses / conditions etc to “ leaving the boat unattended @ anchor “ It’s silent and one assumes it’s under the all risks .
However they have defined other things for example the geographic clause “ East of ... “ what ever or regarding single handedness “ no more than 18 hrs in a 24 “ etc .

Balancing that we don,t want a 1000 pages of small print .Having said that there’s a lot of BS about “ radiation “ and “ outboards “ .Relfect for a mo on the reams of outboard clauses are they really a huge issue to a guy with a £500 K boat ? I mean dropping £1,/12 to £2 K reinstatement If it’s nicked is peanuts in the aggregated running of the thing over its life with you .

However finding out after a total loss Amlins are trying a refute on because they considered you leaving it unattended at anchor ( outside there reasonable criteria) lead to the loss and for them that was unreasonable for the average boater and you did not notify them before or whatever ever of that risk .
Had they known of the excessive risk in there eyes etc etc .

So reading the policies that’s the gap i can see and persued it’s silence .

I move a few classic cars about Europe and insurance is a hot topic in classic car clubs on many levels the general gist is ask the underwriter, get clarification .Sometimes this means paying extra premiums for added cover that you initially thought was part of the “ all risk “
I get the main point of if it’s not excluded then it’s covered but would prefer a list of what’s covered or some guidance / boundaries.
Similarly with Alpine winter sports ins for medevac helicopter rescue etc you need to know exactly what’s included or not or grey .

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

http://www.yyachtinsurance.com/Jan2019/Y Policy Booklet_1A_01-19.pdf

The head of underwriting @ Amlins with regards to the above thinks it’s unreasonable to leave the boat unattended out of line of sight and if you stray more than 1/2 an hour or so away from return .
You can sit on a beach insight for a bbq , tender pulled up on the beach for as long as reasonably necessarily.

If you were to dump it in a Cala in Nov unattended and disappear back the U.K. and return to find it’s lost and play the “ all risk “ card - good luck with your court battle waving your “ contract “ about .

Sos what’s do they the payer outers think is reasonable behaviour that they will pay out with out quibble - ask !

 

[Portofino]

double post deleted

 

[WhiskeyTownRacer]

Gotcha, whilst I'd read #51 it seems I chose to avoid the detail of the policies you attached, apologies.

My understanding then comes back to points made by JFM.

1.10 is an exclusion which clearly does not apply to most/all boats of the posters in this thread, so there is nothing of relevance to see here. Unless of course there are other applicable conditions eslewhere in the contract not shown by your attachments. If this is indeed the only exclusion, it can be reasonably expected cover is in place under the all risks nature of the contract, right?

The dissonance seems to me that you have chosen to pursue comfirmation for your own comfort and peace of mind (perfectly understandable) but in doing so have effectively 'reduced' the potential cover of your contract....but you do now know categorically where you stand. Not a choice I would make, but one I can understand.

What I do not understand though, is why you distrust the opinion of someone held in high regard by the forum, and said someone has the proven expertise to back up their opinion. There's no need to answer this btw, I reckon there is more than enough info in the thread for people to make their own reasonably well informed opinion.

 

[Portofino]

Gotcha, whilst I'd read #51 it seems I chose to avoid the detail of the policies you attached, apologies.

My understanding then comes back to points made by JFM.

1.10 is an exclusion which clearly does not apply to most/all boats of the posters in this thread, so there is nothing of relevance to see here. Unless of course there are other applicable conditions eslewhere in the contract not shown by your attachments. If this is indeed the only exclusion, it can be reasonably expected cover is in place under the all risks nature of the contract, right?

The dissonance seems to me that you have chosen to pursue comfirmation for your own comfort and peace of mind (perfectly understandable) but in doing so have effectively 'reduced' the potential cover of your contract....but you do now know categorically where you stand. Not a choice I would make, but one I can understand.

What I do not understand though, is why you distrust the opinion of someone held in high regard by the forum, and said someone has the proven expertise to back up their opinion. There's no need to answer this btw, I reckon there is more than enough info in the thread for people to make their own reasonably well informed opinion.

Thx for coming back with a nice summary.
Just to remind everyone none of this changes how I currently use the boat but I recognised there may be some who’s anchorage useage does not align with Amlins “reasonable and fair “ recommendations .
I don’t want to be the one here to test Amlins resolve through the courts if it comes to that accused of acting unreasonably.
Further statements in the contract add provisos arround “ disclosures “ telling them the facts not withholding info .

So arguably what I,am saying is if you are planning to leave the boat unattended @ anchor , out of eyesight perhaps go a long way inland ( far from 1/2 hr rtn ) and simultaneous relying on the “ all risks “ element of cover in the contract .

Nobody knows exactly where they categorically are unattended @anchor because a mentioned its silent .
How ever I have something written and recorded which for me works but I appreciate for others it doesn’t .

If in doubt I,am of the view get it sorted / discussed with the underwriters rarther than assume it’s under “ all risks “ tell them what you are thinking of doing and ask if it’s covered .If it is where in the policy ?

I do trust JFM ,s view and recognise he’s an expert and helped many out indeed with refuted claims winning 3 times .
But Amlins policy is not super clear on this unattended @ anchor as it could be for the avoidance of doubt.
Personally armed with that lack of clarity I don,t want to end up with the hassle of refutable claim .
Earlier on it was Nigel’s position ( largely from an agent / broker / “coverholder “ ) with the same policy that I chalanged highlighting the contradiction from the underwriter who I approached ( rightly or wrongly) .Its that view i not trust , the brokers not JFMs firm contract position.

Seems a high risk strategy to assume and rely on “ all risks “ happy to eventually end up arguing in court etc when a simple contact with the underwriter indicates what behaviour they expect for silent items in the policy .

 

[jfm]

I really want to stop posting in this thread but to answer your points please see coloured bits:

My original intention was to make people aware of a possible anchoring restriction in the Craftinsure policy.

For me, contract trumps. The Y policy does not exclude unattended anchoring. After contract, I may rely (this is partly true but there are limits on reliance - a bit boring to explain) on written comments from the broker or underwriter as far as I feel I can recover my losses from them should they get it wrong. Keeping in m8nd renewals as well, etc.

Perhaps naively, I expect those to be in my favor only - otherwise both parties need to agree. I am therefore concerned by jfm's earlier post suggesting the underwriter can unilaterally "clarify" things to be more restrictive than what is written in the contract. I don't believe I ever said that -you haven't cited anything- and it's not correct.

 

[jfm]

A few quick comments in red...

However finding out after a total loss Amlins are trying a refute on because they considered you leaving it unattended at anchor ( outside there reasonable criteria) lead to the loss and for them that was unreasonable for the average boater and you did not notify them before or whatever ever of that risk .
Had they known of the excessive risk in there eyes etc etc This para is all over the place. There is no test of reasonableness in the contract on this point

snip

The head of underwriting @ Amlins with regards to the above thinks it’s unreasonable to leave the boat unattended out of line of sight and if you stray more than 1/2 an hour or so away from return . That is not what he said. He merely asserted that his email to you was reasonable. That isn't pedantry-these details matter if you're in a dispute over multiple hundreds of £k.
You can sit on a beach insight for a bbq , tender pulled up on the beach for as long as reasonably necessarily. Hang on. You have totally invented there a test involving a time limit based on "as long as reasonably necessary". (Correcting I presume typo). That test isn't in the contract. You just completely invented it out of nowhere.

If you were to dump it in a Cala in Nov unattended and disappear back the U.K. and return to find it’s lost and play the “ all risk “ card - good luck with your court battle waving your “ contract “ about . This is an absurd straw man argument and does nothing to support your case. If you left the boat November to March there are other clauses in and aspects of the Y contract that would result in you getting no payout.

Sos what’s do they the payer outers think is reasonable behaviour that they will pay out with out quibble - ask ! Can we not bring "without quibble" into this? If you make a very large claim there may well be quibbling. Anything I write on here is about getting an insurance payment full stop, not a payment without quibble.

 

[jfm]

Seems a high risk strategy to assume and rely on “ all risks “ happy to eventually end up arguing in court etc when a simple contact with the underwriter indicates what behaviour they expect for silent items in the policy .

Let's examine who has the high risk strategy.
You've written to insurers for clarification and in a public forum have spoken appreciatively of their lovely reply i.e. pretty much accepted it. This summer you anchor off a restaurant in line of sight.
1. Another bigger boat anchors and obscures line of sight.
2. Or a big party of diners comes to restaurant, puts 2 tables together blocking your line of sight.
3. Or you go to the loo
4. Or there's a restaurant fire/security incident and police order diners to assemble in car park more than 30 mins.
5. Your tender is nicked, or borrowed/requisitioned to help a distressed swimmer for >30 mins
6. Or lots of similar things

During the above your boat is lost- whether anchor drags/breaks, fire, someone hard hits-and-runs it, or it sinks due to pipe failure, etc

Your insurer can now resist paying. Mine can't. Remember onus of proof is on you, so if insurer merely has reason to believe 1-6 above you're on back foot because you must prove 1-6 didn't happen. And regarding #3 you haven't specified whose sight so you might think it's ok for mrs Porto to keep eye on boat while you go to loo but insurer might argue they meant your sight.

Do you really think now you have lower risk than me? I don't have to give a damn about 1-6

 

[MapisM]

Do you really think now you have lower risk than me?

'Course he has, J: it's only an Itama, after all...
.
.
.
.
Sorry PF, couldn't resist!

 

[Portofino]

'Course he has, J: it's only an Itama, after all...
.
.
.
.
Sorry PF, couldn't resist!

Actually I ve touched upon your point on the relative values funnily enough preparing this .You are forgiven :encouragement: But I don’t think he meant risk in absolute value terms .
Apologies for the L but I’ve put a pic to cheer folks up .

I haven’t got much hair theses days so ps don’t blow it all off JFM

I haven’t really accepted it I,am merely pointing out a potential huge flash point Regarding the silent wording in the contract when “unattended at anchor “.How ever coincidentally I have no problem attempting to adhere to Amlins approved advice .

Quick ans could be be me in those scenarios . but at least i know about it .You don’t know ,and won’t find out until you claim .relying on the fallback “ all risks “ and confident of winning a court room drama .
That’s not been removed from my policy.



But a more considerate ans would be this .......
Let’s add we are both at the same restaurant anchored more less in the same spot and both boats are simultaneously lost from one of your scenarios or a different one each but at the time more or less .



Given we have the same underwriters I would have thought we share the same risk .As until a big claim goes in you don’t really know . Any counter arguments that you use if they attempt to refute apply to me too buts that’s not you are asking .
I don’t see how initially they ( Amlin ) would use different criteria between us as we share the same policy and wording on this .

Regarding resistance to payout between us or risk of whose gonna get the most resistance for the benefit of others the payout ratio is around my estimate is 1.20 Porto.JFM .They will be looking harder at your predicament .

However hypothetically for the sake of argument make both boats equal valve in payout .

The problem the contract is silent on this issue ( unattended @ anchor )

So open to interpretation exactly where the boundaries lie in normal Med summer activity.

It makes sense to sync your behaviour with the underwriters expectations . To do that you gotta ask what they are .

“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.”

If we don,t comply for the plausible reasons you list and you can prove it was our intention to comply with everything quote Amlin ‘fair and reasonable “ then I don’t see difference in risk than assuming it’s gonna be ok relying on “ all risks “
I never said said it wasn’t.

Continuing the role playing consider this - same restaurant as above my boat same location because I,am trying to comply to the advise but you anchored around the corner in Villefranche .You don’t see the gap , the silence in the policy on “unattended @ anchor “ etc .In fact you are deliberately excising you right NOT to comply with the advice that Porto passed on .


1- A nutter T bones mine and it sinks as I jump up and run down the pebbled beach bearfoot ( ouch ! ) to the jetty .Or
2- any of your scenarios .

3 - Crucially yours is lost [ insert any reason ]

Indirectly I,am asking would you anchor in Villefranche and tender to Paloma - flat mirror calm , leaving the boat unattended and accept that risk ?

If not why not ?

For those reading his boat is well out of sight and depending on the tender speed - fast in theses conditions may be borderline within 30 mins .But he can’t see it .
If you where to anchor there ( perhaps don’t want to give up a great pitch for the night and everybody on board can fit in the tender and wants a tender trip ) an important event at Paloma planned , do you think Amlin will challenge leading to a refute being more likely in total loss ? Happy to risk that ?

If you where to move the boat round as in the pic ( ignore the recent yellow buoys btw ) is there any shred of placating the insurance Co , creating the smoothest glide path to a payout involved in parking line of sight of the restaurant ?

1- they will payout
2- they will payout -chance of a court appearance greater than 1 ^
3- This carries the greater risk of refute.


Ideally under FOI if it’s possible it would be interesting to read successfully refuted cases inc court cases and unsuccessful cases where the client won in a trip advisor POV .
Then modify your behaviour sos not to end up loosing a refute .

Or just basically ask them what they normally expect and fall into line or change @ next renewal if you have difficulty complying with the advice that comes back .

 

[MrB]

I think the point is Porto, is that you have a different policy with a different broker to everyone else regardless who is the underwriter! The broker has built a contract the underwriter likes, and will honor it at a cost. Your broker hasn't done a better deal. Just because it's the same underwriter doesn't mean anything, it's not generic.