Heads-up. Craftinsure anchoring exclusion

[jfm]

Porto we need to agree to disagree. That post is too long. But you are profoundly mistaken imho.

First, you have in my view got a significant risk that you have accepted Amlin's 30 minute/line of sight thing. Feel free though to bury your head in sand. And your view that it is ok so long as it was your intention to comply or you were attempting to comply is just wrong. Intention doesn't come into it: if you insure your nice car "provided garaged after midnight" and the battery goes flat or you're taken ill at 23h45 so it is still street parked at 0015, you're not covered. Your good intentions are irrelevant.

Second you are just not correct about how the Amlin contract works. It covers all risks of accidental damage. This means that provided the exclusions don't apply (and we're agreed they don't) then the only test is "accidental". If I'm away on a beach restaurant and my boat is lost in an accident, then it is covered. The question of whether it is in my line of sight or <30 mins away cannot impact whether the loss was an accident. It just can't. I'm away on business and have lent my car to my son in Uk. He bumps it accidentally today in london. I'm in Singapore so I can't see it and I'm 14 hours away, but neither of those things can make it not an accident. You are just wrong on that and there is no imaginable argument that the owner looking at something from 250m away, or not, determines whether something is an accident, or not.

We need to give up. You're a worrier and like the comfort blanket of your email. I'm a logic nerd who says the only hurdle I have get over is that my boat loss was accidental not deliberate, and that hurdle isn't affected by me looking at the boat or not.

 

[maverickofpoole]

But JFM your boat is beautiful so why you not be looking at it :sleeping:

 

[LBRodders]

I am not sure why anyone would have the need to exceed a line of sight or 30 min rule.
Taking a boat somewhere to leave it unattended using a temporary fixing is probably not 'good seamanship'. Insured or not.
If you want to be on land for excessive amounts of time, take the car or use a marina.

 

[Elessar]

I am not sure why anyone would have the need to exceed a line of sight or 30 min rule.
Taking a boat somewhere to leave it unattended using a temporary fixing is probably not 'good seamanship'. Insured or not.
If you want to be on land for excessive amounts of time, take the car or use a marina.

You miss out on what i consider to be a great deal of boating pleasure but each to their own. A holiday where you don’t pull into a marina at all is great in my book. Obviously not yours.

Incidentally I’d rather be on my own anchor than a bouy of unknown provenance. ie most of them.

 

[jfm]

I am not sure why anyone would have the need to exceed a line of sight or 30 min rule.
Taking a boat somewhere to leave it unattended using a temporary fixing is probably not 'good seamanship'. Insured or not.
If you want to be on land for excessive amounts of time, take the car or use a marina.

That's a bit narrow minded. What about exploring the coast by tender a mile or 2 either side of your anchorage? That's not on land by the way. What about taking your tender inside caves to explore? You might not want to do these things, which is fine, but loads of people and kids want to.
Happy to agree to disagree on what is/isn't good seamanship. We don't want an anchoring thread

 

[LBRodders]

Elessar #104

I agree, I don't either.

I was saying for those who actually want to spend a night ashore - why does it actually matter where your boat is. It may as well be ashore on blocks!

 

[LBRodders]

That's a bit narrow minded. What about exploring the coast by tender a mile or 2 either side of your anchorage? That's not on land by the way. What about taking your tender inside caves to explore? You might not want to do these things, which is fine, but loads of people and kids want to.
Happy to agree to disagree on what is/isn't good seamanship. We don't want an anchoring thread

No happy to agree, I think!
For me, the majority of that can be done without leaving the boat unattended or out of sight. If you want to go further - Just get a faster tender ;-p
Worse case scenario - I'd leave one of the kids, with the logbook noting battery voltage every 10 mins The dog would be in charge.

I understand that people want to go further and have different aspirations. But do I expect every single one of them on my insurance policy? No I don't. Particularly as it'd mean I would be paying for them. I would imagine others are similar or equally different again. We don't all do the same stuff fortunately.

Its good to talk about this and see what truly is covered or not and what people expect. As these 11 pages show, its various!

Happy [and safe] boating and anchoring!

 

[Portofino]

You see that’s the point , what you think you have bought ( cover wise ) and what the underwriters have sold you .
That difference is what my thrust with Amlin is all about .
Not any intermediary btw . The payer outer buck stopper mind set on this topic .

What people do that info is entirely up to them .

Motoring analogies don’t really fit indeed as I mentioned seem black and white garage at night before midnight etc .So does bits of Amlin look black and white like 18 hrs in 24 single handed .

They even are relaxing on the E of whatever clause by adding you can nip over the line for 72 hrs temporarily etc and notify them etc - presume weather windows and passage planning / fuel bunkering etc etc .
That’s generous imho .Good seamanship overall might mean that’s a better safer action , then increasing the risk going 1/4 tanks into a storm to stay W of the line in the policy .

But the policy is all silent re “ unattended @ anchor “ so that’s the gap .

Ideally yup I hear you all saying it’s under “ all risks “ but that’s when my behaviour or as LD Rodgers ^^ infers Seamanship comes in .
Not saying you not covered I,am saying you are sleepwalking into a refute .
Would love to see “ all risks “ under section 1 - go on the add after “ electrolysis “ “ leaving the boat unattended at anchor “ and list a few clauses .But it doesn’t.
You may win the refute but my point is why get into a situation .
Hypothetical scenarios of nipping to the loo ( it’s temporary out of sight etc as per JFM post # —- ) can’t see making a dam when they examine your behaviour/ seamanship / intention .


Regarding seamanship and “ all risk “ think a moment about the guy who lost his Fairline from the deck of a ship between Sicily and Elba , that payout is sticking the various insurers I guess are challenging why the captain did not use any of the many opportunities to take shelter and wait until it was less risky to cross .
You behaviour/ actions / seamanship- call it what you will , will come under scrutiny with a claim more so for “ all risks “ you can’t just use that as a general dustbin to chuck a risk if it’s not in the low page easy to read number policy .

Anyhow I agree with JFM we have done this to death .
And thank JFM for his valuable insight and contributions to this thread .

I,am not a worrier btw for from it .Just like to know where if possible the boundaries in life lie to avoid unnecessary adversarial conflict.

Happy boating everyone with Amlins

 

[jfm]

Ok, despite my total disagreement with what you write above (especially the bit where you say you'll be insured so long as you had good intentions!), I too am happy to leave it. On the sleepwalker accusation, I'm afraid you are the sleepwalker with your Amlin email, but I know you don't agree. Anyways, happy boating/anchoring/restauranting

 

[Nigelpickin]

I understand that people want to go further and have different aspirations. But do I expect every single one of them on my insurance policy? No I don't. Particularly as it'd mean I would be paying for them. I would imagine others are similar or equally different again. We don't all do the same stuff fortunately.

Sorry, but that’s just a strange expectation. The policy can and does fit a wide variety of user, that’s what it’s designed to do - the tailoring by the underwriter is done in the premium.
You benefit from the grown up approach of the policy because as the syndicate increases its subscription, (in part because of the all risks selling point), it becomes more competitive. I’m sure that JFM will have a better understanding than me but diversity in the client base must protect the syndicate better against total wipe out scenarios. Regardless tho’ - my point is that they put all the application detail into the number cruncher and it spits out a premium - so your and mine general policy will be identical - the premium and exclusion will not be. That’s why I need a second mortgage to pay for my sons car insurance.

Your argument could just as easily (and more pertinently), be, ‘I understand people have multi-million $ boats but do I expect every one of them on my policy?’.....

Regarding your unattended anchoring and bad seamanship point, I agree - we don’t want this to become an anchoring thread but I did have to check the rules on late April Fools in case you were trying to get a bite....