Help - Insurance Problem

[jfm]

Unless I have read it wrong, we also don't know that the water ingress was "caused by slow seepage over several months."

You may be right. OP isn't helping us or he is in mod-limbo. If on balance of prob the stern packing came loose and popped out, so to speak, and then the boat took on the water in a short time, he would be covered under the Pantaenius clause. He's also be covered under the Y policy so long as he gets within the word "submersion" which I'm not sure about. The pantaenius policy is better imho in these circs because it uses the term "sudden and accidental inrush of water" (rather than "submersion") which I'm confident would be satisfied if a sterngland popped as opposed to weeped.

BTW, in commenting on Y's policy I'm only using Sailorman's post above. It may well be that the word "submersion" is defined. I don't know.

 

[jfm]

If I left my boat on a swinging mooring for 10 years without any maintenance whatsoever (or even use) and it sunk would this policy pay out?

Yes, just on the words written there. But that isn't the whole policy, and in the proposal form there might be questions about how you use the boat, a requirement for lay up period, etc, all of which serve to make sure it cannot be left unattended

 

[petem]

You may be right. OP isn't helping us or he is in mod-limbo. If on balance of prob the stern packing came loose and popped out, so to speak, and then the boat took on the water in a short time, he would be covered under the Pantaenius clause. He's also be covered under the Y policy so long as he gets within the word "submersion" which I'm not sure about. The pantaenius policy is better imho in these circs because it uses the term "sudden and accidental inrush of water" (rather than "submersion") which I'm confident would be satisfied if a sterngland popped as opposed to weeped.

BTW, in commenting on Y's policy I'm only using Sailorman's post above. It may well be that the word "submersion" is defined. I don't know.

Doesn't submerge simply mean 'go or put under water'? In that case why would there be any doubt concerning that term? Are you thinking that because the boat is only part submerged that it would be refused?

 

[Stork_III]

Most likely scenario. OP is probably reading the posts in the thread and is itching to reply..........but cant!

Her/his profile says last activity 31/10/13 20.29, so not watching this or any other thread.

 

[petem]

Her/his profile says last activity 31/10/13 20.29, so not watching this or any other thread.

He doesn't have to be logged in to view the thread. Maybe he's not seen anything he likes the look of!

 

[Seahope]

I notice that you keep recommending Pantaenius , is this one of the areas where Pantaenius would pay out without quibble ?

I'm sure most of us would at least check stern glands more frequently than once in two years but there are many other ways of sinking I am surprised at the forums overall lack of sympathy towards the op (except jfm ), we can all sink and many of us are not adequately insured for gradually operating causes.

.
..................the list is endless where water can ingress and the bilge pump keeps us afloat until it becomes blocked or the battery expires, frost damage or accidental engineer damage may go unnoticed for several months by the time the marina staff realize the engines are swamped and impossible to prove how the sinking came about.

The OP has my sympathy and best wishes and it is great that JFM has taken an interest so soon.

The sinking of my boat and subsequent saga is an episode that I may never really get over. Whenever I think about how nice it would be to have a boat I remember how I felt when I saw my boat virtually sunk and when my Insurer told me they wouldn't cover my loss. If I was an American I would probably still be in counseling

 

[jfm]

Doesn't submerge simply mean 'go or put under water'? In that case why would there be any doubt concerning that term? Are you thinking that because the boat is only part submerged that it would be refused?

No, I'm questioning whether the "submersed" condition is met as regards an engine if say

(a) the boat takes on water and the engine is underwater but the boat itself simply sits low in the water
(b) the boat takes on less water so the engine is partly underwater and partly above water; arguably partly submersed but also arguably not submersed

I suppose the questions are (a) "Does only the item you're claiming replacement of have to be submersed, not the whole boat?" And (b) "Does the whole of the item have to be underwater, or are you covered it if is only partly underwater but is still busted and needs replacing? A wiring loom, say."

There may be an answer in the Y policy of course

 

[petem]

No, I'm questioning whether the "submersed" condition is met as regards an engine if say

(a) the boat takes on water and the engine is underwater but the boat itself simply sits low in the water
(b) the boat takes on less water so the engine is partly underwater and partly above water; arguably partly submersed but also arguably not submersed

I suppose the questions are (a) "Does only the item you're claiming replacement of have to be submersed, not the whole boat?" And (b) "Does the whole of the item have to be underwater, or are you covered it if is only partly underwater but is still busted and needs replacing? A wiring loom, say."

There may be an answer in the Y policy of course

If the whole boat was 'submerged' then it would have 'sunk' surely? So 'submerge' is there to allow for a boat that has partially sunk? So for your (a) I would say the whole boat does not need to be submerged.

Regarding (b) If you said an entire item had to be submerged then if you took that to its logical conclusion then an engine that's submerged apart from the top 1cm could not be claimed for. I'd argue that as long as part of the item is under water then it is submerged and therefore covered. The stuff that isn't at least partially under water line wouldn't be covered.

 

[jfm]

I'd argue that as long as part of the item is under water then it is submerged...

Sure you would. But I assure you (from harsh personal experience!) that when you make a big claim they argue back. Sometimes not very fairly, and it's "advantage insurer" because you're the plaintiff while they're the defendant.

Now, if you're standing in the waves on the beach so your ankles are covered and the surf reaches up to your knees, part of you is underwater namely your feet and ankles. Would you say, in ordinary everyday English, that you or your body is submerged? No, you wouldn't. Likewise, part of my boat is underwater rright now, but it i definitely not submerged. So I think the better argument is that submerged means fully, not partially, underwater.

BTW, I don't think it matters much but the word they use is "submersed".

 

[petem]

Sure you would. But I assure you (from harsh personal experience!) that when you make a big claim they argue back. Sometimes not very fairly, and it's "advantage insurer" because you're the plaintiff while they're the defendant.

Now, if you're standing in the waves on the beach so your ankles are covered and the surf reaches up to your knees, part of you is underwater namely your feet and ankles. Would you say, in ordinary everyday English, that you or your body is submerged? No, you wouldn't. Likewise, part of my boat is underwater rright now, but it i definitely not submerged. So I think the better argument is that submerged means fully, not partially, underwater.

BTW, I don't think it matters much but the word they use is "submersed".

Nice try but I'm not a boat! Would you deny that the Costa Concordia is submersed? I would.

But I would also argue that a submarine at the surface is not submersed whereas one that is 100ft under the water is submersed. When it's lying at the bottom and cannot surface then it's sunk.

But I see your point that all boats are submersed to an extent. Perhaps you could argue that a boat is classified as submersed when it is deeper into the water than normal? It's all about relativity and what's normal.

 

[Stork_III]

No, I'm questioning whether the "submersed" condition is met as regards an engine if say

(a) the boat takes on water and the engine is underwater but the boat itself simply sits low in the water
(b) the boat takes on less water so the engine is partly underwater and partly above water; arguably partly submersed but also arguably not submersed

I suppose the questions are (a) "Does only the item you're claiming replacement of have to be submersed, not the whole boat?" And (b) "Does the whole of the item have to be underwater, or are you covered it if is only partly underwater but is still busted and needs replacing? A wiring loom, say."

There may be an answer in the Y policy of course

This is the Definitions Section of My Y Yacht Policy:
DEFINITIONS
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Insured means the individual(s), company or other entity named in the Certi!cate
of Insurance or in respect of liabilities to third parties a person in accordance with
clause 1.5.4.
Insurer means Amlin Syndicate 2001 at Lloyd’s.
Vessel means the insured vessel as speci!ed in the Certi!cate of Insurance and is
comprised of the hull, machinery, gear and equipment (such as would normally
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
10 h.p), being the property of the Insured named in the Certi!cate of Insurance.
However, any tender and outboard motor shall only be included up to a
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
separately declared). It does not include moorings in any circumstances. Trailers
are only covered if originally purchased with the Vessel or if speci!ed in the
Certi!cate of Insurance.
Sum Insured means the agreed value of the Vessel or other insured property as
speci!ed in the Certi!cate of Insurance.
Total Loss means when the Vessel is, following an insured loss, destroyed or the
Insured is irretrievably deprived of the Vessel.
Constructive Total Loss������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
MCA means Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Latent Defect means any hidden "aw, weakness or imperfection that cannot be
identi!ed by reasonable inspection. It does not include any item that is damaged
or less effective due to use, wear and tear or similar.
Personal Belongings means the personal property of the Insured and, if
appropriate, the Insured’s domestic partner and their children who permanently live
with them, and their guests whilst onboard the Vessel.
Boats means any boat, other than the Vessel, speci!ed in the Certi!cate of Insurance.
All other words shall be given their ordinary meaning.


Submersed is not specifically defined,so last sentence (my emboldening) applies. (Not sure why my cut/paste has changed all f into !)

 

[jfm]

Nice try but I'm not a boat! Would you deny that the Costa Concordia is submersed? I would.

But I would also argue that a submarine at the surface is not submersed whereas one that is 100ft under the water is submersed. When it's lying at the bottom and cannot surface then it's sunk.

But I see your point that all boats are submersed to an extent. Perhaps you could argue that a boat is classified as submersed when it is deeper into the water than normal? It's all about relativity and what's normal.

Pete I'm not trying to have an argument with you. I'm merely showing that with unclear wording an argument can be had. Having an argument is way cheaper than cutting to the chase and paying out a claim. Do you think unclear wording like this is accidental, or deliberate? Think about that for 2 seconds before answering. They're always the defendant and you're the plaintiff, remember.

 

[petem]

Pete I'm not trying to have an argument with you. I'm merely showing that with unclear wording an argument can be had. Having an argument is way cheaper than cutting to the chase and paying out a claim. Do you think unclear wording like this is accidental, or deliberate? Think about that for 2 seconds before answering.

I've given it 2 seconds thought (thanks for that) and I believe these wordings can be accidental or deliberate. Sometimes they are deliberately included so that the ins co can attempt to avoid paying out a claim, sometimes they are there because the policy has evolved over the years with bits being added and not being reviewed in the round. But you kind of counter your argument, if the policy was so deliberately worded then why mention submersion at all if, as you claim, it means sinking. Indeed we've already seen that 'Y' policy is a bit poorly worded as sinking trumps all other exclusions. Anyway, since when did you start having respect for people who create policy wording or statutes or other such people without large boats!

Back to the matter in hand, the 'ordinary meaning' for submersion is under water. Do you really believe that submersion means total submersion? I don't and I would still maintain that the Costa Concordia is submersed (in fact IMHO your man on the beach would also be submersed if the his torso was under water). If the insurer meant totally submersed they should have said that. I also note that the wording just mentions damage due to submersion, it does not specify that the BOAT has to be submersed.

I'd bet that if your boat was under the water with a foot sticking out that you would claim that it was submersed.

They're always the defendant and you're the plaintiff, remember.

Yep but I believe the courts and ombudsman do have sympathy for policy holders if they see that an insurer is using weasly words or badly worded policies to avoid their liabilities.

 

[jfm]

if, as you claim, it means sinking.

I'm not making an argument for any particular meaning of "submersed". I'm merely saying an argument can be had.

The Y policy wording hasn't evolved; Y is all-new, founded only a couple of years ago

I would not describe CC as submersed/submerged. I'd say it is flooded, and that the hull is submerged up to the level of the 8th deck or whatever, the the ship itself isn't actually submerged. The titanic is submerged.

A submarine is often called a submersible. That means it is capable of being submerged/submersed. It is only submersible if it can be fully submerged; something that can be partly submersed isn't a submersible, in my book.

But I don't care if I'm right or wrong Pete so please don't argue back. I'm merely demonstrating that an argument can be had. Which translates into the insurer not paying. Perhaps for a year or so, if not forever.

 

[petem]

I'm not making an argument for any particular meaning of "submersed". I'm merely saying an argument can be had.

The Y policy wording hasn't evolved; Y is all-new, founded only a couple of years ago

I would not describe CC as submersed/submerged. I'd say it is flooded, and that the hull is submerged up to the level of the 8th deck or whatever, the the ship itself isn't actually submerged. The titanic is submerged.

A submarine is often called a submersible. That means it is capable of being submerged/submersed. It is only submersible if it can be fully submerged; something that can be partly submersed isn't a submersible, in my book.

But I don't care if I'm right or wrong Pete so please don't argue back. I'm merely demonstrating that an argument can be had. Which translates into the insurer not paying. Perhaps for a year or so, if not forever.

Whilst I still disagree with your interpretation of the Y policy, I would certainly agree that there is an argument around interpretation (which we've kind of had)!

Shame the OP hasn't responded with the details of his actual policy.

What this highlights again, is that there a lots of nuances and variations within marine leisure policies that owners needs to be fully aware of. Perhaps YBW and the RYA could start a campaign to encourage the use of a standard wording.

Pete

 

[DAKA]

What this highlights again, is that there a lots of nuances and variations within marine leisure policies that owners needs to be fully aware of. Perhaps YBW and the RYA could start a campaign to encourage the use of a standard wording.

Pete

I'm not really old enough to remember the full details but I think in the old days there was indeed one set of clauses which had evolved over the years to offer a fair deal covering accidents and unforeseen circumstances while rejecting wear and tear.
? marine institute standard clauses ?

General Accident (now part of the Aviva group) introduced an 'All Risks' policy wording which was expensive in comparison however offered a bit wider cover, Navigators and General also had their own policy wording.

Now its difficult to find two policies the same.

Its more important in my opinion to choose an Insurer who pays out fairly, thats tricky for most who will go a whole life time without needing to claim so all that is left is to go on recommendation and to ignore the recommendations based purely on price .

Haven Knox Johnston won the 2013 YBW customer service award http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/testimonials.aspx however in my opinion I doubt their policy would cover damages to an engine where a boat hasnt had stern glands changed for well over 2 years (note the op says checked 2 years ago, not changed two years ago) and that gradually lowers into the water to swamp the engines.

Many on this thread have clearly said they do not wish to pay for the OP damage so perhaps what we need is for someone like seastart or any marine insurer to offer an optional extension to their standard policy to cover swamped engines , I think some already offer this cover for engines under 5 years old.

 

[jfm]

Haven Knox Johnston won the 2013 YBW customer service award http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/testimonials.aspx however in my opinion I doubt their policy would cover damages to an engine where a boat hasnt had stern glands changed for well over 2 years (note the op says checked 2 years ago, not changed two years ago) and that gradually lowers into the water to swamp the engines.

Don't get me started on HKJ. If you want a policy that surpasses the others in terms of it excluding things you'd expect to be included, HKJ is it. Sure, they won the Garmin award because they are very nice and polite to deal with and lots of customers wrote in to say that. I got a quote/sample policy from them about a year ago and they were indeed charming. But the policy is just awful imho. Buy it at your peril, imho. There was a thread on scuttlebutt about a year ago (link here, post #15 onwards, http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?346611-Just-got-my-boat-Ins-renewal-via-email) where I said all this, and their MD posted to defend their policy, and kinda promised they would email any customer who asked saying they wont invoke their exclusion when the engines break down and the boat is busted on rocks (yep, the actual policy wording per se doesn't cover that, gulp...), but even he hadn't spotted the HUGE exclusion in their third party coverage. He didn't respond when he was corrected on that, and just left the thread. Anyway, everyone is free to buy whatever policy they choose but I would say please just take care to read HKJ's policy before choosing it

 

[petem]

I'm not really old enough to remember the full details but I think in the old days there was indeed one set of clauses which had evolved over the years to offer a fair deal covering accidents and unforeseen circumstances while rejecting wear and tear.
? marine institute standard clauses ?

General Accident (now part of the Aviva group) introduced an 'All Risks' policy wording which was expensive in comparison however offered a bit wider cover, Navigators and General also had their own policy wording.

Now its difficult to find two policies the same.

Its more important in my opinion to choose an Insurer who pays out fairly, thats tricky for most who will go a whole life time without needing to claim so all that is left is to go on recommendation and to ignore the recommendations based purely on price .

Haven Knox Johnston won the 2013 YBW customer service award http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/testimonials.aspx however in my opinion I doubt their policy would cover damages to an engine where a boat hasnt had stern glands changed for well over 2 years (note the op says checked 2 years ago, not changed two years ago) and that gradually lowers into the water to swamp the engines.

Many on this thread have clearly said they do not wish to pay for the OP damage so perhaps what we need is for someone like seastart or any marine insurer to offer an optional extension to their standard policy to cover swamped engines , I think some already offer this cover for engines under 5 years old.

The problem with going on recommendations is that it is hard to ascertain if...

1) it was a included event (i.e. covered by the policy) and the insurer paid [in which case no real endorsement for the ins co]
2) it wasn't an included event (i.e. not covered by the policy) and the insurer paid [good endorsement for the ins co]
3) it was a included event (i.e. covered by the policy) and the insurer avoided payment [bad mark for ins co]
4a) it wasn't an included event (i.e. not reasonably expected to be covered by the policy) and the insurer avoided payment [neutral]
4b) it wasn't an included event (i.e. unreasonably excluded by the policy) and the insurer avoided payment [bad mark for ins co]

Do we really know the difference?

Whist reputation sholdn't be ignored, the important thing is to read and compare policies and be prepared to argue in the event of a claim.

 

[Medwaylady]

Good Morning to you all. I posted the original thread but various reasons I have been unable to go into the forum but thought any posts would come automatically to my mobile. I was amazed how quiet everyone had been so you can imagine my surprise when I finally gained access this morning to see my thread had caused a bit of a stir. I've only had time to scan through so far - will print them off and read fully later - but I fear most of the comments appear to be on the negative. My original post was a much shortened version of all that's gone one but one thing I want to say that our vessel was definitely not poorly maintained and for the past two years there have been a succession of marine engineers doing various bits and pieces so that she could be totally seaworthy.

 

[rafiki_]

Good Morning to you all. I posted the original thread but various reasons I have been unable to go into the forum but thought any posts would come automatically to my mobile. I was amazed how quiet everyone had been so you can imagine my surprise when I finally gained access this morning to see my thread had caused a bit of a stir. I've only had time to scan through so far - will print them off and read fully later - but I fear most of the comments appear to be on the negative. My original post was a much shortened version of all that's gone one but one thing I want to say that our vessel was definitely not poorly maintained and for the past two years there have been a succession of marine engineers doing various bits and pieces so that she could be totally seaworthy.

Welcome back. As a newbie, the mods take some time in allowing access to the site. Not sure why, but it is not personal. If you have kept all receipts from the work on your boat, and you can therefore prove that you have correctly maintained her, then this should help your claim.
Good luck.