Insurance : a little known clause explained - worth the read

[matelot]

I did think about the 3rd party bit, but tbh the waters are pretty quiet up here. I could envisage causing damage to a 3rd party if the boat broke from its mooring, but I wouldn't have been covered for that.
I have been unable to find insurance for DIY moorings- some people seem to have this as a grandfather right, lucky for them.

Since having an insurable mooring is one of the material facts of the policy, to be unable to meet this would, as I understand it, void the whole policy. I suppose I could, perhaps, attempt to arrange a bespoke policy which would take account of the mooring status, but I just don't see the point, really.

All our club moorings are personally laid and inspected - maybe 150 of them. All the members are insured.

Even if your mooring was personally laid and uninsured your policy would still cover you against other issues like some boat hitting you and not owning up.
Whilst some insurance companies try to minimise claims the same way many claimants try to maximise the claim, most pay up honestly. After all, who would buy insurance if companies routinely walked away fro justified claims?

Trouble is most punters chose the cheapest insurance and those are the companies under the greatest cost pressure to wriggle.

 

[Kelpie]

Even if your mooring was personally laid and uninsured your policy would still cover you against other issues like some boat hitting you and not owning up.

My understanding (and I may be wrong on this) is that if you do not comply with a material fact of the policy, then the entire policy is void.
So because I cannot comply with the requirement to have the mooring maintained by a professional company (and every insurance company I have spoken to has this requirement) the whole policy would be void. It wouldn't matter what actually led to the claim.

Insurance contracts are supposed to be "in the utmost good faith" or some latin legalese which means the same thing. This means that companies are entitled to void policies even if the misrepresentation is not related to the loss.

But if was a while ago that I looked into this, so I admit I'm a bit hazy on it.

 

[charles_reed]

My understanding (and I may be wrong on this) is that if you do not comply with a material fact of the policy, then the entire policy is void.
So because I cannot comply with the requirement to have the mooring maintained by a professional company (and every insurance company I have spoken to has this requirement) the whole policy would be void. It wouldn't matter what actually led to the claim.

Insurance contracts are supposed to be "in the utmost good faith" or some latin legalese which means the same thing. This means that companies are entitled to void policies even if the misrepresentation is not related to the loss.

But if was a while ago that I looked into this, so I admit I'm a bit hazy on it.

The term is "Uberrimae fides".

You void any insurance if you do not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.