Insurance....again

[CLB]

Hello all.

I need to renew my insurance today. Now I know the perceived view that Pantaneius is the best, and all in all their quote was actually pretty good. The downside is that I am between jobs and need to squeeze the value out of every pound at the moment. Yeah I know, I shouldn't really have a boat but you know how it is.

I was with Traffords, but having read JFM's comments I am keen to switch.

The quotes I have had:
Traffords £180
Y Yacht £220
Craft Insure £225
Pants £325
HKJ £355

I am thinking Y Yachts or Craft Insure. Craft Insure has a very basic set of terms and conditions that even I can get my head around. Y Yachts goes on for pages and pages!

I know for many of you the extra £100 for the Pants policy would be a no brainer, and if I am earning next year I'll be with them like a shot, but I need to get the best mix of value and cover for this year.

So, should I get Y Yachts, even though I can't understand their policy terms but they have some good comments hereabouts.
Should I go Craft Insure, which is basically a Nav and Gen policy with simple to understand wording that looks ok to me.
Or should I not eat for a couple of weeks and the slimmer, hungrier me can sleep easy knowing I have the perceived best?

 

[Pinnacle]

Will an extra £135 allow you to sleep at night?

 

[pks1702]

I was with Craft Insure with our last boat but the insurance debate which JFM kindly raised had me questioning my policy wording.

I could not get a clear answer from Craft Insure as to the question as to what exactly would they pay should a seacock fail. I was uncomfortable with the lack of reassurance so looked at other options.

Pantanieus are undoubtedly excellent but Barrie Sullivan was MD of Pantanieus UK before setting up Y Yachts. Having looked at their policy in my layman's eyes and with the above situation I would be covered.

Be interested to hear if this passes the JFM test.

Policy Booklet - http://www.yyachtinsurance.com/newdocs/Y Policy Booklet (1)_02-14.pdf:

See clause 3.4.

 

[Beamishken]

I'm with craftinsure & have had to claim twice both claims were a little unusual & one I never expected to get paid out for but craftinsure paid without quibble, both were substantial amounts & Craftinsure couldn't have been better
I wouldn't go anywhere else

 

[sailorman]

Hello all.

I need to renew my insurance today. Now I know the perceived view that Pantaneius is the best, and all in all their quote was actually pretty good. The downside is that I am between jobs and need to squeeze the value out of every pound at the moment. Yeah I know, I shouldn't really have a boat but you know how it is.

I was with Traffords, but having read JFM's comments I am keen to switch.

The quotes I have had:
Traffords £180
Y Yacht £220
Craft Insure £225
Pants £325
HKJ £355

I am thinking Y Yachts or Craft Insure. Craft Insure has a very basic set of terms and conditions that even I can get my head around. Y Yachts goes on for pages and pages!

I know for many of you the extra £100 for the Pants policy would be a no brainer, and if I am earning next year I'll be with them like a shot, but I need to get the best mix of value and cover for this year.

So, should I get Y Yachts, even though I can't understand their policy terms but they have some good comments hereabouts.
Should I go Craft Insure, which is basically a Nav and Gen policy with simple to understand wording that looks ok to me.
Or should I not eat for a couple of weeks and the slimmer, hungrier me can sleep easy knowing I have the perceived best?

I & many here are with Y due to the policy wording.
do not even think of "cheap" ins

 

[jfm]

I would avoid the Traffords policy if it is the one linked to in the other recent thread, for the reasons in post #18 on that thread.

Traffords aside, is entirely your call. Generally with boat insurance, if you are happy to have pretty much all the risks that a boat owner faces covered by insurance, EXCEPT the risks of (a) self employed boat fixer injuring himself and suing you, and (b) seacock fizzing away and boat sinking, then you can buy one of the cheaper policies.

At least your research makes one thing sort of clear, which is that you can think of this conceptually as 2 insurance policies: one @£200ish for basic risks, and another additional policy for (a) and (b) above @£100. You can buy zero, one or both policies, conceptually. So you have to decide what you want to do.

(By the way, the Traffords policy does give some cover under (a), but it is limited, and there are other shortcomings in the Traffords policy imho. See above mentioned post #18 for detail)

Personally I see those(a) and (b) risks as worth laying off for a small amount of money, but of course risk pricing always involves a personal view. I never buy travel insurance because I've decided I'll pay my own overseas medical bill etc, but many people do buy travel insurance. I don't generally wear a lifejacket when boating, but others do, and so on. I mean, there's no right or wrong answer and no-one can decide for you

FWIW I do happen to think risk (b) is well worth laying off onto an insurer, and Seahope and the scuttlebutt poster who suffered major losses on this score would probably agree

 

[gjgm]

Yup it is entirely your call. If you are happy to have pretty much all the risks that a boat owner faces covered by insurance, EXCEPT the risks of (a) self employed boat fixer injuring himself and suing you, and (b) seacock fizzing away and boat sinking, then buy the cheaper one.

At least your research makes one thing sort of clear, which is that you can think of this conceptually as 2 insurance policies: one @£180 for basic risks, and another additional policy for (a) and (b) above @£145. You can buy zero, one or both policies, conceptually. So you have to decide what you want to do.

Personally I see those(a) and (b) risks as worth laying off for a small amount of money, but of course risk pricing always involves a personal view. I never buy travel insurance because I've decided I'll pay my own overseas medical bill etc, but many people do buy travel insurance. I don't generally wear a lifejacket when boating, but others do, and so on. I mean, there's no right or wrong answer and no-one can decide for you

But I do happen to think risk (b) is well worth laying off onto an insurer, and Seahope and the scuttlebutt poster who suffered major losses on this score would probably agree

I think that where I ended up too. Following the other thread I got a few mid term quotes and basically, do I want to pay more (and if so how much) to cover those two risks. Do I think I am really at risk of those two risks, compared to all sorts of other risks...?

 

[Fantasie 19]

I'm with craftinsure & have had to claim twice both claims were a little unusual & one I never expected to get paid out for but craftinsure paid without quibble, both were substantial amounts & Craftinsure couldn't have been better
I wouldn't go anywhere else

I was dismasted about 2 months after I first took out a policy with them and my experience was the same.. been with them ever since...

 

[CLB]

JFM

This is a serious question. I do not have metal underwater seacocks. Should that make a difference to whom I choose?

ie if the BIG issue is paying out in the event of seacock corrosion and sinking, that's actually one risk that I don't have.

I do have other holes in the boat, such as sterndrive mounting and bow thruster, but many of these insurance debates seem to centre around corroded seacocks.

Thanks for your input

 

[jfm]

... substantial amounts ...

Can you say how much? In order to judge a bit better their behaviour

 

[jfm]

JFM

This is a serious question. I do not have metal underwater seacocks. Should that make a difference to whom I choose?

ie if the BIG issue is paying out in the event of seacock corrosion and sinking, that's actually one risk that I don't have.

I do have other holes in the boat, such as sterndrive mounting and bow thruster, but many of these insurance debates seem to centre around corroded seacocks.

Thanks for your input

On a mobo, the main risk of a big corrosion loss seems to be seacocks. In a sailboat it can be rigging fittings/dismasting as well. So if you had a sailboat I'd say still get the better policy. In your mobo, if you have eliminated seacock corrosion then yes you could conclude that your risk is much lower and you might then not want to pay the extra premium on the more comprehensively worded policies

I'd have a think about a few other things before making decision:
1. Do plastic seacocks have metal shafts/pins?
2. The infamous "corrosion" clauses generally also exclude wear, tear, gradual degradation, and so on. If a PSC failed, could a technical lab say the plastic was degraded and had become brittle for example (even if still within manufacturer's age guidelines)?
3. Anything in the policy about seaworthiness, that could be used against you if a PSC snapped its hosetail off? Also, anything in the statutory seaworthiness standard (ie the implied warranty of seaworthiness deemed by statute to be given by the insured)
4. Do they pass relevant standards (RINA, Lloyds, CE, etc etc)
5. Is it possible for them to be fitted badly, leading to a latent weakness, eg by over tightening the locknut?
6. What is the risk of a sideways load snapping them? Eg in heavy sea something in engine room comes loose, and hits the hose, thus putting a bending load on the seacock hose tail and snapping it? In that scenario you could lose a big claim on "unseaworthiness"

Reason for all these thoughts is that if a PSC fails resulting in a total loss, insurers will think of these and a dozen more and investigate every angle. These things are never simple when you get into a big claim.

I do not want to drift this into a technical discussion on pros cons of PSCs (would be happy to think about that on another thread). I'm just listing out the things an insurer might think of to refuse paying a large or total loss claim, and I'm saying you need to be confident on these items imho. Of course my 3,4,5,6 above relate to whether to fit PSCs in the first place, not which insurer to choose once you've done it. If you can get happy on 1+2 above I think there is a lot of sense in choosing the cheaper policy, once you've done it.

Finally, remember the differences in 3P cover between the "good" and "bad" policies

 

[AdeOlly]

Pantanieus are undoubtedly excellent but Barrie Sullivan was MD of Pantanieus UK before setting up Y Yachts. Having looked at their policy in my layman's eyes and with the above situation I would be covered.

Policy Booklet - http://www.yyachtinsurance.com/newdocs/Y Policy Booklet (1)_02-14.pdf:

See clause 3.4.

And clause 3.14 under Exclusions section states

The Insured is not covered for:

Loss or damage to engine(s), gearbox(es), electrical machinery, electrical equipment, batteries and connections resulting from:
3.14.1 negligence of any person including, but not limited to, the failure to reasonably maintain the Vessel;
3.14.2 Latent Defect in the Vessel;
3.14.3 frost, unless all reasonable precautions have been taken;
3.14.4 water, unless resulting from accidental damage to the hull or rare and extreme weather conditions; or
3.14.5 failure by any Insured to take reasonable precautions to prevent further deterioration.



Personally I don't like this clause, esp 3.14.4. Think of raw water leak to engine room.

 

[CLB]

Thanks JFM, really good points.

On balance I think I'll go with one of the two mid range policies this year and get on the phone to Pants next year, when hopefully the difference in price will seem less significant.

 

[AllanG]

I was always insured with GJW when I had my boat, and found them to be very competitive.....why don't you try them for a quote.

 

[julians]

I use Gallagher heath to get my policy, they are a broker, and I ended up with a policy from Allianz. Having read the small print I believe it passes the 'seacock' test.

I recently had to claim for about 3.5k worth of damage(my first ever claim in 15 years of insuring boats) and whilst not especially large, it was paid with no issues, I have no issue in recommending them.

 

[LionsDen]

Thanks JFM, really good points.

On balance I think I'll go with one of the two mid range policies this year and get on the phone to Pants next year, when hopefully the difference in price will seem less significant.

Pantaneius also offer no interest charge for spreading your payments over 12 monthly equal instalments if this assists :encouragement:

 

[ontheplane]

And clause 3.14 under Exclusions section states

The Insured is not covered for:

Loss or damage to engine(s), gearbox(es), electrical machinery, electrical equipment, batteries and connections resulting from:
3.14.1 negligence of any person including, but not limited to, the failure to reasonably maintain the Vessel;
3.14.2 Latent Defect in the Vessel;
3.14.3 frost, unless all reasonable precautions have been taken;
3.14.4 water, unless resulting from accidental damage to the hull or rare and extreme weather conditions; or
3.14.5 failure by any Insured to take reasonable precautions to prevent further deterioration.



Personally I don't like this clause, esp 3.14.4. Think of raw water leak to engine room.

It would worry me at least as much 3.14.1 - negligence of any person

So, if someone was assigned as "watch" and they missed a rock and hit it putting a hole in the boat, which sunk it - Would they be able to cite this under an "Exception" and not pay? That seems a huge get out to me....

 

[Poecheng]

I was always insured with GJW when I had my boat, and found them to be very competitive.....why don't you try them for a quote.

I am with them with my raggie but, having read this I got an indicative quote from Y Yacht insurance which was well over 10% cheaper than GJW.

 

[Beamishken]

Can you say how much? In order to judge a bit better their behaviour

first claim was for 12.5k for our previous boat which was valued at the time around 40k so claim was for over 25% of insured value & the second was for 6k on our present boat

it seems that it will costs the op around £100 per year to insure against a failed seacock.Surely it would be better to use that £100 to better maintain the boat in the first place,I recon I could replace all my seacocks for under £500 & im sure the life expectancy is far greater than 5 years

Id expect most claims to be for smaller items than a total loss & I believe that the way companies handle these more likely claims would be a better judge of how a company performs. Rather than focus on one area where it I perceived companies will try to wriggle out of a claim

if I remember the thread correctly the disputed claim was for a boat that hadn't been lifted for a couple of years?

personally if my boat sank because a critical component that hadn't been inspected for 2 years failed then id probably expect the insurers to not want to pay

I like to maintain my boat to a high standard & id rather not pay higher premiums to subsidise others who neglect critical items & expect insurers to pick up the tab

 

[rubberduck]

Our boat comes out at least once a year, & I get engines serviced, have it cleaned etc. I also check anodes & fittings myself, & while I'm sure the guys working on her would let me know if they saw anything wrong, none of us probably have the qualifications to spot internal damage to seacocks, for example. Do I need to get a surveyor out every six months ?