Insurance all risk?

S

Scubadoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
2,001
Location
Hampshire / Solent
Visit site
Bear with me....This year I had a problem with my anodes whereby the bar anode was missing and the ring anode was over 90% wasted (it was only in the water for 10months). My boat has been in the same marina berth for many years and usually every year the anodes are on average 30-40% wasted. The impact was the hydraulic trim cylinders were corroded and had to be replaced. My insurer wouldn't cover the repair because the surveyor said it was electrolysis which was excluded from the policy even though I argued it was galvanic corrosion (I'm no expert on this), which is covered if I can demonstrate maintenance etc.

Anyway my insurance is up for renewal and wondered if there is such a policy that covers electrolysis, corrosion, all risk (within reason) etc as I am now thinking what if that happened to my seacocks which has been covered at lengths on this forum before.

So what are your thoughts? before I consider renewing with the same insurers.
 
Last edited:
Corrosion/electrolysis/galvanic etc are invariably excluded with no cover for the corroded part. The difference between policies is that some policies also exclude cover for the consequences of corrosion (eg sinking), whereas others do not and will cover the sinking and only exclude payment for the cost of the corroded part
 
Good point JFM, I guess my next question is what insurers will cover for the consequences of corrosion but exclude cover for the failed part as you described. My current insurers appear to cover corrosion but they have said providing I can provide evidence of routine maintenance and that the corroded part could not be identified by normal routine checks etc (I don't have the actual wording with me right now), but not sure if that would have covered the corroded part (I guess not).
 
If I can possiblly complicate matters worse by ---
You say "10 months" as if by inference you assume 12 is some sort of standard yardstick ? Thereby inferring something wrong , and somebody ( insurance firm ? Is liable ) which should generate a successful claim ., because of the lack of protection outside this magic figure of 12 ?
Anodes wear at different rates due to mulifactorial reasons - which may vary from time to time - and with periodic inspections and a bit of due dilligance should be replaced depending on the wear , not time .
You missed this out and expect the ins Co to pick up the tab -if I understand your post correctly ??
Who said 12 months ?
 
Portofino said:
If I can possiblly complicate matters worse by ---
You say "10 months" as if by inference you assume 12 is some sort of standard yardstick ? Thereby inferring something wrong , and somebody ( insurance firm ? Is liable ) which should generate a successful claim ., because of the lack of protection outside this magic figure of 12 ?
Anodes wear at different rates due to mulifactorial reasons - which may vary from time to time - and with periodic inspections and a bit of due dilligance should be replaced depending on the wear , not time .
You missed this out and expect the ins Co to pick up the tab -if I understand your post correctly ??
Who said 12 months ?
Click to expand...
I don't agree Portofino. The risk of anodes wearing faster than usual is just an inherent risk of boating and is insurable. There is no fundamental principle that an insurer should not pay just because the owner could have prevented the problem if he had been more diligent. If I sink my boat due to my navigational error that really I should have avoided if I had done my chartwork correctly, ie it is my negligence and carelessness, then my insurer pays. Likewise if I negligently get too close to the car in front and smash into his rear when the traffic lights go red, ie my stupid mistake, my insurer pays.

anyway I don't want to thread drift too much - sorry
 
jfm said:
I don't agree Portofino. The risk of anodes wearing faster than usual is just an inherent risk of boating and is insurable. There is no fundamental principle that an insurer should not pay just because the owner could have prevented the problem if he had been more diligent. If I sink my boat due to my navigational error that really I should have avoided if I had done my chartwork correctly, ie it is my negligence and carelessness, then my insurer pays. Likewise if I negligently get too close to the car in front and smash into his rear when the traffic lights go red, ie my stupid mistake, my insurer pays.

anyway I don't want to thread drift too much - sorry
Click to expand...

Neither do I.
But your insurer may attempt to refute the claim ( arse ending ) if your car had failed an MOT on worn brakes , disc,s and leaky master cylinder 2 months ago , -sure pay out the 3rd party as legally required ,but cover reinstatement of car ?
Anode wear /protection is a known known and avoidable by replacing when worn ,or dropped off ( bar anode ) .guessing an ins Co would be mad to insure -cover consequences of failed anodes or the premium reflects the extra risk .
But as you say devil s in the detail which we can not see .
 
Last edited:
Portofino, I made a claim based on their statement relating to corrosion which I stated briefly in my previous post. To answer your question, my boat has been in the same berth for over 8 years or more and is lifted annually. The anode wear rate had not changed in all that time until this year. Yes I do visually check my ring anode but didn't pickup on the wear, the other bar anode I simply can't see, hence why my boat is lifted every year for general maintenance and checks, like most boaters. I contacted my insurers with all the details including showing several old anodes which were replaced in previous years and so on. I did not expect the insurers to pay out but felt I should make a claim based on their corrosion policy (which I may have misunderstood).

To this day I still don't know what caused the rapid anode lost, but there have been changes in my marina from new boats to structural work etc. So to mitigate going forward I have added more anodes and an isolator, on top of that I now use an inspection camera to check the bar anodes which I can't see normally unless going for a swim.

All I was trying to do on this thread was to see if I could improve my insurance cover.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top