Insurance. Can This Be Right.

[hlb]

I've just rung SAGA Insurance. I've always found them excellent and very helpful.

I asked about a none use policy, as the boat is coming out of the water till it's sea trialed. Then presumably I would only need a week or two's insurance before it's sold.

The girl said. If it's insured for none use. Around £300 per year, it must stay in none use for the whole year and can not go back into. "In use". £600.

Surely this cannot be right. Any experience??

 

[jfm]

I sort of think they have a valid point. Any "in use" policy is priced assuming quite a lot of non use, because statistically across their whole pool of insured boats they are used on average (say) 40 days/year and tied to the dock unused for the rest of the year. If you ask for a "non-use" policy for the days it is not used, then wish to flip back to "in-use" when you actually use it, it would seem to me that risk-wise that is the same thing as a whole-year "in-use" policy.

T'other thing is that at prices like this insurance businesses don't work if the actual sales girl is given the power to underwrite. The underwriters do the underwriting, and the girl you talked to has no power to do any bespoking and can only sell you products from a fixed menu. That's kinda how it has to be, to keep overheads down

 

[PaulGooch]

Try calling Porthcawl insurance a ring Haydn, they gave the best deal for me this year.

 

[hlb]

JFM.

Yes I see what you mean. I prefer to stay with SAGA, they have been very good.

 

[benjenbav]

It wouldn't have surprised me if you'd said they'd quoted you more for "not in use". Although we tend to think of the main risks as hitting a rock or being hit by another boat, they need to consider risks like the boat falling off the props on the hard, vandalism, theft etc many of which the insurers may consider to be higher risks if the boat is not in use.

Try insuring an empty house for example. It's always a lot more than the same house if it is occupied.