Insurance Company Recommendations Please.

Status
Not open for further replies.
STATUE said:
No, no, no ! Avoid GJW if a boat they have insured breaks off its mooring and crashes into your vessel, GJW will not pay out. EVIDENCE : A full two page artical in this magazine.
Click to expand...

Seems you misunderstood the message of the article. GJW were under no obligation to pay for the damage unless the owner of the boat that broke free could be shown to be negligent. I expect with the same facts other insurers would not have paid.

You need to be clear about the legal relationships. If somebody else's boat hits yours, your claim is against him, not his insurer. You have no relationship with his insurer. If you can show the person is negligent then you hope he has insurance that covers his negligence. The important thing is that the claim is valid if negligence is proven and the insurer has to pay. If he is not insured then you pursue the owner.

In this case the owner of the damaged boat did not have insurance cover (only third party), so was unable to claim from his own insurer. If he had he could have claimed on his policy and his insurer would then recover from the owner of the other boat. As it is the best he could hope is that if he had cover for uninsured losses he could claim on that policy IF the insurer was convinced he had a claim with a chance of success.

If you claim on your own insurance then what you can claim for is covered by the terms and conditions of your contract. However if you claim on the other party it is under the law of Tort and the other party has to make good your losses. They are not limited by his insurance contract terms, so you may well be able to claim for more.

The downside of claiming from the other party is that it is potentially more work and hassle and if you are in the common situation of the claim exceeding the value of the boat (as it was in this case) the fight may be particularly hard. This is different from claiming from your insurer (if you have an all risks policy) where the payout is governed by the contract.

So suggest you withdraw your comment about GJW. If they had a liability they would have paid. As you read from many of the comments on this thread (and others) most claims with established insurers are paid fairly and promptly. Where there is a dispute or non payment there will be a reason - like this one, or the claim was not covered by the contract. This does not mean of course that there are never unfair refusals to pay or straightforward mistakes but they are a tiny minority of claims.
 
Tranona said:
Seems you misunderstood the message of the article. GJW were under no obligation to pay for the damage unless the owner of the boat that broke free could be shown to be negligent. I expect with the same facts other insurers would not have paid.

You need to be clear about the legal relationships. If somebody else's boat hits yours, your claim is against him, not his insurer. You have no relationship with his insurer. If you can show the person is negligent then you hope he has insurance that covers his negligence. The important thing is that the claim is valid if negligence is proven and the insurer has to pay. If he is not insured then you pursue the owner.

In this case the owner of the damaged boat did not have insurance cover (only third party), so was unable to claim from his own insurer. If he had he could have claimed on his policy and his insurer would then recover from the owner of the other boat. As it is the best he could hope is that if he had cover for uninsured losses he could claim on that policy IF the insurer was convinced he had a claim with a chance of success.

If you claim on your own insurance then what you can claim for is covered by the terms and conditions of your contract. However if you claim on the other party it is under the law of Tort and the other party has to make good your losses. They are not limited by his insurance contract terms, so you may well be able to claim for more.

The downside of claiming from the other party is that it is potentially more work and hassle and if you are in the common situation of the claim exceeding the value of the boat (as it was in this case) the fight may be particularly hard. This is different from claiming from your insurer (if you have an all risks policy) where the payout is governed by the contract.

So suggest you withdraw your comment about GJW. If they had a liability they would have paid. As you read from many of the comments on this thread (and others) most claims with established insurers are paid fairly and promptly. Where there is a dispute or non payment there will be a reason - like this one, or the claim was not covered by the contract. This does not mean of course that there are never unfair refusals to pay or straightforward mistakes but they are a tiny minority of claims.
Click to expand...

Sadly you have fallen into the usual trap used by insurers of OBFUSCATION - a lot of words that should only require a few to make it immediately obvious.

Clarity is what we sailors need in the distressing circumstances we can find ourselves in !
 
STATUE said:
Sadly you have fallen into the usual trap used by insurers of OBFUSCATION - a lot of words that should only require a few to make it immediately obvious.

Clarity is what we sailors need in the distressing circumstances we can find ourselves in !
Click to expand...

Nothing could be clearer than what I have written. If somebody damages your boat they are liable if you can prove negligence and you then claim against them. They may well have insurance against their negligence but you do not claim against their insurer, although he may well appoint his insurer as his agent. The negligent person is required to put you back in the same situation as before.

If you have insured your boat all risks (commonly known as comprehensive) you can claim under your policy in which case the claim is met under the terms of the contract you have with your insurer. The insurer may well try to recover the loss from the other party (or his insurer).

Nothing could be clearer than that. It is important to understand the differences in the relationship you have with the other parties in the two different types of claims.

The difficulty most people have in cases like this is understanding what is needed to prove negligence and this depends on the facts of the individual case. In this case the insurer on behalf of their insured claimed (and presumably could prove) that there was no negligence. There was not enough information in the article to say whether that could be challenged successfully. However the insurer deals with this sort of thing on a daily basis so there is some confidence in their decision, even if you don't like the outcome.

So, the lesson is that if you want the best chance of getting your damaged boat repaired irrespective of the cause, then take out an all risks policy - but be aware that it will only pay if the damage is specifically covered by the terms and conditions of the policy.

I understand your desire for clarity, but perhaps what you want is simplicity. However sometimes you just have to accept that things are complicated and to seek clarity you need to go back to principles that underlie the law and test the facts against those. That is exactly what I have done above, so you now have clarity - but not simplicity.
 
been with GJW a number of years. they paid out £1000 when my boat lost the rudder after grounding back in 2014 (boat value was £3000). now have another boat that i got in august last year. same price to insure at the time but they requested a survey to be done when i renew in june as boat value is a lot more.
 
Have a dig around the motor boat forum for posts by jfm . He is a big league player who offers a lot of free advice to the forum. He has studied the small print of insurers in some detail and always comes out favouring y yacht insurers because of their lack of exclusions around latent defects. Apols if I am repeating anyone. Lot of posts here

Lawyer not player - bl***y spullchucker
 
Last edited:
UK-WOOZY said:
been with GJW a number of years. they paid out £1000 when my boat lost the rudder after grounding back in 2014 (boat value was £3000). now have another boat that i got in august last year. same price to insure at the time but they requested a survey to be done when i renew in june as boat value is a lot more.
Click to expand...

I would suggest shopping around, the survey would = a year or 2s premium.
I am another with Y Yacht ins & have been for quite a few yrs.
A claim of £1k is peanuts in yachting terms & as jfm states they all pay out on small claims, its how they deal with very large claims sorts the good from the not so good.
http://yachting24.co.uk/en

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?262781-Yachting-24-Insurance-beware-of-the-smallprint
 
stuartwineberg said:
Have a dig around the motor boat forum for posts by jfm . He is a big league player who offers a lot of free advice to the forum. He has studied the small print of insurers in some detail and always comes out favouring y yacht insurers because of their lack of exclusions around latent defects. Apols if I am repeating anyone. Lot of posts here

Lawyer not player - bl***y spullchucker
Click to expand...

To be fair, it hasn't always been Y, it was Pantenius for a few years and I believe is currently Y. The point is, things do change, so always look at the latest policy documents before making a decision.
 
It's always interesting to read through various people's accounts of their yacht insurance experience. When it comes down to it, insurance companies are so heavily regulated that they always play fair. And by fair I mean they always do as the contract and policy says. Now that being said, we do people still rely on their favourite insurer to pay out in all eventualities. Time to get smart, compare the different policies, and they you really do get what you pay for. Manage your own expectations. Use a comparison site that doesn't compare price but lets you compare cover and price too.
There's a few out there, I know that GoCompare are about to launch into the yacht insurance market, there's a few smaller craft comparison site, and there is also compareyachtinsurance.com . Either way, I hope you all find the cover that you're looking for and willing to pay for.
 
Just another option, I have been insuring my boats with the RYA/Bluefin insurance for the last 20 years, have had two claims, one almost the write-off value of the boat, the second totalled about £3k including cost of hiring crane for lift out. Both claims sorted quickly, efficiently and no quibbles. Even more surprising my premiums haven’t been loaded. If you have a Yachtmaster Certificate of Competance there is an additional discount. They aren’t the cheapest, but they have never quibbled.
 
Praxinoscope said:
They aren’t the cheapest, but they have never quibbled.
Click to expand...

You will find that true of most insurers who pay out promptly. The problems usually arise either because the claim does meet the terms of the contract (perhaps because the insurance is limited to reduce costs) or the claims process is inefficient either on the part of the insurer or the claimant.
 
Pants are good at paying out.
ToWhit,

Friend A stuffed his rather nice Benny 36.7 onto the Gurnard. It deflected the keel.... I spotted the damage a couple of months later when it was ashore for an antifoul.. Pants paid for a brand new leat/antimini keel to be cast by the founday somewhere in Falmouth. That plus re-laminating all the stringers.

Friend B was on passage from Smir to Gib. There were lots of fishing boats about so he turned off the radar alarm and went to sleep... Got T boned on his Stb side by a fishing boat. Gawd knows why but despite considerable lack of seamanship and him admitting contributory negligence, Pants paid out for new standing rigging, and extensive repairs to the hull.
 
I also stipulated an insurance with yacht line, but I have just discovered this clause that leaves me very perplexed:

"1.8.17 Any claims arising during the Laid-Up period 1st November to 31st March, or such other period as may be specified on the Certificate of Insurance where: 1 The vessel was sailing or was otherwise in use. 2 The vessel was not in a marina or securely stored ashore"

Means that if I surf during this period, I am not covered by the policy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top