Insurance cover for abandoned yacht.

[FistralG]

Is it reasonable to expect marine insurance cover to apply to yacht which is abandoned under life threatening conditions (although it is not sinking) and is subsequently lost?

The scenario:
Middle of the ocean, huge seas, multiple gear failures including loss of steering with no way of repairing, jury rig failed. No way of making progress under own power (sail or engine).
Multiple knock downs with crew and skipper lucky not to be injured and fearing further knock downs/injury.
Coastguard advised skipper to abandon ship to nearby rescue vessel.
The yacht drifts for a few days then disappears from AIS and no sightings for weeks despite being on a course taking it close to land and busy areas for air and sea traffic.

Would your insurance to pay out under those circumstances?

How long is reasonable to wait for all hope of yacht being recovered before paying out?

 

[RichardS]

Surely that scenario is exactly what insurance is for?

Richard

 

[Tranona]

Depends entirely on the policy and its terms and conditions. impossible to say based on the information given. If the insurer is refusing the claim then it should say why, then it is up to the claimant to show that his loss is covered.

To do that one needs far more information than is provided in the post, not least a copy of the policy and certificate and a detailed account of the events, including any reports by third parties.

 

[lpdsn]

Is this anything to do with the Hanse(?) that was abandoned after losing her rudder? I believe they left the engine running and AIS on? There is (was) a YouTube video of the rescue by, I think, a Discovery 55.

 

[Tranona]

Is this anything to do with the Hanse(?) that was abandoned after losing her rudder? I believe they left the engine running and AIS on? There is (was) a YouTube video of the rescue by, I think, a Discovery 55.

If it is that one then the argument at the time was over the funding of a search operation to locate the boat - with no certainty that it was actually still afloat. As with many of such cases involving insurance all we see from the outside is the owner's story which inevitably only reflects what he thinks is his case and there is always another side.

 

[lpdsn]

If it is that one then the argument at the time was over the funding of a search operation to locate the boat - with no certainty that it was actually still afloat. As with many of such cases involving insurance all we see from the outside is the owner's story which inevitably only reflects what he thinks is his case and there is always another side.

If it is that case, I would expect the insurance company to pay out the agreed value after a reasonable while and if the boat turns up one day it is their property. I guess their call on funding a search which may or may not be more cost effective than just paying out.

 

[Tin Tin]

Is it reasonable to expect marine insurance cover to apply to yacht which is abandoned under life threatening conditions (although it is not sinking) and is subsequently lost?

The scenario:
Middle of the ocean, huge seas, multiple gear failures including loss of steering with no way of repairing, jury rig failed. No way of making progress under own power (sail or engine).
Multiple knock downs with crew and skipper lucky not to be injured and fearing further knock downs/injury.
Coastguard advised skipper to abandon ship to nearby rescue vessel.
The yacht drifts for a few days then disappears from AIS and no sightings for weeks despite being on a course taking it close to land and busy areas for air and sea traffic.

Would your insurance to pay out under those circumstances?

How long is reasonable to wait for all hope of yacht being recovered before paying out?

1. IMHO the coastguard will/would advise to sink the yacht (open seacocks) before abandoning to nearby rescue vessel. If left afloat the yacht because a hazard to navigation.

2. When yacht is sunk on Coastguard advise, I would expect the insurance to pay up promptly.

 

[Uricanejack]

1. IMHO the coastguard will/would advise to sink the yacht (open seacocks) before abandoning to nearby rescue vessel. If left afloat the yacht because a hazard to navigation.

2. When yacht is sunk on Coastguard advise, I would expect the insurance to pay up promptly.

I have overheard quite a few Maday call's. Not advice I have ever heard. Telling someone to go bellow and find the seacocks to try and stop the sinking might be good advice. Telling someone on a boat who is preparing to abandon ship to go bellow and open seacocks sounds like a pretty bad idea.

I'm not sure how an insurance company would look upon a claim. When the claim for asks why did your boat sink and your answer is " I opened all the seacocks to make sure it sunk before I abandoned it"

 

[Uricanejack]

Is it reasonable to expect marine insurance cover to apply to yacht which is abandoned under life threatening conditions (although it is not sinking) and is subsequently lost?

The scenario:
Middle of the ocean, huge seas, multiple gear failures including loss of steering with no way of repairing, jury rig failed. No way of making progress under own power (sail or engine).
Multiple knock downs with crew and skipper lucky not to be injured and fearing further knock downs/injury.
Coastguard advised skipper to abandon ship to nearby rescue vessel.
The yacht drifts for a few days then disappears from AIS and no sightings for weeks despite being on a course taking it close to land and busy areas for air and sea traffic.

Would your insurance to pay out under those circumstances?

How long is reasonable to wait for all hope of yacht being recovered before paying out?

I would expect pay out without question.
The boat was abandoned because the Skipper and crew were in Peril.
Provided the insurance policy requirements were followed. Ie you had not sailed beyond policy limits.

Lots of boats are abandoned and continue to float.

If for some reason the insurance company thought the circumstances were suspicious they might not. If they could prove their suspicions.

 

[ShinyShoe]

I have overheard quite a few Maday call's. Not advice I have ever heard.

But probably not lots in the middle of no-where. The only reason to scupper a boat in coastal waters would be if it was going to coz a major headache where it was going to end up wedged...

 

[lpdsn]

I'm not sure how an insurance company would look upon a claim. When the claim for asks why did your boat sink and your answer is " I opened all the seacocks to make sure it sunk before I abandoned it"

I've heard stories of boats mid Atlantic clearing it with their insurance company before scuttling. I suspect the insurance company considered the boat being scuttled reduced the risk of a third party liability arising.

Maybe a different story half a mile off Cowes.

 

[Tranona]

If it is that case, I would expect the insurance company to pay out the agreed value after a reasonable while and if the boat turns up one day it is their property. I guess their call on funding a search which may or may not be more cost effective than just paying out.

But that still depends on whether the policy covers the cause. Insurance companies do not refuse payout on a whim - they must have what they think is a sound reason for refusal. Equally they may be wrong, but an outsider cannot even give an opinion without seeing the policy and knowing all the circumstances that led to the claim.

However, you are right if the policy did cover the loss then they would certainly have to make the choice about when they abandon the search and pay out.

 

[RichardS]

The OP posed the questions and then seems to have vanished. Maybe my response was too succinct?

Richard

 

[[3889]]

I don't think the Hanse had any cover in place. Do all insurers require 3 experienced crew as minimum for transat cover? That's my (limited) experience.

 

[lpdsn]

I don't think the Hanse had any cover in place. Do all insurers require 3 experienced crew as minimum for transat cover? That's my (limited) experience.

OK, that may be the issue. Anyway, I may have led you all astray but the OP's post did remind me quite strongly of that case. We'll see what he has to say when he returns to the thread.

 

[FistralG]

Thanks for your considered replies, I wasn't able to respond sooner due to work and travel.

I'm not saying the scenario is related to a specific case but was prompted by a real life incident.

I was interested to hear whether insurance policies would have an exclusion for abandoning yachts that were not sinking.

It's interesting to read that coastguards would advise the skipper to scuttle the boat in such a scenario.

I doubt that it would cross my mind to consult the insurance company before abandoning ship in a life threatening situation or if I would change my mind based on the insurance companies response (assuming I could even contact them at the time of the incident).

 

[wotayottie]

Depends entirely on the policy and its terms and conditions. impossible to say based on the information given. If the insurer is refusing the claim then it should say why, then it is up to the claimant to show that his loss is covered.

To do that one needs far more information than is provided in the post, not least a copy of the policy and certificate and a detailed account of the events, including any reports by third parties.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Tranona]

Thanks for your considered replies, I wasn't able to respond sooner due to work and travel.

I'm not saying the scenario is related to a specific case but was prompted by a real life incident.

I was interested to hear whether insurance policies would have an exclusion for abandoning yachts that were not sinking.

It's interesting to read that coastguards would advise the skipper to scuttle the boat in such a scenario.

I doubt that it would cross my mind to consult the insurance company before abandoning ship in a life threatening situation or if I would change my mind based on the insurance companies response (assuming I could even contact them at the time of the incident).

In general an all risks policy would cover an abandoned vessel and the overriding principle is the avoidance of loss of life. So if you take the decision to abandon, either to a liferaft or another vessel, then (assuming you comply with all other conditions of the policy, such as area of sailing etc) you would expect to make a claim on your insurance. Don't see any expectation that you have to notify the insurer before you abandon, but after as the insurer then has an interest. It is they who make the decision as to whether to attempt recovery, scuttle, or treat as a loss.

It is difficult to be categoric about how such decisions would be made in advance because they would be specific to the circumstances. No doubt in some cases there would be a conflict of interest between the owner and insurer - for example "must save my beloved vessel and all my possessions...." against the insurers aim to minimise the cost of the claim.

 

[Bathdave]

Slight thread drift, I did assume that this might have been triggered by the abandonment of the Hanse, Dove 2 which was well in earlier threads when it happened

I was wondering only a day or two ago why it had not been seen since, it should have made landfall or been spotted by now