Insurance Excluison; Marine Life

[Laser310]

In shopping for yacht insurance, I have been offered a policy with the following exclusion:

"Losses due to wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of maintenance, inherent vice, weathering, insects, mould, animal and marine life."

is this common?

I interpret it to mean that I would have no coverage if the boat sinks after collision with a whale.

Nor would I have coverage for an Orca "interaction" where I lost a rudder and got towed in - as many of these boats are.

Does that seem right?

 

[madabouttheboat]

Collision with a whale could just as easily be collision with an unknown object. I mean are you sure it was a whale? Same for orca interaction.

 

[rotrax]

Inherant vice has my attention.

WTF is that about?

 

[Porthandbuoy]

Inherant vice has my attention.

WTF is that about?

Persistent weather helm? Slightly tongue-in-cheek response, but inherent vice is wide open to interpretation.

 

[AllWinds]

Collision with a whale could just as easily be collision with an unknown object. I mean are you sure it was a whale? Same for orca interaction.

I've heard of one case where a boat sank and the details were not being released to the relevant databases as the skipper did not want it registered as an Orca "interaction" due to an insurance claim.

I would personally be looking further if I intended to sail anywhere south of Brest. What was the company?

 

[Sandy]

If you are not happy then seek clarification from them in writing or move companies. Simples.

 

[Stemar]

Inherant vice has my attention.

WTF is that about?

I would imagine it's something like the weak keel attachment that Centaurs suffered from. I could also see a dodgy insurer rejecting a claim if the keel fell off a particular model of Beneteau, IIRC, because a few boats had keel problems. For that matter, if something major broke unexpectedly on any boat, I could see a dodgy insurer rejecting a claim because either it's an inherent fault or fair wear and tear/lack of maintenance.

 

[Refueler]

I would imagine it's something like the weak keel attachment that Centaurs suffered from. I could also see a dodgy insurer rejecting a claim if the keel fell off a particular model of Beneteau, IIRC, because a few boats had keel problems. For that matter, if something major broke unexpectedly on any boat, I could see a dodgy insurer rejecting a claim because either it's an inherent fault or fair wear and tear/lack of maintenance.

Match 35 that lost its keel of Kolka Point was refused claim ... they would not pay salvage of keel, lift out or refitting etc.

Due to the history of such boats ...

I delivered the boat to the owner - awful PoS !!

 

[V1701]

Inherent vice I'd interpret to mean design fault but why they'd use that language who knows. I wonder whether the marine life is a newer inclusion (orcas) or an old one from worms eating wooden hulls...

 

[neilf39]

For what it's worth my interpretation would be it is a clause associated with slow deterioration due to the likes of gribble worm, termites, rot, or any other thing that will eat the boat from under you over time. Not something that would relate to orcas etc. Ask them explicitly.

 

[Refueler]

Inherent Vice had me thinking about Drug Running / Illegal Immigrants ??

But as others consider ... inherent means already in there ... vice being fault .. ???

 

[Laser310]

I have no vices...

so, I'm more worried about the coverage for whales.

 

[Refueler]

I have no vices...

so, I'm more worried about the coverage for whales.

Awww c;mon .. we all have a vice of some description !! Boating comes under that heading !!

 

[ylop]

I have no vices...

so, I'm more worried about the coverage for whales.

Like #9 - my initial interpretation was that this clause was about things that cause a gradual failure, lack of antifouling, boring creatures eating wooden hulls etc. Your question is an interesting one, only two people can really answer for sure - the insurer or the court where you fight any rejected claim! Easy to drop them a not clarify the point: if THEY think it includes Orca and Whale then look for a different insurer, because (a) its a risk that probably should be insured; (b) if they've written this clause to hide such an exception amongst vermin and mould etc I'd not want to do business with them; if its a legitimate exclusion there's no reason to be sneaky about it.

 

[Bobc]

Why not just ask them?

We had someone post a similar thing accusing GJW of not covering something last year. I called them and got an email confirming cover back the same day, which I posted here.

 

[Laser310]

i have asked what this exclusion means.

but, as this document was provided as part of a quote from a broke, my question went through the broker.

I haven't heard back yet.

 

[Laser310]

I have received a response to my question about the marine life exclusion:

"Exclusions to Coverage A, ii, specifies marine life with no exception and therefore all losses as a result of marine life are excluded."

So no coverage for any type of whale "interaction"

the insurer is Concept Special Risks.

The are a British underwriter, and if you have insurance with them you may want to look into this...

https://www.special-risks.com/

 

[Graham376]

I have received a response to my question about the marine life exclusion:

"Exclusions to Coverage A, ii, specifies marine life with no exception and therefore all losses as a result of marine life are excluded."

So no coverage for any type of whale "interaction"

Not good news for the hull. What about wreck removal and pollution which can cost more than the average boat value?

 

[Laser310]

Not good news for the hull. What about wreck removal and pollution which can cost more than the average boat value?

They said something about towing insurance being available separately.

 

[Graham376]

They said something about towing insurance being available separately.

Had a quick look at our N & G policy wording, thankfully no marine life exclusion. Salvage came under hull risks but pollution listed under third party.