insurance Exclusion clauses

[SAWDOC]

To answer the query above, my insurer is Beazley.
My broker has now come back to me and requested that I compete a claim form with photographic evidence and estimate of replacement sail so it would seem that the insurers are at least considering if not yet accepting my assertion that the exclusion clause refers to sails which are "set".

 

[Yngmar]

Is this type of damage normally covered by marine insurance?

Pantaenius excludes it too, without the "set" or "in use" qualifications:

§3. Exclusions
This insurance does not cover:
[..]
17. loss of or damage to sails and/or covers if split by the wind or blown or washed away;

 

[macd]

The relevant text for Bishop Skinner/BlueFin insurance excludes damage to:
"sails split by the wind or blown away while hoisted or unfurled, unless the spars that they are attached to are damaged at the same time."

Seems something of a hybrid of those already mentioned, and a little ambiguous. I'm inclined to take "whilst hoisted or unfurled" to be roughly equivalent to "set", ie. "hoisted" applies solely to non-furling sails, "unfurled" to roller-furling sails. So a furled jib would be covered. But I could be wrong.

 

[BelleSerene]

That clause is very sloppy, because it covers two different items and is ambiguous. This is avoided with the equivalent exclusion clause from Y Insurance

"The vessel's sails as a result of them being split by the wind or being blown away whilst in use, unless the spars they are attached to are damaged at the same time."

Both that wording and the OP’s insurer’s leave the same ambiguity of whether sails split by the wind while NOT in use are insured. This was the OP’s problem.

 

[Tranona]

Both that wording and the OP’s insurer’s leave the same ambiguity of whether sails split by the wind while NOT in use are insured. This was the OP’s problem.

Don't see the ambiguity as the key thing is "in use" where the sail can be either split or blown away. You can add cover for these eventualities when racing for an additional premium, and no doubt when not racing if you wish.

The sail is not in use when properly stowed on the boat. I would be very surprised damage to a furled and properly stowed sail was not covered as this is a common cause of damage and claims. So if it were not covered I would expect a much more specific exclusion clause.

 

[BelleSerene]

Both that wording and the OP’s insurer’s leave the same ambiguity of whether sails split by the wind while NOT in use are insured. This was the OP’s problem.

[Edit:] This ambiguity in the wording of Y Insurance’s policy and the OP’s insurer’s policy also exists with Skinner/ Bluefin Insurance’s, as MacD’s post immediately above.

 

[BelleSerene]

Don't see the ambiguity as the key thing is "in use" where the sail can be either split or blown away. You can add cover for these eventualities when racing for an additional premium, and no doubt when not racing if you wish.

The sail is not in use when properly stowed on the boat. I would be very surprised damage to a furled and properly stowed sail was not covered as this is a common cause of damage and claims. So if it were not covered I would expect a much more specific exclusion clause.

I am sorry: you're right. Y Insurance's policy shares the ambiguity with the OP's policy which I highlighted in post #17: is the exclusion

'sails as a result of them being split by the wind or blown away , whilst in use’​

or

'sails as a result of them being split by the wind , or blown away whilst in use’?​

- but under Y's policy, that only leaves ambiguity while sailing, because the policy refers to 'use' rather the ambiguous 'set'. So as you say, the OP's situation would clearly be covered.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I understand that the legal profession is highly averse to the use of commas, because a misplaced comma can change the meaning of a sentence considerably. A common example is "The Panda eats shoots and leaves" vs "The Panda eats, shoots and leaves", where the difference in meaning is enormous! I also understand that there is a considerable body of legal precedent as to exactly how English constructions are to be interpreted, which isn't always the way it would be interpreted in general usage.

In other words, it needs a lawyer to interpret some of the more ambiguous appearing clauses given here, but a lawyer would probably see these as unambiguous when interpreted in line with legal precedent.

IANAL!

 

[BelleSerene]

I understand that the legal profession is highly averse to the use of commas, because a misplaced comma can change the meaning of a sentence considerably. A common example is "The Panda eats shoots and leaves" vs "The Panda eats, shoots and leaves", where the difference in meaning is enormous! I also understand that there is a considerable body of legal precedent as to exactly how English constructions are to be interpreted, which isn't always the way it would be interpreted in general usage.

In other words, it needs a lawyer to interpret some of the more ambiguous appearing clauses given here, but a lawyer would probably see these as unambiguous when interpreted in line with legal precedent.

IANAL!

I understand that courts actually do the reverse: where there is ambiguity in a statute, they default to the ordinary meaning that the ordinary person would infer from the text. This is of course a good thing and is in line with the English principle of common law: of our society moderating its own behaviour rather than being controlled by a higher authority; of transparency of the law that governs us.

It's often referred to as the 'plain meaning rule' of interpreting statute. Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule.

As for anal grammar, permit me my own favourite from one of that spate of books on the English language - might even have been from Lynne Truss' Eats, shoots and leaves. I might paraphrase it as:

Our wives might be more approving of extra-marital sex if we took out the hyphen and separated the words.​

 

[macd]

Our wives might be more approving of extra-marital sex if we took out the apostrophe and separated the words.

"Took out the hyphen", I think. Although there are probably better ways of punctuating sex than either.

 

[BelleSerene]

"Took out the hyphen", I think. Although there are probably better ways of punctuating sex than either.

Oops, how silly. I’ll go back and correct that... Thank you. And Lol, BTW.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I understand that courts actually do the reverse: where there is ambiguity in a statute, they default to the ordinary meaning that the ordinary person would infer from the text. This is of course a good thing and is in line with the English principle of common law: of our society moderating its own behaviour rather than being controlled by a higher authority; of transparency of the law that governs us.

It's often referred to as the 'plain meaning rule' of interpreting statute. Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule.

As for anal grammar, permit me my own favourite from one of that spate of books on the English language - might even have been from Lynne Truss' Eats, shoots and leaves. I might paraphrase it as:

Our wives might be more approving of extra-marital sex if we took out the hyphen and separated the words.​

I think the problem is that the interpretation of a law goes by the common usage at the time that the judgement was made, and is thereafter set in stone. As English is constantly evolving, a perfectly reasonable interpretation 50 or 100 years ago can seem strange today. There's also the problem of varying regional and national usages.

MY basic point was that lawyers don't like commas, and operate according to rules to interpret sentences in their absence. Those rules are set by precedent, not by grammar textbooks. Yes, in the absence of precedence, common usage dictates the meaning, but there often IS precedent. I am told by lawyer friends that wills are a minefield in this regard, and that something apparently clear and unambiguous to you and I often needs additional clarification to ensure the wishes of the person making the will can be carried out.

The laws of intestacy are particularly interesting; I still remember when I first had a will made (by a friend), I breezed in saying "It should be simple - we just want things to happen the way they would anyway" to be told "No, you probably don't, because if you both die in the same car crash, everything would go to the younger one's family, as in the absence of other evidence, the younger is deemed to have survived longer than the older and inherited from the older before dying themselves". That's why linked wills usually have a sentence about what happens if the two persons concerned die within a specific period of each other; something that most of us would regard as nit-picking and unnecessary!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

What is the panda shooting?

 

[bbg]

A new sail would be in the range £1000-1500 so with a 30% reduction (as in my policy) the claim would be worth around £1000. with excess of, say £250 that is still a significant amount. In my experience (based on two claims) claims of this type have no effect on renewal premiums.

So definitely worth claiming - and then changing insurers.

If he gets the payout, why change?

My reading of that exclusion is that it is designed to avoid payouts for sails that are used when sailing. Blow out a spinnaker on a close reach? No payout. Main splits when close-hauled? No payout.

But this - damage during a storm - is exactly what should be covered. It doesn't mean the insurance company won't fight, but I agree with the OP that no sails were "set" during this incident. He should make his claim.

I also suspect that if he bothered to take it to small claims court, the argument that "no sails were set so the exclusion doesn't apply" would be appealing to the judge.

 

[bedouin]

If he gets the payout, why change?

My reading of that exclusion is that it is designed to avoid payouts for sails that are used when sailing. Blow out a spinnaker on a close reach? No payout. Main splits when close-hauled? No payout.

But this - damage during a storm - is exactly what should be covered. It doesn't mean the insurance company won't fight, but I agree with the OP that no sails were "set" during this incident. He should make his claim.

I also suspect that if he bothered to take it to small claims court, the argument that "no sails were set so the exclusion doesn't apply" would be appealing to the judge.

No - it is absolutely clear what the exclusion means and it is intended to exclude the incident the OP reported. Your interpretation would mean that you could "set" a protective cover which of course you can't.

 

[BelleSerene]

What is the panda shooting?

A bar waiter.

A panda bear walks into a bar and orders a sandwich. The waiter brings him the sandwich. The panda bear eats it, pulls out a pistol, kills the waiter, and gets up and starts to walk out.

The bartender yells for him to stop. The panda bear asks, “What do you want?” The bartender replies, “First you come in here, order food, kill my waiter, then try to go without paying for your food.”

The panda bear turns around and says, “Hey! I’m a Panda. Look it up!” The bartender goes into the back room and looks up panda bear in the encyclopedia, which read: “Panda: a bear-like marsupial originating in Asian regions. Known largely for its stark black and white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves.”

 

[Deleted member 36384]

You get just one Ha for that.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

A bar waiter.

A panda bear walks into a bar and orders a sandwich. The waiter brings him the sandwich. The panda bear eats it, pulls out a pistol, kills the waiter, and gets up and starts to walk out.

The bartender yells for him to stop. The panda bear asks, “What do you want?” The bartender replies, “First you come in here, order food, kill my waiter, then try to go without paying for your food.”

The panda bear turns around and says, “Hey! I’m a Panda. Look it up!” The bartender goes into the back room and looks up panda bear in the encyclopedia, which read: “Panda: a bear-like marsupial originating in Asian regions. Known largely for its stark black and white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves.”

I can see what's wrong with that - they aren't marsupials!

 

[[70521]]

Just slightly off topic

I popped into my insurance company at the Southampton Boat Show and was surprised to find that a "coastal" policy only covers you for up to 12 nm offshore unless you are on a passage, e.g. Plymouth to Roscoff, Berry Head to Portland Head.

 

[bbg]

No - it is absolutely clear what the exclusion means and it is intended to exclude the incident the OP reported. Your interpretation would mean that you could "set" a protective cover which of course you can't.

It is not absolutely clear. If there were, there would be no discussion.

The fact that the exclusion refers to sails that are "set" means that the exclusion does not apply to sails that are not "set".

So it will turn on the meaning of "set" in this context. I think that if they are furled and the boat is not under way (not reefed and underway), they are not "set".

Of course there may be other issues - reduction for life time, due care and attention etc.