insurance Exclusion clauses

SAWDOC

SAWDOC

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 Feb 2008
Messages
1,326
Location
Ireland West Coast
Visit site
hi all

my insurance policy includes the following exclusion clause

"sails and protective covers split by the wind or blown away while set "

I recently had the unfortunate experience of having my headsail unfurl during a violent storm, while the boat was unmanned on a swing mooring. The sail suffered significant damage from flogging and will need to be replaced.
My insurance broker considers that the above exemption clause applies and that the policy does not cover such situations.
I have replied to the broker that no sails were set and that the above exclusion clause refers specifically to vessels with their sails set.

Is this type of damage normally covered by marine insurance?

Comments welcome
 
That would be covered in the policy I have with Y Insurance although the wording is much more specific as to the exclusion.

However, I think the answer is yes, it would be covered as the exclusion is for sails that are set and a furled sail when the boat is not in use is not "set".

You may, however find you will not get a complete replacement but only a proportion because the sail has been used. In my case it will be no more than 30%, but you should check your policy.

BTW it is not the broker who decides on claims but the underwriter who will likely employ a claims handler to deal with your claim.
 
I am sure they will be interested in how you left the sail secured.

I saw one boat at the weekend with a good meter of foresail showing. Should be interesting to see what its condition is next time I am down.

A few years ago I went out on the river in a F6 to sort out a flogging sail, not even a thank you.
 
I don't think i would have a difficulty with a partial payment as long as they were not too stingy. That seems fair. The sail while in reasonable condition prior to the storm was several years old. I do have a problem with the application of the exclusion clause in this instance so hopefully the underwriter will adopt a sensible approach to words and their meaning.
Take your point about underwriters and brokers - my broker is a very helpful lady and it is normally a pleasure dealing with her.
 
If your sail was unfurled then it could be argued it was set regardless of the circumstances of how it got that way. I think if you can show you took reasonable actions to secure it when you left the boat like putting a bungee or tie round it in case the furling line worked loose you would have a good argument.
 
It’s probably just me but the sentence states “or” That meant the first part of the exclusion relates to a different set of circumstance to the last bit about being “set”
 
colind3782 said:
I think that would need a comma after "wind".
Click to expand...

Don't get many commas in legal documents.

But the fact that you don't "set" protective covers makes it clear what the true intention is.

I have no doubt that the exclusion is intended to cover the situation the OP experienced. Whether it is fair or not is debatable, depends how obvious it was at the time.

Boat insurance varies considerably in price and it is often the list of exclusions that makes the difference. I pay well over the average price for a much shorter list of exclusions
 
SAWDOC said:
"sails and protective covers split by the wind or blown away while set "
Click to expand...
My interpretation is that the "or" refers to the two possible failures: "split by the wind" or "blown away". The "when set" then applies to these alternatives.

I would argue that setting a sail is a deliberate act, and is separate from hoisting it. Otherwise what circumstance is there where a sail would be "split by the wind" without being set (and therefore excluded from this exclusion)?
 
awol said:
My advice is to make a formal claim and if/when that is declined, take it to the insurance ombudsman.
Which company are you insured with?
Click to expand...

Yes, he could make a claim and see what happens but, as already mentioned, I suspect he would have the claim rejected on the "due diligence" get-out. The furling line should have been tied off so the sail couldn't unfurl. I also let the sheets wrap the furled sail a couple of turns.

Even if they pay out, most deduct 30% for betterment, add to that the excess and loss of NCB, is it worth the effort?
 
Graham376 said:
Even if they pay out, most deduct 30% for betterment, add to that the excess and loss of NCB, is it worth the effort?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sandy said:
I am sure they will be interested in how you left the sail secured.

I saw one boat at the weekend with a good meter of foresail showing. Should be interesting to see what its condition is next time I am down.

A few years ago I went out on the river in a F6 to sort out a flogging sail, not even a thank you.
Click to expand...

funny I have done the same on several occasions with sails and boom flailing around not one thankyou.
When my previous boats sprayhood fitting pulled out and started to unravel the whole lot a neighbour came aboard removed it and saved the whole lot really, I dropped off a coupple of bottles of wine on board his with a thankyou note.
I would particularly want wine etc but a thankyou is common courtesy surely?
 
TLouth7 said:
My interpretation is that the "or" refers to the two possible failures: "split by the wind" or "blown away". The "when set" then applies to these alternatives.

I would argue that setting a sail is a deliberate act, and is separate from hoisting it. Otherwise what circumstance is there where a sail would be "split by the wind" without being set (and therefore excluded from this exclusion)?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TLouth7 said:
My interpretation is that the "or" refers to the two possible failures: "split by the wind" or "blown away". The "when set" then applies to these alternatives.

I would argue that setting a sail is a deliberate act, and is separate from hoisting it. Otherwise what circumstance is there where a sail would be "split by the wind" without being set (and therefore excluded from this exclusion)?
Click to expand...
I agreed with you that setting a sail is separate to hoisting it. I do not consider a sail to be set until it is drawing the wind. In my book, a flogging sail is not set.

However, it seems the dictionaries don’t support us! https://www.thefreedictionary.com/To+set+a+sail defines 'to set a sail' as 'to extend or spread it to the wind'. So a set sail is one that is extended or spread to the wind - whether by human hand, storm, feisty pelican or poltergeist. Even, say, the Racing Rules of Sailing agree: 'All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed' shows that a hoisted but flogging sail is understood to be a 'set' sail - otherwise we’d all have to stow flogging sails before we had a chance to trim them.

So it seems to me it doesn’t matter whether you read the exclusion as
(A) 'sails and covers split by the wind or blown away, while set’​
or
(B) 'sails and covers split by the wind, or blown away while set’:​
whether or not 'while set' applies to 'sails... split by the wind', the clause covers the OP's event.

So I fear the insurer has effectively excluded wind damage to unfurled sails, and the OP is not insured for this loss.

Of course, both of these alternative readings of the clause explicitly mention 'covers blown away while set'. It seems to me that you can’t set a cover - or that setting it can only mean securing it. So the drafting is silly. And so - but only if he has deep pockets - perhaps the OP can have the last laugh.
 
BelleSerene said:
I agreed with you that setting a sail is separate to hoisting it. I do not consider a sail to be set until it is drawing the wind. In my book, a flogging sail is not set.

However, it seems the dictionaries don’t support us! https://www.thefreedictionary.com/To+set+a+sail defines 'to set a sail' as 'to extend or spread it to the wind'. So a set sail is one that is extended or spread to the wind - whether by human hand, storm, feisty pelican or poltergeist. Even, say, the Racing Rules of Sailing agree: 'All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed' shows that a hoisted but flogging sail is understood to be a 'set' sail - otherwise we’d all have to stow flogging sails before we had a chance to trim them.

So it seems to me it doesn’t matter whether you read the exclusion as
(A) 'sails and covers split by the wind or blown away, while set’​
or
(B) 'sails and covers split by the wind, or blown away while set’:​
whether or not 'while set' applies to 'sails... split by the wind', the clause covers the OP's event.

So I fear the insurer has effectively excluded wind damage to unfurled sails, and the OP is not insured for this loss.

Of course, both of these alternative readings of the clause explicitly mention 'covers blown away while set'. It seems to me that you can’t set a cover - or that setting it can only mean securing it. So the drafting is silly. And so - but only if he has deep pockets - perhaps the OP can have the last laugh.
Click to expand...

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."

So the Op's situation would clearly be covered.

Canvas work is not subject to any specific exclusions in this policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top