insurance Exclusion clauses

bbg said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you are misreading it. It should be interpreted
i) sails and protective covers split by the wind
or
i) sails (and protective covers) blown away while set

And has to mean that because otherwise you need to be able to set a protective cover that you clearly cannot do.
 
bedouin said:
I think you are misreading it. It should be interpreted
i) sails and protective covers split by the wind
or
i) sails (and protective covers) blown away while set

And has to mean that because otherwise you need to be able to set a protective cover that you clearly cannot do.
Click to expand...
Of course you can set a protective cover. What else would you do with it when you return to harbour and tidy up the boat?

The exclusion is for
"sails and protective covers split by the wind or blown away while set"

Could mean:
sails and protective covers split by the wind or
sails and protective covers blown away while set

OR it could mean:
sails and protective covers:
a. split by the wind or
b. blown away
while set

On balance I prefer the second approach, but I recognise one could reasonably also reach the first approach.

Of course if the sail was flogged to death, it might not be either split or blown away - so the exclusion might not apply at all.
 
"sails and protective covers split by the wind or blown away while set "

YHW forum is a great place for gathering opinions. For what it is worth, mine is:

The clause deals with sails, and ‘protective covers’ is an interpolation which doesn’t really make sense, as a protective cover can’t be set. Also, the OP isn’t claiming for covers so they are irrelevant. So I’d ask the underwriter to ignore the phrase.
What remains then makes sense, as it deals with two alternative accidents to a set sail, ie a sail split by the wind or a sail blown away.
And a set sail (I believe) is one intentionally hoisted, whether or not trimmed. A furled sail which is then unfurled by the weather is not a set sail.

So i’d pursue the claim if it were me.
 
Interesting debate for what its worth perhaps in the first instance the broker should have considered if the policy was suitable and if they had access to any other insurer that would have covered the incident .
Having looked at the Beazley policy available on line to view it does not look as if the greatest overall compared to the likes of GJW,MSAmlin,Nautical and Navigators and General.
I would present the claim and if not satisfied shop around . Make the broker who sold the policy work for the commission earned.
 
I am seeing more and more owners leaving triangles of almost-furled headsail showing when boats re unattended - seems to be a fashion these days. Excellent for sailmakers profits of course, but where does the fashion come from.

Personally, two turns of sheets round tightly furled headsail, stopper knot in furling line, and if left unattended for longer term or if gales forecast an extra tie round furled sail. Also a line stopping the main boom end swinging around - more goosenecks wear out through this than from any wear whilst sailing.

I would not expect to be able to claim for this - if a headsail flogs to death when unattended it's probably because of the way it was left.
 
hello folks

Just a short update on how matters progressed since I last posted.

As I noted above, my insurance company invited me to submit a claim with whatever photographic evidence I had. I did this and they then reviewed my submission and replied within a few days stating that they had concluded that my claim was excluded and they referred to the exclusion clause quoted in part in post no 1 above.

I wrote a very polite response to this , stating my view that ta reasonable interpretation of the exclusion clause would suggest the clause should only apply to sails which were set, and this was clearly not the case here. I also suggested that the unfurled foresail was not "split by the wind" but rather was partially unfurled by the wind causing it to flog itself to death on the mast baby stay. I finished by asking my insurers to review their conclusion .
I was delighted to get a further letter from my insurers 24 hours later accepting the points I had put forward and allowing the claim to proceed as valid.
So fair play to my insurers Beazley, - they were big enough and professional enough to carry out a review which concluded that their initial assessment was incorrect. And I in return won't be changing insurers.
 
Well done. Might be worth suggesting they re-write the clause to clarify what is covered and what is not.
 
jwilson said:
I am seeing more and more owners leaving triangles of almost-furled headsail showing when boats re unattended - seems to be a fashion these days. Excellent for sailmakers profits of course, but where does the fashion come from.
Click to expand...

Beats me. It is an old tradition on the Clyde (and elsewhere?) that you leave a triangle of rolled job showing when motorsailing, because it looks a bit like a cone, but who on earth leaves the sail partially unfurled otherwise?
 
A sensible result from insurers. If they had declined and you had gone to FOS they would have incurred a fee whatever the outcome so where you have a modest claim with a deductible and taking into account betterment and negative brand impact plus risk broker might move to another insurer which might be a consideration if reasonable loss ratio it makes sense to meet claim. No doubt your broker behind the scenes will have been pointing all this out to the underwriters involved on your behalf though.
 
GJW probably. Even in this publication, there are fully documented example of how they blatantly avoid paying up. We really have now embraced the USA LEGALITY. and abandoned MORALITY!
 
STATUE said:
GJW probably. Even in this publication, there are fully documented example of how they blatantly avoid paying up. We really have now embraced the USA LEGALITY. and abandoned MORALITY!
Click to expand...

Can you explain exactly what you mean by this?

Why are you referring to an insurer who is not involved in this case?

What is the publication you are referring to?

An insurance contract is a legal contract as such things have always been in the UK, not a "moral" contract.
 
Statue, I don’t know where you would get that from but FWIW I insure with GJW and have been most impressed with their pay-outs. On one occasion they paid for gearbox damage that had been caused by an earlier incident, for which they had already paid, but which had not been noticed at the time. I have no interest in them other than as a satisfied repeat customer for over a decade.

It’s best not to malign someone’s name without providing evidence. To judge by your bizarre statement about legality and morality, you won’t have any.
 
Last edited:
BelleSerene said:
Statue, I don’t know where you would get that from but FWIW I insure with GJW and have been most impressed with their pay-outs. On one occasion they paid for gearbox damage that had been caused by an earlier incident, for which they had already paid, but which had not been noticed at the time. I have no interest in them other than as a satisfied repeat customer for over a decade.

It’s best not to malign someone’s name without providing evidence. To judge by your bizarre statement about legality and morality, you won’t have any.
Click to expand...

Agree, they paid lout promptly and in full for a claim that was my fault. No longer with them but they did provide very good service
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top