Insurance problem

[Anardon]

Hi all, I wonder if someone can suggest how I overcome an insurance issue.
I've been with same boat insurer for 8 years, always found them reasonable to deal with.
About 2 years ago my boat had a claim. She was in a boat park waiting to be antifouled and there was a fire on a nearby vessel which caused scorching damage to my gelcoat. So, I spoke to insurance company, arranged damage repair. Offending vessel was insured by same firm as mine so no arguments over liability. Job done, all was well.
Last year at renewal, I got a small increase in premium but nothing worth worrying about. This was expected and it was pretty much spot on to what the damage assessor said it might be.
A year on to now, I got next renewal letter and the premium was decreased by about 10% being told that I now have a 1 year no claim bonus. Happy days right?
On inspecting the renewal details I noticed they had wrongly stated the vessel is kept ashore but this is incorrect, it's on a marina pontoon as it always has been. I spoke to the broker, they apologised and said they would re-quote. Then they contacted me and said that the underwriter had refused the risk due to the previous claim in 2019. Whilst they were willing to accept the risk if the vessel is stored ashore, they won't insure in the marina (ironic since the claim was whilst stored ashore).
So, never mind, off I go to get other quotes. I tried 2 other boat insurers, both refused the risk due to the previous claim.
Now I'm screwed. No insurance and storing a 28ft boat ashore is not really practical for regular use.
Need to re-insure within 2 weeks or I have to take out of the marina.
Where do I go from here? Ridiculous situation and none of it my fault.
Any ideas?

 

[ashtead]

Have you consider speaking to your broker -most risks are insurable eg via Lloyds even if the premium might be unattractive -you could of course consider third party cover if the premium to cover your vessel is too high .

 

[pandos]

Hi all, I wonder if someone can suggest how I overcome an insurance issue.
I've been with same boat insurer for 8 years, always found them reasonable to deal with.
About 2 years ago my boat had a claim. She was in a boat park waiting to be antifouled and there was a fire on a nearby vessel which caused scorching damage to my gelcoat. So, I spoke to insurance company, arranged damage repair. Offending vessel was insured by same firm as mine so no arguments over liability. Job done, all was well.
Last year at renewal, I got a small increase in premium but nothing worth worrying about. This was expected and it was pretty much spot on to what the damage assessor said it might be.
A year on to now, I got next renewal letter and the premium was decreased by about 10% being told that I now have a 1 year no claim bonus. Happy days right?
On inspecting the renewal details I noticed they had wrongly stated the vessel is kept ashore but this is incorrect, it's on a marina pontoon as it always has been. I spoke to the broker, they apologised and said they would re-quote. Then they contacted me and said that the underwriter had refused the risk due to the previous claim in 2019. Whilst they were willing to accept the risk if the vessel is stored ashore, they won't insure in the marina (ironic since the claim was whilst stored ashore).
So, never mind, off I go to get other quotes. I tried 2 other boat insurers, both refused the risk due to the previous claim.
Now I'm screwed. No insurance and storing a 28ft boat ashore is not really practical for regular use.
Need to re-insure within 2 weeks or I have to take out of the marina.
Where do I go from here? Ridiculous situation and none of it my fault.
Any ideas?

I think you need to go back on the original claim and try to get this dealt with on the basis that it was a claim against the other owner and his policy and not on your policy....

It may be difficult, but from what you say this would reflect the reality.

In the past, I told an insurer of an incident where my boat had caused some damage, they sent a surveyor but the matter was handled between myself and the other owner with no contact with the insurers...

some time later I discovered that the cost of the surveyor had been recorded as a claim against my policy so I lost my NCD. In fairness to my then company they corrected this once things were explained...

 

[[70521]]

You might find that everybody's insurance is up by at least 10% - 20%, profits are well down due to them having to pay out cash over the last couple of years.

 

[Anardon]

You might find that everybody's insurance is up by at least 10% - 20%, profits are well down due to them having to pay out cash over the last couple of years.

I get that is the case. If they had told me there was a 20% increase I would have swallowed it, grumbled a bit and shrugged it off. It's the fact that despite insuring me with no argument for the previous 12 months, they point blank refuse to make an offer on the same terms. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Anardon]

I think you need to go back on the original claim and try to get this dealt with on the basis that it was a claim against the other owner and his policy and not on your policy....

It may be difficult, but from what you say this would reflect the reality.

In the past, I told an insurer of an incident where my boat had caused some damage, they sent a surveyor but the matter was handled between myself and the other owner with no contact with the insurers...

some time later I discovered that the cost of the surveyor had been recorded as a claim against my policy so I lost my NCD. In fairness to my then company they corrected this once things were explained...

I think you're right but getting to the right people and getting them to see the sense is the problem. I've tried over the phone to reason with them but the answer is always: "computer says no"

 

[pandos]

I think you're right but getting to the right people and getting them to see the sense is the problem. I've tried over the phone to reason with them but the answer iscalway: "comupter says no"

Perhaps the point of attack maybe the owner of the boat that caused the damage. If he has had his claim settled and lost his NCD perhaps he can show that the claims ought to be against his policy given the circumstances he might also know of others who had claims settled by the insurers on his behalf but who did not lose their NCDs....

If you can get enough supporting documentation then maybe the ombudsman or whoever regulates insurance in the UK.

 

[ashtead]

It might nothing more than that your insurer has decided to pull out of the market or the segment where your vessel sits . Just put it behind you and spend the time finding yourself a new broker who has a better panel of underwriters-it might be your broker is in a soles arrangement with just one insurer who for whatever reason doesn’t want to offer renewal terms.

 

[Graham376]

It might nothing more than that your insurer has decided to pull out of the market or the segment where your vessel sits . Just put it behind you and spend the time finding yourself a new broker who has a better panel of underwriters-it might be your broker is in a soles arrangement with just one insurer who for whatever reason doesn’t want to offer renewal terms.

I found the insurance market has changed recently, Amlin underwrote my last policy and at current renewal would only offer third party despite no claims. Found cover elsewhere. For the OP, maybe the insurance ombudsman may be able to assist as he appears to have been unfairly treated.

 

[Tranona]

I think you're right but getting to the right people and getting them to see the sense is the problem. I've tried over the phone to reason with them but the answer iscalway: "comupter says no"

Suggest you go to an independent broker as a way of by passing the "computer". As said insurers are becoming much more selective and computers programmed to reject anything out of the ordinary. Any sign of a recent claim would be enough to reject.

 

[awol]

Suggest you go to an independent broker as a way of by passing the "computer". As said insurers are becoming much more selective and computers programmed to reject anything out of the ordinary. Any sign of a recent claim would be enough to reject.

Are we getting to a situation whereby making a claim on our insurance, which is, after all, why we have it, means rejection and consequently no harbour entry, mooring, marina berth, or racing, all which require insurance? Seems like "one strike and you're out"!

 

[Tranona]

Are we getting to a situation whereby making a claim on our insurance, which is, after all, why we have it, means rejection and consequently no harbour entry, mooring, marina berth, or racing, all which require insurance? Seems like "one strike and you're out"!

No, I don't think so. The issue is with insurers being more selective and algorithms on computer systems set up to reflect insurers' acceptance criteria. As I suggested, the OP needs to bypass the "computer" (which often means a human reading off a screen). An independent broker is one way of doing this.

Pretty sure he will have no problem getting cover - just not with his existing insurer.

 

[ashtead]

Just for info an underwriter is not obliged to offer renewal terms if pulling out of a market or segment however if an insurer decides no longer to distribute via a particular broker for difficult risks as incumbent insurer it might offer renewal terms on impaired risks for a limited time to given the broker time to find an alternate underwriter. In this case the OP might be a victim of circumstances outside his particular case eg the broker has a high loss ratio or has been placing covers for cases outside criteria and the insurer has just decided it doesn’t want to trade via that broker because it’s narrowing its broker profile or indeed pulling out of broker business and trading direct . Hence while it seems like a case based decision it might be just to profitability of risks placed via his broker so ironically he might find his actual underwriter is still in market via another broker. Without wishing to get into a debate on different risks if say you have a broker which has a couple of high losses on his book but generates little income you might as part of a profitability review decide as an insurer to terminate the ToBA with that broker. You also have to understand that increased FCA attention on fair outcomes comes at a regulatory cost so participation via small brokers becomes unattractive given the broker is often taking /wanting say40 % of premium and also wants a profit share,marketing fund or whatever and generating few cases. You might not look at this on a per year basis but if over say 3 to 5 years a broker has an unprofitable book plus no other lines which make profit then the decision to move away really takes little consideration in a market generally which has seen high losses and as said becomes much more base on an algorithm ie model based risk selection which also reduces your costs base.

 

[Laysula]

Is it anything to do with the location of your pontoon. Some years ago Bishop Skinner declined to insure my boat afloat in Holyhead marina over winter. ( Turns out that they made a smart move ). We changed to GJW . Who probably took quite a hit in the storm of 2018, by which time we had left and moved South.

 

[V1701]

I've had similar problems with motorbike insurance, reasonable premium one year, will not cover at all the next. Frustrating but shopping around or using a broker should work...

 

[Anardon]

Thanks all but re comment to find a different broker, I've now tried 3 and all have said "no way pedro!" So, just finding another broker is not so simple as a phone call. I can probably find someone eventually but it's not an easy ride.
They pretty much all said same reason so far. It's to do with the claim to vessel value making it a high risk. I think what they are saying is that because the claim was in excess of 50% overall value of the vessel, its a bad risk so no-one wants to touch it.
Now, I don't quite understand the reasoning why that isolated fact in particular would make it a bad risk but if they all work using similar algorythms, it makes me wonder if I should just try to get another quote but overstating the vessel value. It might increase the premium but if not too much, perhaps the easiest option to get a policy. I'll see how that one goes.
Regardless, I think its definitely worth a letter to the Ombudsman. It does seem rather unfair a situation to be put in.
I'll not name the broker / company here yet but it is one of the largest specialist insurers of private vessels in UK & worldwide so not pulling out of the market and should know better!

 

[pandos]

Thanks all but re comment to find a different broker, I've now tried 3 and all have said "no way pedro!" So, just finding another broker is not so simple as a phone call. I can probably find someone eventually but it's not an easy ride.
They pretty much all said same reason so far. It's to do with the claim to vessel value making it a high risk. I think what they are saying is that because the claim was in excess of 50% overall value of the vessel, its a bad risk so no-one wants to touch it.
Now, I don't quite understand the reasoning why that isolated fact in particular would make it a bad risk but if they all work using similar algorythms, it makes me wonder if I should just try to get another quote but overstating the vessel value. It might increase the premium but if not too much, perhaps the easiest option to get a policy. I'll see how that one goes.
Regardless, I think its definitely worth a letter to the Ombudsman. It does seem rather unfair a situation to be put in.
I'll not name the broker / company here yet but it is one of the largest specialist insurers of private vessels in UK & worldwide so not pulling out of the market and should know better!

Yes you really need to correct the original wrong...otherwise it will haunt you...