Insurance requirements re 'new' equipment

[superheat6k]

Following another thread about diesel fired boat heaters and the merits of their safety I contacted my Insurers to see if they were OK with said heaters.

The answer surprised me to say the least. Not a problem providing

a. The unit is new

and b. it is professionally installed.

Initially a simple enough answer until you extend this to cover all manner of equipment that is fitted to a boat, from seacocks and skin fittings to electrical devices, batteries, fuel systems, etc, etc.

So what does "Professionally installed' actually mean, and does this mean if a non professional installs a skin fitting and his boat sinks is he defect not insured.

Is someone qualified by their background trade / employment / training sufficiently professional, or must they be in the employ of the specific discipline of the item concerned.

This could also mean no more secondhand equipment where an element of safety is involved.

Then what if you buy a boat in good faith that has just had all the seacocks installed by a non professional, one or more of which is only superficially secured (i.e. enough to satisfy a casual inspection by the Surveyor) ?

So is it legitimate of an Insurance company to insist on 'Must be New' and 'Must be professionally installed'.

How many boats out there have important equipment and fittings fitted by the owner, in most cases an amateur ?

The key issue here is that a policyholder will only find this out should a subsequent problem arise. I thought for a claim event to qualify the problem had to be unforeseen, not fair wear and tear and not due to specific negligence.

 

[rafiki_]

Trevor, I don’t think any insurer would challenge your ability to fit these things. You are a professional, and and expert in your field. As a Chartered Engineer, I would also qualify, although I know my limitations, and will call in a marine pro when sensible.

 

[superheat6k]

Trevor, I don’t think any insurer would challenge your ability to fit these things. You are a professional, and and expert in your field. As a Chartered Engineer, I would also qualify, although I know my limitations, and will call in a marine pro when sensible.

My concern was the requirement a device, is this case a heater must be new, no concern at all it might be a grey Chinese import, just must be new. We all know CE marking on certain imports stands for Chinese Export. For my business we import large machinery equipment from China and Taiwan and have to be very careful that the CE marking is genuine. I am not so sure my brilliant Chinese Chartplotter / AIS transceiver has proper bon fide CE marking though, and neither have I made any effort to check this.

 

[Portofino]

I think that’s fair enough.

Put the boot on the other foot you underwrite all the worlds bodgers when it comes to safety .


I had all my seacocks and main engine through the hull fittings Plus the black pipes in the ER replaced by a yard and paid a bill on headed note paper —— mainly for that very reason - a piece of paper to back me up on what I accessed as the numero uno reason ( out of my direct control) that I may make a big claim - ie sinking and end up in a tussle with the underwriters.
How ever I have personally replaced my TV Ariel —- can,t think how that will end up with a claim - happy to be informed .
I also had my AC retrofit done by a reputable boat sparky — holes drilled in the hull , wiring up electric fire potential hazard .

I replaced a 8uggerd micro wave - unplugged the old - plugged in the new — I,ll accept that “ risk “ too like the tv aerial
I had the yard renew the racors and fuel pipes .
Had qualified MAN engineers to replace a exhaust gasket- fire hazard etc
Had a boat sparky replace the gas ( degas the boat ) hob for a induction + wire it up properly to the ac board
Paid about €60/70 hr for a “Professional”

All ^^^ u tube able and straight forward

But in the claims shoot out you don,t want to give the insurance Co any bigger gun or more ammo to fire back @ you

 

[petem]

Following another thread about diesel fired boat heaters and the merits of their safety I contacted my Insurers to see if they were OK with said heaters.

The answer surprised me to say the least. Not a problem providing

a. The unit is new

and b. it is professionally installed.

Initially a simple enough answer until you extend this to cover all manner of equipment that is fitted to a boat, from seacocks and skin fittings to electrical devices, batteries, fuel systems, etc, etc.

So what does "Professionally installed' actually mean, and does this mean if a non professional installs a skin fitting and his boat sinks is he defect not insured.

Is someone qualified by their background trade / employment / training sufficiently professional, or must they be in the employ of the specific discipline of the item concerned.

This could also mean no more secondhand equipment where an element of safety is involved.

Then what if you buy a boat in good faith that has just had all the seacocks installed by a non professional, one or more of which is only superficially secured (i.e. enough to satisfy a casual inspection by the Surveyor) ?

So is it legitimate of an Insurance company to insist on 'Must be New' and 'Must be professionally installed'.

How many boats out there have important equipment and fittings fitted by the owner, in most cases an amateur ?

The key issue here is that a policyholder will only find this out should a subsequent problem arise. I thought for a claim event to qualify the problem had to be unforeseen, not fair wear and tear and not due to specific negligence.

Trevor, what does it say in your Insurance Policy document? If none of the above is mentioned then I'd take all of what they told you with a pinch of salt. In other words, ready the policy carefully and ensure that you comply with that.

Incidentally, I've just checked my 'Y' policy and the only stipulation I can find is...

"You must maintain the Vessel for the use intended"

 

[Portofino]

Trevor, what does it say in your Insurance Policy document? If none of the above is mentioned then I'd take all of what they told you with a pinch of salt. In other words, ready the policy carefully and ensure that you comply with that.

Incidentally, I've just checked my 'Y' policy and the only stipulation I can find is...

"You must maintain the Vessel for the use intended"

Mines similar
“ must be maintained in a seaworthy condition “

Vague terms ?
On the subject of vague terms - seemingly cock off able ?
My Sunseeker Shield had a “ don,t leave the boat unattended “ clause —- think anchorage and restaurants trip ashore in dead pan calm sea - typical Med .
I challenged this and Coleman’s said they would ck with the underwriter ( Zurich?? - I think ? )
A day or two later that clause was interpreted in a copy e- mail ( like Trevor’s above ) as this
You can leave the boat unattended to go ashore in an anchorage as long as it’s
1- in line of sight
2- no more than 1/2 hr away in the tender / water taxi .
I think it’s just common sense .
Guess while away unattended a pipe may burst and bilge pumps start - of course no peeps to plug the gap ,but 1/2 hr away ok ?
Or it gets a whack by another boat - say dragging anchor and if I was aboard maybe manoeuvre mine out it the way .
But presume in “ direct sight “ I,am suppose to spot that - jump up from the table and go back and fender off ,move the boat etc .
So I think it’s fair .
That’s actually happened btw .
I moved our boat so the dragger slid by not touching .*

But coming back to replacing the engine cooling pipes / seacock / skin fitting / fuel filters / fuel pipes —- use the wrong stuff - do it wrong etc = resulting in a significant claim they may challenge the “ bodger “ .

* The dragger s crew came back in a rush eventually in a small tender with a small OB by now they had moved from 50 M up wind to 20 M down wind and jammed his windlass ,
So he attempted to use the tender as a tug attached a line to his bow and reverse the tender ( only attachment was a bow bollard on the tender )
Wait for it ————— full R and the OB jumped off the transom into the drink .
By now they figured out how to operate the windlass ( pissed French ) .
Mugsy here volunteered to get my diving gear / bottle on and I dived in 15 M + and tied a line on the OB on the bottom .
They were needless to say v grateful .
We then tied a line in my boat - by now upwind to secure there’s while they got there act together .
There boat was heading our to sea otherwise .They had battery starting issues too .
When I was diving I noticed a black bag round there anchor - so it was basically a bag of sand the flukes were redundant.

 

[MrB]

Surely if you had someone do something on your boat and it failed catastrophically, you would claim on their insurance and not yours regardless if they used second hand parts? Would you let someone work on your boat if they weren't insured or have I missed the point?

 

[jfm]

Surely if you had someone do something on your boat and it failed catastrophically, you would claim on their insurance and not yours regardless if they used second hand parts? Would you let someone work on your boat if they weren't insured or have I missed the point?

Your 2 sentences deal with separate points. The second one makes good sense. The first one is a bit mixed up imho: (a) you would claim if anything from the worker not his insurer; (b) sure he might pass the claim handling to his insurer but you're still claiming under your contract with the boat fixer not his insurance contract with his insurer, which has quite different limitations; (c) don't assume it will all go well with such a claim because you'll have to prove contractual or tortious duty of care, causation, foreseeability and quantum of loss and you'll be gambling costs; (d) it could take a long time; and (e) you're usually better claiming from your own insurer (if they don't exclude losses caused by pro boat fixers, which some do) and then happily accepting the subrogation of your claim against the boat fixer (such as it is) to your own insurer to pursue at their leisure.

 

[superheat6k]

Surely if you had someone do something on your boat and it failed catastrophically, you would claim on their insurance and not yours regardless if they used second hand parts? Would you let someone work on your boat if they weren't insured or have I missed the point?

My point was whether I was, as an owner, allowed by my insurers to undertake heavy maintenance tasks. They have in fact confirmed I can, but that might be based upon my professional qualifications and experience, so not sure if that would apply to non qualified technicians / engineers. They have not confirmed whether use of secondhand parts is acceptable - my boat has plenty, but not safety critical items.