Insurance rip off ?

[Guest]

No only does the Ins. Co. decision stink ... but also the article - as further in it concentrates on the guy's lifestyle and money ... So what ? If the guy is lucky enough to be well paid and able to buy such "toys" then good for him.
The article stinks of "Yachting" and rich-boys toys attitude.

As far as I am concerned Insurance is a Cover for All Risks and to say inexperienced on helm is a get-out should be fought hard and consigned to the bin where it belongs. Having been at the bad end of an Ins. Broker and Underwriters decision - I know how sick they can get ... I perservered and won my case ... but it was a hard battle and took months and months.

I hope he wins his case ... I hope he gets every penny out of them.

And blimey - what the hell does his ex-wife have to do with it ??

 

[Danny Jo]

I think that the Mail article and much of this thread are a bit unfair to Admiral. One of their clients submits a claim, which, for reasons we only have the client's word for, they refuse. The client seeks legal redress.

There are two good reasons for Admiral not to talk about it. Firstly, they have a professional obligation not to discuss, without his consent, the terms of their agreement with their client with the press. Secondly, it is generally considered unwise to discuss a case publicly until legal proceedings have been settled.

My insurance with Admiral came up for renewal after this thread started up. I have renewed it. Like any contract there are clauses setting out the limits of the cover - geographical, for example. I certainly don't expect to be covered for a trip to the Southern Ocean on a UK-waters-only contract. And I don't fancy having my hard-earned premiums squandered on punters who ignore risks that their insurers have foreseen and required them to avoid.

Those who might otherwise have insured through Admiral and are considering not doing so as the result of this case should at least talk to them and hear their side of the story.

Mark

 

[Guest]

Re: Insurance rip off ? ..... not true.

"I understood (possibly now to be corrected) that for marine policies unlike car policies you can state a value for the vessel insured and as long as it is not outrageous (fraud) then that is the amount the insurance will pay for a total loss"

Certainly not true ..... having been subject to Ins. Underwriters assessment of TCL (total constructive loss) - I can say in all honesty - that they diddle you out of every penny they can. I was passed all sorts of cr*p about depreciation, market values etc. etc. They even left me with yard bills for the months of arguing ... lift out etc. You name it. The offer was less than 50% of boats value and out of that I would have to cough up the bills ... leaving me about £50 nett.
I held out and required boat retain in my possession, I then required consideration towards bills and payment of the offer on top. Finally when they realised that they would be left with a boat on their hands that would only cost them more - they relented.

Honest - forget all thoughts of pots of cash when it happens ....