Insurance rip off ?

so what is the Insurance Company's requirment for someone on the helm? Sounds like compulsory education by the back door. After all, a lot of us have no formal qualification, and a range of experience from 0 years to a lifetime.
This would need a lot of clarification. I hope he wins his court case, or trips with your mates round the bay will cease unless a crew is deemed to be experienced enough by the Insurance Company, and not just Chartered vessels either.

Thin end of the wedge here.

Any suggestions for nipping it in the bud?
 
I guess the owner was inexperienced, probably didn't have a navigation plan, and probably didn't brief his helmswoman on the approaching dangers (if he was aware of them).

If that's the case, how come the insurance company covered him in the first place? I'm sure he wouldn't tell any porky pies about his experience or qualifications. Perhaps that's where the different points of view really lie?
 
I thought we all had some duty under an insurance policy to minimise our losses. Car insurance can be cheaper if you take an advanced driving course and learners are charged more. My insurance company (Polestar) asked for experience on the proposal form so I presume my premium is based on that. I wonder what happens if I lend somebody else my boat.

It does need clarifying and hopefully his test case might do that. Smells like increasing premiums all round though.

Never understood why he didn't know he was too near Anvil Point. If he drives a DB7 with 007 plate (see article) then he probably thought he was invincible. It doesn't take much sailing to convince you otherwise.
 
Two sides to this. On one hand was he being negligent in leaving a very inexperienced person at the helm so close to danger. If so the Insurance company are right to refuse payment, and by doing so may keep premiums lower for the rest of us.
On the other hand are we all at risk of non payment if we allow our partners to take the helm, even if they have done so many times befor, but have no formal qualifications?
 
Nowhere in my policy does it say you must have a formal qualification. In my policy it does say 'at all times when underway the minimum number of competent crew members will be that number agreed.' Basically 2 unless I am going across Biscay when this increases to 3. However I also am allowed to sail singlehanded in daylight hours. The crunch comes defining 'competent'. I have yet to find that defined. This may be where he falls down?
 
This case is very worrying. Fair enough if someone deliberately destroys the insured vessel but in this instance an error of judgement by the skipper caused the loss of his boat and might easily have resulted in the loss of life.

Are we to be penalised for making mistakes - however stupid they may appear to be?
 
The implication from this story is that disaster happened quickly and that even the skipper was not aware of where he was in relation to the charted hazards. The original pictures showed the boat on the rocks by cliffs. It really sounds like a total lack of common sense, as well as lack of experience. If he was checking the GPS, it implies he thought he knew how to use it, but could have been wrong.

Personally I agree with the insurance company- he dug a big hole and jumped into it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This case is very worrying. Fair enough if someone deliberately destroys the insured vessel but in this instance an error of judgement by the skipper caused the loss of his boat and might easily have resulted in the loss of life.

Are we to be penalised for making mistakes - however stupid they may appear to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with that entirely. We all make mistakes sometimes and most of the time we get away with it. In this instance there is no suggestion of a false claim because the people involved could very easily have lost their lives and apparently money is not a problem for Mr Twit either.

If that is an example of Admiral Insurance then I am glad they don't insure me. They took his premium happily enough, so smile and pay up, that WAS the deal wasn't it?
 
Iam glad admiral dont insure me, and they never will do now.

He may of been a bit of a plonker, but at the end of the day he was checking the chart plotter to try and avoid the rocks i can only conclude?

SO what's he meant to do? Ask her to make some tea whilst he is on the charts and running a drift?
Ask her to check the charts, but it sounds like she can't.

rahhhh!
 
My personal experience of insurance companies (after a not at fault car accident) is that there are more exemptions than you know about, and the value they place on your insured property has little relationship to the replacement cost. Caveat Emptor

Our boat is insured third party only.
 
[ QUOTE ]
My personal experience of insurance companies (after a not at fault car accident) is that there are more exemptions than you know about, and the value they place on your insured property has little relationship to the replacement cost. Caveat Emptor

[/ QUOTE ]

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

<span style="color:blue"> In increasingly stormy seas, Mr Compton, who was teaching 33-year-old Miss Gutteridge to sail despite only limited experience of his own, nipped below deck to check navigational equipment, leaving her at the helm.

Moments later there was a sickening crunch and he emerged on deck to discover she had smashed it into rocks </span> Taken from the article.

On this basis if you were sailing single handedly, according to the Admiral Insurance Co, you cannot leave the helm until moored, even for a call of nature.

<span style="color:red"> Thus, according to the Admiral Insurance Co, you cannot sail single handed. </span>
EG if you went forward to pick up a mooring and fell overboard and the vessel was blown on to a rocky shore and was wrecked.

I would not insure with them and trust that others be guided by the handling of the claim by this insurance Co.

It might be a good idea that a standard letter be drafted and everyone on the forum (that agreed with it) could send/email (cc'd to the Daily Mail) it to Admiral Insurance stating that they will never insure with them. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I thought we all had some duty under an insurance policy to minimise our losses. Car insurance can be cheaper if you take an advanced driving course and learners are charged more. My insurance company (Polestar) asked for experience on the proposal form so I presume my premium is based on that. I wonder what happens if I lend somebody else my boat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what happens if I lend somebody else my boat. That is a whole new field. Never mind about payment if your boat was wrecked. What about if the boat injured somebody VERY seriously!!!

My advice dont lend your boat.
 
First and foremost, the writer of the peice seems to misunderstand the current tax regieme, so that give a little context to their attention to detail.

Not withstanding that, however, it seems a little odd not cover this one unless there were either specific exclusions on the policy or the risk was not as per the proposal. That is the failing of articles like this, we simply have no idea what the basis for insurers position is. It does not appear that the claim has been repudiated, simply not yet paid.

Ultimately, this guy is a bright bloke, although clearly prone to plonkerish tendancies (aren't we all to a greater or lesser extent?). I can't see that he has breached any obvious restirctions but we simply are not party to the contract and neither are the Daily Mail.
 
I'm pretty confident that my insurance covers whoever is skippering the boat, obviously with my permission. I would have to check the small print to be certain, but am 99% sure at the moment.

Taken from policy wording:
[ QUOTE ]
INSURED: You, or any person whilst aboard the Vessel (including embarkation and disembarkation) with your permission, including Captain or Crew employed by you but excluding any other person employed by you in connection with the Vessel.

SECTION 5

THIRD PARTY LIABILITY

A COVER FOR LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES

PERSONS COVERED
1. The Insured Persons referred to in this Section are:
(i) you;
(ii) any person using the Vessel with your permission.

COVER
2. Subject to the warranties and the other terms of the Policy we shall cover the Insured Persons in respect of legal liability to another person (including another person insured under this Section) arising out of the Insured Person's interest in or use of the Vessel (including wreck removal and damage caused by oil pollution).

B EXCLUSIONS TO COVER FOR LIABILITY OF THIRD PARTIES

PERSONS NOT COVERED
1. This Policy does not cover the liability of the following persons:
(i) any person employed under a contract in connection with the Vessel, other than captain or crew and employed by you;
(ii) an employee of or an operator of a marina, slipway, shipyard, yacht club, sales agency, similar organisation or crane or travel hoist;
(iii) any person while engaged in any sport which involves being towed by the Vessel unless endorsement 6 has been agreed and noted on the Schedule;
(iv) any person while engaged in snorkelling, aqualung diving or other underwater sport including whilst disembarking or boarding.

C EXCLUSIONS TO COVER FOR LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES

LIABILITY NOT COVERED
1. This Policy does not cover liability to the following persons:
(i) any person employed under a contract in connection with the Vessel;
(ii) any person while engaged in any sport which involves being towed by the Vessel unless Endorsement 6 has been agreed and noted on the Schedule;
(iii) any person while engaged in snorkelling, aqualung diving or other underwater sport including whilst disembarking or boarding other than liability to such person arising as a result of physical contact between such person and the vessel.

[/ QUOTE ]
 
[ QUOTE ]
Are we to be penalised for making mistakes - however stupid they may appear to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again should anyone insuring with Admiral have their premiums increased because someone like this didn't allow themselves enough searoom?

Regardless of who was on the helm, in order to hit the cliffs they didn't allow themselves enough searoom. Just because it's possible to sail close to the cliffs it doesn't mean one has to!

I'm sorry, sailing close to big rocky things is not a bright thing to do...I know its possible to sail close the the cliffs there, but with an onshore (as I remember) breeze how many people would do it?

I wouldn't

Maybe if he knew he knew he wasn't insured if he left an inexperienced person at the helm close to a chuffing big cliffs he might not have done it...thus saving himself and the rescue sevices stacks of cash.

just my opinion, not the opinion of IPC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

zoidberg
'This month's hot boating topic....'
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
tjbrace
tjbrace
R
Brokers.
Replies
6
Views
486
Irish Rover
Irish Rover

Share this page

Top