Insurance Survey

J

Jcorstorphine

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Aug 2001
Messages
1,874
Location
Scotland
Visit site
I am due to launch my boat after a major refurbishment and as such I forced into getting a survey done for insurance purposes. In the past I have found these surveys a total waste of time as I know my boat better than a surveyor will. I also object to the usual claptrap that surveyors seem to think is important like

The forward cab has two bunks set in a V fashion with 75 mm foam mattresses in good condition. The sides of the hull are covered in a well fitted lining as is the headlining. A hatch provided for ventilation and emergency escape however it is noted that the acrylic section has some small imperfection due to the effect of sunlight.

What a load of absolute claptrap,

All I want is a simple survey which states the value and the boat is in satisfactory condition with no obvious defect to the hull which would impair her seaworthiness and has sufficient safety equipment to allow the vessel to be used within X mile of land.

Rant over
 
"All I want is a simple survey which states the value and the boat is in satisfactory condition with no obvious defect to the hull which would impair her seaworthiness and has sufficient safety equipment to allow the vessel to be used within X mile of land".

We do a lot of 'simple' surveys of small craft here (usually speedboats less than 7m in length), in the same format as you describe above - and this is with the mutual agreement of insurance company and boat owner, because neither party wants to have to wade through (or pay for.....) a 5 or 15 page report to read the conclusion to see if the vessel is seaworthy or not.

OK, there is the (very rare) occasion when a vessel does not meet the basic standards of seaworthiness required - but most of them do conform quite happily, and are well looked after.
.
We are probably a wee bit too far away though to come and inspect your boat without incurring a rather high bill for travelling expenses..... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
"All I want is a simple survey which states the value and the boat is in satisfactory condition with no obvious defect to the hull which would impair her seaworthiness and has sufficient safety equipment to allow the vessel to be used within X mile of land".

We do a lot of 'simple' surveys of small craft here (usually speedboats less than 7m in length), in the same format as you describe above - and this is with the mutual agreement of insurance company and boat owner, because neither party wants to have to wade through (or pay for.....) a 5 or 15 page report to read the conclusion to see if the vessel is seaworthy or not.

OK, there is the (very rare) occasion when a vessel does not meet the basic standards of seaworthiness required - but most of them do conform quite happily, and are well looked after.
.
We are probably a wee bit too far away though to come and inspect your boat without incurring a rather high bill for travelling expenses..... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I could bring the boat to you as your HQ sounds a nice place but then I would not have insurance. many thanks for the reply.
 
Quote: All I want is a simple survey which states the value and the boat is in satisfactory condition with no obvious defect to the hull which would impair her seaworthiness and has sufficient safety equipment to allow the vessel to be used within X mile of land.

_______________________
Dead right. And a structural survey is all anyone should ask for - the other 19 pages served up, and paid for, are computer padding - really an inventory of no use to man or beast.

Be firm - a structural survey on two pages. How much for that?

Why two pages? Because if it runs to more than 2 pages, there are clearly so many issues you will not want to proceed anyway....!


PWG
 
This year, I have to an insurance survey.

In the past on other boats, I have submitted this 'insurance' survey to the insurance company, and they have said 'fix the problems'.

For some odd reason, all my boats have a forward opening forehatch. And of course the surveyor marks this as a defect!

But despite this, there is no way I am taking this hatch off and re setting it. Thus I wonder whether I would be insured from that date, or whether I should confront the insurance company and say there is no way the hatch is going to be turned around.

Maybe if I sunk because of a huge wave entering the boat via the forehatch (yea) I would be unisured for that situation.

If I needed to claim for a incident that did not involve the hatch, I would hope to be stll insured. But wonder whether the insurance company would use the hatch as an excuse to get out of the claim?
 
Many Ins. co's nowadays accept a Boatyard assessment letter. Particularly if boat is 24ft or less LOA.

It is worth asking your Ins. Co. (actually most are through Brokers who then have to check with the actual Underwriters) - can you have a yard letter stating Boat is fit for duty / considered Seaworthy.

I did that on that my 25ft 'r.

You do say that your boat has undergone major refurb - is that by yard or you ? If yard then I would have thought Ins. would be happy with yard letter ... if yourself and depends on refurb work of course you may have possibility.

Ask - nothing to lose ...
 
[ QUOTE ]
This year, I have to an insurance survey.

In the past on other boats, I have submitted this 'insurance' survey to the insurance company, and they have said 'fix the problems'.

For some odd reason, all my boats have a forward opening forehatch. And of course the surveyor marks this as a defect!

But despite this, there is no way I am taking this hatch off and re setting it. Thus I wonder whether I would be insured from that date, or whether I should confront the insurance company and say there is no way the hatch is going to be turned around.

Maybe if I sunk because of a huge wave entering the boat via the forehatch (yea) I would be unisured for that situation.

If I needed to claim for a incident that did not involve the hatch, I would hope to be stll insured. But wonder whether the insurance company would use the hatch as an excuse to get out of the claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

A common "defect" noted on many reports. And I agree with your "I'm not turning it round" stand - I have same 'defect'. In fact I like it - on a nice day I can open it and get a nice breeze through the boat !
I 'used' to do surveys but stopped as the market was being affected by self-styled self opinionated groups. Basic sensible surveys seemed to take back-seat.

As a client - you should be able to instruct the Surveyor as to type of survey you require. Trouble is too many regard the survey as one style only.
Second - if you fail to complete a recc'd repair / alteration - then it could be Ins. use to wriggle out of claims. I've had Ins. try to prove a previous claim was incorrect to null and void a later claim - they even employed a 'Pet surveyor' to go inspect without my knowledge !! Believe it - there are no prisoners in Ins. world - just victims.
 
Just on my point of hatches opening forwards, there are so many boats with this configuration, estimated 50%.

Surely that proves or indicates that its not a significant 'defect'

Would be arguable in court if it came to that (?)

The marine surveyor who did my insurance survey on the last boat waxed over this 'defect' for pages. And he is well respected in the profession (trade)

Is a forward opening hatch a real defect, or just a pet subject for surveyors to prove their worth?
 
It's one of those items that has us in profession arguing !!

Many boats new, old and not so old have had from design stage ... 50% ? I would suggest a higher percentage.

The view is that a serious wave might cause it to lift, that major fixture is at aft end and fwd edge is only held by clip / stay. Also that if hatch is left ajar and forgotten .... that a sea coming over could compromise yachts water-tight integrity ...

It's a matter of eternal debate.

I don't think anyone can quote a case where the hatch fwd or aft opening has been quoted as factor in a case. I cannot think of any ... problem is someone in past made a point of and it's caught on a standard comment. I'm not allowed to say how misconceptions get passed through the Yacht Survey "industry". I got knuckles rapped for it before.
NMS Survey reports - my company used to NOT highlight this as a defect. We just reported design characteristics and all structural matters as we found. We looked upon a boat as an item to check for integrity and suitability for intended.
I can remember a boat that seller had a survey report. He offered it to prospective buyers. My client who was interested in the boat asked me to look over the boat. Sellers report was in my hand - from a well known advertised 'surveyor' - I found within first minutes serious defect in hull - a deformity where GRP structure had fractured and allowed bulkhead to deform hull. No mention in other report ... plenty about silly items like hatches fwd opening etc.

"And he is well respected in the profession (trade)"
Profession ? Trade ? Do either terms really apply ? I say that as an Owner of Internationally recognised Marine Surveyor Company.

Don't forget also that a 'Surveyor' can be broken by Ins. Co's refusing to accept his reports !! .... it happens.

How many here have really had a 'good' surveyor ... or what has been a nice guy who writes what is expected ? Plenty of those around. A good surveyor is one who walks round a boat with the client and discusses everything he finds, also LISTENS ... as surveys are not always buyer ... Many are owner who wants to know about his pride and joy. Owner can also pass on invaluable information about the craft in front of surveyor.

I also find the term Surveyor strange in this arena. In the 'real' world of Marine Inspection - Surveyor implies a senior Inspector .... something that I cannot apply to average yacht guy ... sorry guys - but I cannot. I have excellent Inspectors employed in my company's, but very few would be allowed to quote themselves as Surveyor.

Sorry for the rant ... but I left yacht market fed up with the back-room antics.
 
Yes its obviously an an ongoing argument.

As readers might see, I have a Sadler 32.

One of which was found in the Atlantic, abandonned and without the main hatch in place.

Thus a large hole in the beast was not enough to sink it.

But common sense says that we have plug any holes in the hull, no argument there.

Also just to put my viewpoint, I think an insurance survey is good, similar to a car MOT.

I welcome a proffesional look over the old tub, as I am an amatuer, and have overlooked serious defects in the past.

But will be looking to not be penalised by my hatch congiguration.

Mj
 
i had a good surveyor that stated it was all in good order but would recommend doing the jobs(my pageant has this issue). But the jobs that was required she stated that it was essential for these to be carried out( althought some were minor but good practice). i believe the surveyors wording helps or hinders the situation. The key is to let your surveyor know what you expect from them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i had a good surveyor that stated it was all in good order but would recommend doing the jobs(my pageant has this issue). But the jobs that was required she stated that it was essential for these to be carried out( althought some were minor but good practice). i believe the surveyors wording helps or hinders the situation. The key is to let your surveyor know what you expect from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is how the wording is. If a report has recc'd items to be done - Insurance will take them as gospel and I know of many cases where boat have reduced cover till they are completed. Reduction is based on any incident or claim that can be attributed or partly attributed to the 'fault', even to point that 'fault' MAY have been involved.
If the report separates 'defects / faults' into "priorities" ranging from advisory to those that need correcting urgently and is worded clearly - then that's fair enough. But problem is then what yardstick does the surveyor use ? This is the area that I got embroiled in.

Areas of dispute :

Fwd opening hatches
Rigging replacement on non-stressed cruising boats
Osmosis treatment where no blistering
Engine replacements
Inclining experiments and RCD

The above are just an example of the areas of argument. So here we are only kissing the tip of the iceberg.

Before anyone asks - No I don't want to return to UK Yacht Survey arena ... I've had Insurance Co's and past clients ask me to - but not with present climate ... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
I'm quite happy to pass on ..... help where I can.
 
Quote: If I needed to claim for a incident that did not involve the hatch, I would hope to be stll insured. But wonder whether the insurance company would use the hatch as an excuse to get out of the claim?
____________________________

So you are struck by another unknown boat when tied up in a marina and claim. Can your insurer disclaim on the basis that the hatch is the "wong way round for modern construction practice"? Well, only the crappiest insurer/broker and I would think a solicitor's letter would soon bring him to his senses.

PWG
 
Human psychology. You get a 40 page report of the bleeding obvious for your x hundred pounds because if you just got a single sentence saying "everything is ok" you would resent the same sized bill even more. But the bill is for the work or surveying which is the same whatever the man writes.

You dont need to read it all of course - just speed read the bits that matter or ask him to start with a one page executive summary and read only that bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

PabloPicasso
Mains power
2 3
Replies
44
Views
1K
PaulRainbow
PaulRainbow
pessimist
Blackwater and insurance
Replies
11
Views
1K
hurley
hurley

Share this page

Top