Insurance Topsail ---GJW--- My 2 pence worth-- your mileage may vary as they say

silverdee said:
So was with Y yacht for several years they sold out to Topsail in 2020 and I clung on with them. 74 FT. motor yacht.
But this year chunky price rise again but worse--- cover from Admiral (underwriter Travellers) clear exclusion for corrosion / electrolysis. I ask and they wont ammend.
So went with GJW (Munich Re underwriters) - cover for corrosion / electrolysis included and 30% cheaper-- Happy days I hope.
Previous good experience (20 years back) when GJW covered yard where earlier boat badly damaged in haul out fall - claim paid easily in full on time - interactions as a claimant dealt with reasonably etc.
Click to expand...
GJW are fine imho except the last time I looked the policy they use had (a) weak galvanic corrosion clause and (b) a “we buy you a secondhand similar boat” total loss clause. I realise neither matters much to you but item (b) is a dealbreaker if you have an “agreed value” policy as I did till recently.
So it’s horses for courses and ymmv.
As you know I disagree with, but have given up arguing against, the stuff regurgitated on here (eg anchoring) by a very small number of folk who (in contrast to you) have no clue about insurance law, contract interpretation or litigation.
I’ll probably head back to pantaenius for next boat.
 
Scubadoo said:
Yep, this is where my GJW claim was rejected a few years ago by this electrolysis clause no matter how I demonstrated to them the evidence. In my case, I was in the same berth for many years without any problems until two events occurred in one year where a liveaboard had power issues near me and marina was in the process of replacing lift berth anodes. No complaints with GJW customer service and price, but after that experience I moved to another insurer.
Click to expand...
I shudder reading that. Insurers are given too much slack on electrolysis clauses imho. Few years ago a poster on here suffered a total loss sinking in marina due to electrolysis destroying a seacock. Surveyor report confirmed it was electrolysis. Insurer refused, but when taught what the real limitations of their clause really were they conceded on the court room steps and paid in full. Go carefully!
 
jfm said:
GJW are fine imho except the last time I looked the policy they use had (a) weak galvanic corrosion clause and (b) a “we buy you a secondhand similar boat” total loss clause. I realise neither matters much to you but item (b) is a dealbreaker if you have an “agreed value” policy as I did till recently.
So it’s horses for courses and ymmv.
As you know I disagree with, but have given up arguing against, the stuff regurgitated on here (eg anchoring) by a very small number of folk who (in contrast to you) have no clue about insurance law, contract interpretation or litigation.
I’ll probably head back to pantaenius for next boat.
Click to expand...
Just getting a quote from Pantaenius at the moment but trying to decipher this extract from their policy
Does it mean if the boat sinks due to electrolytic etc etc then it’s covered (“the physical loss is not excluded”…..from what “this insurance does not cover”
or if I take the two “not‘s“ out it’s “the physical loss is excluded from what this insurance covers” so I wouldn’t be covered??
I quote
This insurance does not cover:
the cost of repairing or replacing a part that is subject to normal wear and tear or that is damaged by corrosion of any kind (including electrolytic, galvanic, oxidation and rusting) or rot and that has caused the physical loss of or damage to the yacht (but the physical loss or damage that occurs to the property insured under this insurance as a direct result thereof is not excluded);
 
Last edited:
DavidJ said:
Just getting a quote from Pantaenius at the moment but trying to decipher this extract from their policy
Does it mean if the boat sinks due to electrolytic etc etc then it’s covered (“the physical loss is not excluded”…..from what “this insurance does not cover”
or if I take the two “not‘s“ out it’s “the physical loss is excluded from what this insurance covers” so I wouldn’t be covered??
I quote
This insurance does not cover:
the cost of repairing or replacing a part that is subject to normal wear and tear or that is damaged by corrosion of any kind (including electrolytic, galvanic, oxidation and rusting) or rot and that has caused the physical loss of or damage to the yacht (but the physical loss or damage that occurs to the property insured under this insurance as a direct result thereof is not excluded);
Click to expand...
You can't remove the two "nots" like that.

This Pantaenius clause is good. It says that if a seacock fizzes away and your boat sinks, and ignoring any other exclusions for recklessness etc), they will pay you (say) £999,950, being the (say) £1m value of the boat minus £50 for the seacock itself.

Pantaenius have been excellent imho on this aspect for the last several years. They were great years ago, then had a bad couple of years imho (maybe 10 years ago), then their MD engaged with me (privately offline) and others and improved their clause to what it is today, which is very good imho.
 
In recent times I asked GJW for a quote for a potential purchase , as I’ve been out of boating for 7 seasons now I gave them background history and got a 20% discount from there initial quote .

As for the logic behind claims I am absolutely baffled as to how some claims are paid when as engineer I know 100% the fault was down to poor servicing , neglect and a manufacturing design fault yet they pay out .
Then other cases mainly outdrive related whereby they employ some so called expert witness that examines a pile of destructed parts mainly gears and deduces a 50 hour old drive a latent defect !!!
My assumption on claims is that some days your lucky and others your not even when you know your in the right .
 
jfm said:
You can't remove the two "nots" like that.

This Pantaenius clause is good. It says that if a seacock fizzes away and your boat sinks, and ignoring any other exclusions for recklessness etc), they will pay you (say) £999,950, being the (say) £1m value of the boat minus £50 for the seacock itself.

Pantaenius have been excellent imho on this aspect for the last several years. They were great years ago, then had a bad couple of years imho (maybe 10 years ago), then their MD engaged with me (privately offline) and others and improved their clause to what it is today, which is very good imho.
Click to expand...
Thanks @jfm it is good to have you back. Yes very clear now.
I‘m hoping Pantaenius come back with a reasonably competitive quote.
 
Scubadoo said:
At the time I had a lengthy conversation with GJW "expert" and if I remember correctly there was a conversation on monitoring anode wear throughout the season, which was difficult to do. The difficulties is providing evidence, at the time I thought I had sufficient evidence of my annual lift and checks etc. Photos (new & old anodes fitted), evidence of new anodes purchased (invoices), annual inspection including resistance checks and so on and I even had many years of my old anodes that I keep at home which showed the usual annual degradation. I came to the conclusion that insurers (not just GJW) have plenty of "excuses" not to pay a claim. Since then, I have gone further to ensure it doesn't happen again, increasing my anode protection, added galvanic isolator and weighing the anodes annually to use as a comparison and using a video camera underwater to check the anodes that I can't see. This is also the same for sea cocks, ensuring checks are documented, including photos internal and external and so on.
Click to expand...

Following on from the above post: Can I ask those of you in the know on insurance contracts/litigation about the amount or type of evidence that the typical boatowner should (or would be wise) to prepare every season to document the condition of the boat and various maintenance jobs. For instance if professional service is carried out would the invoices be sufficient to document general maintenance, anode replacements etc.? If on the other hand you service the boat yourself should you take pictures and save sparepart invoices? What about documentation for the condition of seacocks and outdrives etc.?

Sorry if this is thread-drift!
 
I have recently renewed my insurance moving from Topsail to Pantaenius, just felt happier with policy
wording and although a little more expensive felt their Cover Plus policy gave me the cover i want.
Was assisted by the ever helpful Claire Froggatt ex Y Yacht and Topsail

cheers
Tetleys
 
I’ve been with Pantaenius for the last 6 years during which time I had to make a claim and must say found then to be very fair and reasonable during the claim. That said, after each annual increase I am now at a point where their renewal (for their so called ‘Plus’ policy) is just over £2,200 (it has gone up about £100 every year on average). As a comparison I got a quote from Craftinsure and that came in much much lower at just over £1,500……so now am in a quandary….. do I stay or do I go. Not done a detailed apples-to-apples comparison on the policy wordings yet but would appreciate any thoughts from those that might have done so already!!? Many thanks
 
Peterlewis321 said:
I’ve been with Pantaenius for the last 6 years during which time I had to make a claim and must say found then to be very fair and reasonable during the claim. That said, after each annual increase I am now at a point where their renewal (for their so called ‘Plus’ policy) is just over £2,200 (it has gone up about £100 every year on average). As a comparison I got a quote from Craftinsure and that came in much much lower at just over £1,500……so now am in a quandary….. do I stay or do I go. Not done a detailed apples-to-apples comparison on the policy wordings yet but would appreciate any thoughts from those that might have done so already!!? Many thanks
Click to expand...
I’ve pm you
 
tetleys said:
I have recently renewed my insurance moving from Topsail to Pantaenius, just felt happier with policy
wording and although a little more expensive felt their Cover Plus policy gave me the cover i want.
Was assisted by the ever helpful Claire Froggatt ex Y Yacht and Topsail

cheers
Tetleys
Click to expand...
So Claire is with Pantaenious now? Claire is excellent to deal with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top