Insurance: Y Yacht vs. Pantaenius

[Tranona]

>ow can you make any judgement when you do not know the exact circumstances of the dispute?

I don't know what the dispute was and seemingly you don't either but it is a contradiction of what happened in Grenada, no quibbles there straightforward payment.

It is not a "contradiction". All it means is that in one situation they paid out promptly (as most insurers do). That is completely unconnected with another claim. I don't know the details either, but you cannot comment on it or compare it without knowing the details. You can only make direct comparisons if the two claims were identical.

For example NFU claims to pay out on over 95% of claims for household insurance. This does not necessarily mean they are better payers than other insurers but perhaps because their policies have greater coverage, fewer exclusions and (like Pants) are more expensive than their competitors.

 

[Momac]

If you single hand Y will only allow you 18 hour passages. Clearly not a market they want to be in.

Can't fault them for that.

 

[rotrax]

It is not a "contradiction". All it means is that in one situation they paid out promptly (as most insurers do). That is completely unconnected with another claim. I don't know the details either, but you cannot comment on it or compare it without knowing the details. You can only make direct comparisons if the two claims were identical.

For example NFU claims to pay out on over 95% of claims for household insurance. This does not necessarily mean they are better payers than other insurers but perhaps because their policies have greater coverage, fewer exclusions and (like Pants) are more expensive than their competitors.

I'll say they are more expensive-the local rep canvassed for our insurance business and was gobsmacked by the difference in the premium NFU quoted to what we were paying.

It was 80% higher for, I will admit, slightly better cover.

When we pointed out the extra cover to our existing company, through our long time broker, they added it at nominal premium increase.

 

[KellysEye]

> You can only make direct comparisons if the two claims were identical.

Clearly they weren't the same because the CA one was turned down.

 

[Tim Good]

So anyway the end result for me was that they wouldn't extend the area to match Y Yacht not would they come close to the Y Yacht quote. And all in all the tone I got from the pants team was not great. I felt like a bit of a hassle to them frankly.

Anyway I'll try Y Yacht as it seems they have an equally good reputation.

 

[sailorman]

So anyway the end result for me was that they wouldn't extend the area to match Y Yacht not would they come close to the Y Yacht quote. And all in all the tone I got from the pants team was not great. I felt like a bit of a hassle to them frankly.

Anyway I'll try Y Yacht as it seems they have an equally good reputation.

Thanks for the update

 

[Tranona]

> You can only make direct comparisons if the two claims were identical.

Clearly they weren't the same because the CA one was turned down.

You have no idea why it was turned down. That is why your original statement has no meaning.

I expect it was turned down because the claim was not covered by the contract whereas the others were.