insurance

I have been insured them for the past nine years. Not the cheapest but good service when claims made. Friends have had similar experiences. They have recently, in common with many other brokers, pulled out of the long distance market.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
They have stopped insuring wooden boats too

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Can't confirm that they pulled out of long distance insurance altogether. I have just got a quote for worldwide coverage, rates vary depending on the area you are in. Been insured with them for the last 4 years, never had a claim, so can't say much to that. Have also got quotes from others and Pantaenius has not been the most expensive. I inquired at their German office, maybe there is a difference.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.taniwani.de>http://www.taniwani.de</A>
 
Can't confirm that they pulled out of the long distance market altogether. I have just got quotes from them for world-wide travel. Rates depend on the area you are in and are charged pro rata. Been insured with them for four years, haven't had any claims, so cannot say much to that. Also got quotes from some others and Pantaenius is not the most expensive.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.taniwani.de>http://www.taniwani.de</A>
 
thanks everyone, made contact - quote is on its way. you also confirmed what I had heard about them - not cheap but good if making a claim.
merry christmas
mark

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Pantaenius

Being only a broker they are at the mercy of their underwriter.

However before considering them I would advise searching past threads on the matter which might give you cause to avoid doing business with them.

They have, in the past, advertised on the quality and comprehensiveness of their cover - this from the reports of dissatisfied clients attempting to claim from them would no longer appear to be true.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Pantaenius

Alas, comments like this have caused much consternation and the intervention of Kim. Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware and those that have given much mis-advice also.

As one that is in the middle of both a criminal and civil case, whose vessel has been insured with that insurer for almost 20 years, there is much that I can say which would dispell much of what has been said. For the majority, they have been misunderstood and/or misguided as to what the situation actually is. I neither defend or attack any company in any open situation or subject that a Forum offers, as many writers hide behind anonymity.

As the details of my personal situation with Katoema are for me and those involved alone, it would be necessary, in order to understand other's dilemmas, by having their full information. This, alas, would never be forthcoming. If the potential purchaser is happy with the information, along with cost, that will be received, then it is for he to make the final decision.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema.html>http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema.html</A>
 
At the risk of keeping this thread going longer than it deserves, here is my experience of P.

Three claims (2 caused by a delivery skipper resulting in loss of stuff off deck, structural damage, a broken forestay and loss of roller furling gear) and a third, a bump caused by inexperienced yottie colliding with us. All settled in full within 2 weeks with one claim form of each occasion.

Regarding long distance, I was being brief. The position of the Plymouth branch is that they will insure transat but not transpac. They will insure once you have arrived but not in transit. (This is interesting because this is precisely what the insurance market wouldn't do some time ago when I asked). Their reasoning for withdrawal from the market was that they have been hit by too many claims by relatively inexperienced crews, requiring air frieght of masts, etc to faraway places . I'd have thought that this is a market niche that someone will fill fairly soon.

The note regarding wood is interesting, I gather that owners of boats over 30 years old are also having difficulties. Mine is 26 yrs so am monitoring the position closely.

Fallen asleep yet?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
30 years old

I was worried about this too, but in talking to my insurer - Navigators, they said that they were going to require more stringent surveys with boats coming to that age. They also said that it was more likley that 15 year old BEJENBAVS, would be refused as there was distrubing evidence that the harder sailed ones had a limited life span.

Navigators basically said that so long as you can proove regular maintenance and replacement then cover would not be withdrawn on a blanket basis. I keep a schedule each year of the regulat and one off jobs to be done, and send a copy to the insurers.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
How old is you boat? Pantaneous has a new for old clause that could cost you a lot of mopney on a rig replacement if over 10 years old. I didn't like that part of the contract and changed to Navigators.

Don't go near a policy which has a market value clause, it should be 'agreed value'. The agreed value should always be in excess of the market value. Take the replacement of a 20 year old rig, which may cost over half the market value of the boat. the rest of the boats (hull and kit ) it therefore less than the value of the mast and rig - which doesn't make much sence.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Regretably I have had three claims with them in the last two years. One when the D1 parted company and the mast fell down. Second my fault when I bent a spreader trying to get off a pontoon in a gale. Thirdly when the rudder got ripped off by a bastard lobster pot in the Needles channel. All told the three claims probably came to about 22K and all three claims were paid without any fuss at all.

My premium (not surprisingly) shot up this year but I would still stay with them because of the no fuss service.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top