Insurance?

[jamie N]

Insurance is something that's frequently discussed here, whether it's still valid for sailing over 12/18/24 hours solo on passage from A-B offshore for instance. What sanction is there for someone who isn't insured on passage, because he's done 25 hours sailing, and is only allowed a 12/18/24 'slot' under his insurance?
Of course, the insurance company would only come into play were a claim to be made, but is there any maritime authority concerning insurance in international waters? If I arrive at Torshavn, I might (just) have to show my insurance, unlikely, so having sailed a minimum of 38 hours (say) the insurance would have been invalid for that period of transit. I'd imagine that the harbour master there will only care about me being insured within his authority, and provided that I've not broken anything on my boat that's claimable, who cares?
Is this a good thing, or am I being too influenced by watching Police car programmes, or something else?

 

[Biggles Wader]

UK boats don't need any insurance by law but you will need third party liability to moor in any reputable harbour. I assume the same applies when UK boats are anywhere in international waters but might be subject to local requirements on arrival.

 

[jamie N]

Actually, I think my question's been answered above, by UK boats not being required to have insurance; it's only required by certain facilities such as Harbours. What happens outwith that is my problem, unless I have an incident with another vessel, where it's really my problem.

 

[lustyd]

Just bear in mind that after 38 hours your insurance might be invalid so stop for a rest prior to entering harbour. There can be some very expensive toys in harbours so you don’t want to be personally liable for damage!

 

[Alan S]

Insurance is grearly overrated.
I estimate I am st least £25,000 wealthier now by having only the mandatory bare minimum insurance on everything.

 

[Graham376]

UK boats don't need any insurance by law but you will need third party liability to moor in any reputable harbour. I assume the same applies when UK boats are anywhere in international waters but might be subject to local requirements on arrival.

Not just when berthing or anchoring, we've been inspected in coastal waters and required to show insurance as well as passports and registration. From the brief scan they do, I doubt they're looking at conditions, just that insurance is in date.

 

[dunedin]

Insurance is grearly overrated.
I estimate I am st least £25,000 wealthier now by having only the mandatory bare minimum insurance on everything.

Most people lose slightly by paying insurance premiums - but some people are MUCH better off having paid insurance premiums. That’s the way insurance works.
But I most of us cannot afford the risk of a total loss of our house, or our boat etc.
And being “skilled” or “expert” is not enough. Sometimes it is other factors outwith our control that cause the losses - in my case rocks completely missing from the official and up to date charts.

 

[mjcp]

An interesting rabbit hole: is the whole policy on pause after the defined time, or only your cover? i.e. is 3rd party cover still in place or does that "pause" too?

 

[lustyd]

An interesting rabbit hole: is the whole policy on pause after the defined time, or only your cover? i.e. is 3rd party cover still in place or does that "pause" too?

Why would it not? This is the nautical equivalent of drink driving and at the very least costs would be recovered.

 

[SaltIre]

Insurance is something that's frequently discussed here, whether it's still valid for sailing over 12/18/24 hours solo on passage from A-B offshore for instance. What sanction is there for someone who isn't insured on passage, because he's done 25 hours sailing, and is only allowed a 12/18/24 'slot' under his insurance?
Of course, the insurance company would only come into play were a claim to be made, but is there any maritime authority concerning insurance in international waters? If I arrive at Torshavn, I might (just) have to show my insurance, unlikely, so having sailed a minimum of 38 hours (say) the insurance would have been invalid for that period of transit. I'd imagine that the harbour master there will only care about me being insured within his authority, and provided that I've not broken anything on my boat that's claimable, who cares?
Is this a good thing, or am I being too influenced by watching Police car programmes, or something else?

As said by lustyd in #4, you aren't insured when you sail into the harbour...
I'm not sure when you would become insured once more. After 8-12 hours rest after you arrive?

 

[dunedin]

An interesting rabbit hole: is the whole policy on pause after the defined time, or only your cover? i.e. is 3rd party cover still in place or does that "pause" too?

I would have thought that sailing solo (well) beyond the allowed time limits would indeed invalidate the whole policy, including 3rd party cover.
Arrival at a port lacking sleep are much more likely to damage other boats / property, which the insurer might well consider not now their responsibility.
Hence why a poster above made the great suggestion of stopping (eg at anchor) for a decent rest, and hence resetting the journey clock, before going into port.

 

[dgadee]

Most people lose slightly by paying insurance premiums - but some people are MUCH better off having paid insurance premiums. That’s the way insurance works.
But I most of us cannot afford the risk of a total loss of our house, or our boat etc.
And being “skilled” or “expert” is not enough. Sometimes it is other factors outwith our control that cause the losses - in my case rocks completely missing from the official and up to date charts.

Yes, insurance covered expensive work twice for me. Over a 40 year period, mind you.

 

[andsarkit]

I doubt that any insurance company would define what is necessary to reset the clock. Is it 6 hours, 8 hours or 12 hours sleep after a long passage or are lots of 15minutes naps added up. Insurers used to use the term' Warranted no ............ ' which could invalidate the whole insurance if it was broken even if a totally unconnected incident occurred. I think this is uncommon now.

 

[ylop]

Insurance is grearly overrated.
I estimate I am st least £25,000 wealthier now by having only the mandatory bare minimum insurance on everything.

But something could happen tomorrow which makes you 250,000 or 2,500,000 poorer as a result!

Why would it not? This is the nautical equivalent of drink driving and at the very least costs would be recovered.

Probably not the best analogy - insurers would totally weasel out of paying for drunk drivers if they could but the law doesn't let them! So they pay 3rd party claims and then if they can try to recover from the driver. On a marine policy there is no weight of the road traffic act to keep the insurer in line and they'll just refuse a claim.

I would have thought that sailing solo (well) beyond the allowed time limits would indeed invalidate the whole policy, including 3rd party cover.

Correct, I just checked my policy and the exclusion is to the whole policy not just own risks.

I doubt that any insurance company would define what is necessary to reset the clock. Is it 6 hours, 8 hours or 12 hours sleep after a long passage or are lots of 15minutes naps added up.

The term in my policy is "operate the vessel" so I don't think you will win an argument with "I was napping whilst underway"! Ultimately if the policy doesn't define it you'll need to be able to convince a court that they were distinct periods.

 

[Alan S]

But something could happen tomorrow which makes you 250,000 or 2,500,000 poorer as a result!

If I can afford to buy a boat I can afford to lose it.
Third party insurance should cover anything else.
I am a careful experienced sailor.

 

[Graham376]

If I can afford to buy a boat I can afford to lose it.
Third party insurance should cover anything else.
I am a careful experienced sailor.

I'm sure the majority wouldn't be happy to lose a boat and still in some cases have many years loan repayments to make.

Third party insurance wouldn't have covered us when hit on mooring by an uninsured passenger ferry. Comprehensive did.

Careful experienced sailor? That's what most drivers think but it doesn't stop accidents.

 

[Supertramp]

I think if you plan a singlehanded passage that exceeds the insurer's time limit then you are taking a risk. If your passage is delayed or disrupted by something unexpected then you may have a justification for exceeding the limit. If I wanted to plan a trip beyond my 18 hr limit I would either notify my insurer, change my insurer or take crew.

Interesting question as whether heaving to counts as rest in the same way as a short passage anchoring does. I would think not, although anchoring could be much less restful.

 

[Tranona]

If I can afford to buy a boat I can afford to lose it.
Third party insurance should cover anything else.
I am a careful experienced sailor.

That is very simplistic. Whether you insure depends on your attitude to risk the consequences and the cost of cover. For example I have never insured my pets - 3 dogs and over a dozen cats because insurance is expensive, usually has high excesses and many exclusions. Likewise most travel insurance. For example just booked return flights to Edinburgh to visit my granddaughter. Pressure to buy insurance but why? what could go wrong that would not be covered by the NHS from a health point of view and I have no possessions worth anything? On the other hand boat insurance is cheap as the risk is very low. My last boat was worth around £100k and and all risks insurance was under £400. I have only claimed on boat insurance twice in over 40 years, but each claim was several years' premiums. Although losing £100k would not break me it would certainly hurt and the net £150 or so a year for all risks over third party is peanuts Third party and all risks are very different concepts, both conceptually and legally.

 

[ylop]

If I can afford to buy a boat I can afford to lose it.

OK, if you can afford to lose your entire boat for the sake of a premium of 0.5% of the value [which is what my all risks cover is - and includes 3rd party cover you are apparently paying for] then perhaps you are more affluent than most? I'm not big on insuring every possible loss but some things like buildings and contents insurance (in the event of fire or flood), boats sinking, seem like no brainers.

Third party insurance should cover anything else.

But that's not what you said. You said (my bold):

Insurance is grearly overrated.
I estimate I am st least £25,000 wealthier now by having only the mandatory bare minimum insurance on everything.

there's no mandatory 3rd party insurance for boat owners in the UK - so you have in fact made some sort of value judgement about how much you can bear to pay v's the premium. That's exactly what we all do subconsciously when selecting the excess on the policy.

In fact the only common mandatory insurance most people have is car insurance, which in many instances will be similar cost or even cheaper if you are able to get fully comp rather than 3rd party.

 

[Alan S]

Yes, everyone's circumstances and attitude to risk is different. What suits me does not seem acceplable to you.
Fair enough.