Insurance

P

Prawn

New Member
Joined
27 Dec 2005
Messages
13
Location
Algarve, Portugal
Visit site
Does anybody know of an underwriter/broker who can offer insurance on a profesionally built (factory built and completed) ferro cement yacht (windboat 43).

Our last broker, Yachtmaster Insurance, terminated cover without informing us - this could have had unthinkable consequences.

The reason they gave was that the underwriters had recently had a total loss claim for another ferro cement boat.

Can you believe this??!! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Thank you

Emma
 
You say terminated without telling you......
Was this a cancellation of a policy in mid term or not willing to renew?
Was not telling you perhaps because they had no contact address when you were living aboard?
Don't see how they can cancel in mid term without telling you...
 
Terminated? What in mid term with the premium paid? You and he have a contract. Sure it wasn't a refusal to invite renewal?

I've just switched from GJW to Pantanius as the former only allows a max NCD of 20% whereas pantanius go to 40%. We'd been with GJW for around 18 years and held boat insurance continuously since 1968 with only one claim for £35 in 1989 when we chopped a frog's outboard bracket off in cherbourg.

Steve Cronin
 
We are with St Margarets - fully comp. We had the boat insured with them all through building (20 years ago) and have had it with them ever since. Never had a problem despite a couple of claims, settled both quickly and very amicably - but I don´t know what their current attitude is regarding ferro. They have asked us for a new survey this year - but that would be expected of any 20 year old boat, and if they don´t like ferro, this would have been the ideal moment to have ditched us. Might be worth a try.
 
Steve,
As you and I asked the same question of Prawn and got no answer, and as I am insured with the same company and was concerned at his allegations, I contacted Yachtmasters and have recieved a full explanation with details of correspondence sent to affected owners at the time.
I have no connection with Yachtmasters apart from being a very satisfied customer. I do however think they are unique in that they all appear to be yachtsmen themselves and I have always felt that they conduct their brokerage with the best interest of customers in mind. However it should be clear that they are brokers, and therefore represent a conduit between the owner and the insurance company. They are not direct insurers. The choice to withdraw Ferro boats from cover was made by the insurance company in question in this case and not by the broker. In fact I believe Yachtmasters themselves were both surprised and upset by their decision and fought against it on behalf of the owners in question .
Their failure to change the insurers decision however, lead to a situation which I am satisfied Yachtmasters made known to all affected owners immediately. I do not believe "Prawns" allegation that they withdrew insurance without telling them. Furthermore I am assured that they made every effort to offer "Prawn 3rd party cover (which he declined) and as he did not wish to accept this option they returned his premium. Furthermore they assure me that as the contract was in fact between Yachtmasters and the owner directly, if there had been a claim outstanding at the time, they would have honoured it themselves.
I really don't see what more they could have done and feel it grossly unfair that "prawn" has chosen to attack Yachtmasters publicly because he was upset by the situation. I am sure we all agree that he had something to be upset about. In fact I believe Yachtmaster brokers are equally upset over this, but I do think one needs to be a little more careful when making allegations of this kind on such a site as this, especially when the details are somewhat distorted. I am assured that they certainly did not withdraw cover without telling them as suggested.
My own insurance will certainly stay with Yachtmasters as I believe they are one of the best in the business. I would also advise "Prawn" that justified or not, comprehensive insurance for ferro boats seems to be notoriously difficult to obtain. Yachtmasters inform me that they continue to try to find a way of recovering their ability to offer such in future however so he may wish to modify his stance especially as it is possible no one else will.
Regardless of all that, if anyone wishes to malign any individual, company, or organisation in public it would be highly advisable to get the facts right in the first place. If Prawn disagrees with what I have been told he is of course free to say so.
 
Just got back to the computer, thus the delay in replying.

The main reason for the post is to enquire if anyone has a ferrocement boat currently insured and by who, (comprehensive cover).

Regarding Yachtmaster Insurance. They acted as brokers, not underwriters, so apoligies - they did not terminate the insurance - the underwriters did.

Insurance was terminated MID CONTRACT (by the underwriters) with no changes to the underwriters risk or any outstanding claims pending. The reason given was that they had had a total loss with another totally unrelated ferro boat!!

This seems totally unreasonable - if a GRP yacht becomes a total loss do they withdraw cover of all GRP vessels?

I fully understand the stigma related to some home built ferro boats and fully understand and agree with the underwriters reluctance to insure them - but the Windboat 43 does not fall into this catagory, as her survey and valuation prove.

Regarding not being informed of the cancellation of cover - all correspondence with Yachtmaster was by e-mail so no reason for them not to be able to contact me. I have NOT seen the correspondence that Boatmike mentions above.

The first I heard of the cover being withdrawn is when I sent Yachtmaster a courtesy e-mail to inform them that my boat was out of the water for re-fit work and survey. They replied that the cover had been withdrawn.

I was offered third party cover, which I declined. The unused remainder of my premium was returned to me.

I still have nightmares that I was sailing around uninsured and the consequences still frighten me.

Hope this clarifies the situation AND does anybody know of an insurance company who will cover ferro boats??!!

Emma.
 
Far be it for me to fight an insurance company's case for them. Indeed my main concern was that you caused a great deal of worry with your original claim not only to me but potentially to any other owners insured with Yachtmaster who may have seen your post.
I recognise your frustration in relation to the situation you faced. I also feel the insurance company took a rather doubtful and unjustified decision, and while they have not said so directly I believe all the guys at Yachtmasters do too. Thats why they continue to try to find some other way forward to enable them to offer comprehensive insurance to ferro boat owners in the future.
For the record they have also told me that the losses that caused the Insurers to react that way were in their opinion nothing to do with the fact that these were ferro boats at all which makes the situation doubly unfair. As a retired boatbuilder and qualified marine engineer I have seen quite a few Ferro boats and don't see any reason why a well built one should present any increased risk to an insurer.

However I feel your contention that you did not see the correspondence puzzling as I have personally seen not only their e-mail to you on 25th August last year but your reply to it on the same date, telling them that you did not require continuance of cover on a third party only basis and asking for a return of premium. As I am assured by Yachtmasters that they would have covered any claim by you up until that time I still find your continuing claim that you did not see this correspondence misleading.

I have no wish to continue this thread further however and will leave any further correspondence to Yachtmasters themselves as I don't , as I said previously, represent them or have any connection with them whatsoever apart from being a satisfied customer. My sole intention in posting here is to pass on to other owners the assurance that I have received from Max Burgess, at Yachtmasters that no owner insured with them is in any way at risk of having insurance withdrawn in mid term and that the contention that this was done in this unfortunate case without notification to owners insured with them is entirely true.
 
Mike,

I find it most worring that an insurance broker should show somebody with no commercial link with them private and confidential correspondence from other clients - don't you?

The e-mail that you refer to was sent to Yachtmaster Insurance AFTER the cover had been terminated - did they breach client confidentiality again and show you the e-mail that they sent to me infroming me that cover has been terminated previously and without my knowledge??

For the record I am a superyacht captain and my yacht is often moored amongst superyachts worth many hundreds of millions of pounds.

God forbid - but - just say something awful happened like my yacht exploding from a gas leak, (for example). Do you really think that Max Burgess would be able to cover the subsequent claims - I think not!!!

As I have said previously - the purpose of my post was to enquire if anybody has comprehensive insurance cover on a professionally built ferro cement yacht - not get into a slanging match regarding insurance brokers.

If my post has set off alarm bells - SO IT SHOULD!!

As I have have said previously MY INSURANCE COVER WAS TERMINATED WITHOUT THE UNDERWRITER OR BROKER TELLING ME BEROREHAND!!!!!!!!!

Also whilst we are on the subject, why are Yachtmaster Insurance still (or recently) advertising with IPC media that they can offer ALL types of marine cover for all types of craft?

Quote from their website:
"We do not specialise in the type of yachts we will insure but do surprise owners with our knowledge and willingness to insure classic timbered yachts, converted workboats and ferrocement built vessels as well as modern GRP yachts."

From other negative posts regarding them they obviously are not offering the above and know that they are not - surely a breach in the trade discriptions act??

Emma /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Mike,

I find it most worring that an insurance broker should show somebody with no commercial link with them private and confidential correspondence from other clients - don't you?

The e-mail that you refer to was sent to Yachtmaster Insurance AFTER the cover had been terminated - did they breach client confidentiality again and show you the e-mail that they sent to me infroming me that cover has been terminated previously and without my knowledge??


Emma /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I found that rather unsettling too, especially for the contents to be repeated on a public forum.
 
Firstly, in no way did the insurance company breach any stated confidentiality in proving to me that your claim was unjustified by showing me the correspondence which you claimed did not exist. In law any correspondence is deemed to be open unless marked otherwise as "commercial in confidence" They merely refuted your claim that they had not told you. Your statements with regard to the matter in public not only set a precedent for publicity but in my opinion are potentially libellous and damaging to Yachtmasters reputation. They are certainly free to publish non confidential correspondence to refute it. This however is a matter for them to take up not me. Also as the date of withdrawal of insurance coincided with the date of your correspondence they refuted your claim that you had an uninsured period at all in my eyes.
I am not sure why you arev telling me you are a superyacht captain so I will let this pass.
Do I think Max Burgess would have been liable for, and capable of settling a claim involving total loss of your yacht? Yes indeed I do. I am sure that such a business would be covered by professional indemnity insurance and as your contract was with him not the insurance company he would have had to pay up if the claim was genuine. Perhaps this is the problem. As a superyacht captain perhaps you have not been trained in contract law and dont understand such matters?
I will leave you to take any other matters up with Yachtmasters personally. As I said previously, I don't represent Yachtmasters and I was only interested to explore my own concerns after your original post and pass my assurances on to others, not get into a battle with you.
 
Emma,

I am trying to understand this. Did they cancel the insurance and not let you know till sometime later, or did they simply let you know that it was cancelled with immediate effect (i.e. gave you no warning that it was going to be cancelled). I understand that they can do the later, even though it causes problems for the insured.

On the question of them discussing your private correspondence I have my doubts about the "legal" position that was stated earlier. (Didn't Prince Charles recently go to Court and get protection on the privacy of private correspondence?) In any event though it is most unusual and, if you feel strongly about it I think you would be fully entitled to raise it with the brokers.
 
So Tisme, if you were in business and one of your customers went into print saying you had taken certain action without informing him and another customer contacted you to say he had seen this in print and it concerned him what would you do? What this broker did was prove to me beyond any doubt that he did write to "prawn" at the time informing him of the problem and offering him third party cover. "Prawn" wrote back saying he didn't want third party cover and preferred a return of premium (which is strange in itself, I would have thought, as he/she now claims that there were considerable risks to third party "superyachts" where they were parked ). Now that, as far as I am concerned, is no breach of confidentiality. There are no personal details published, and nothing at all damaging to "prawn". All YM has done is prove conclusively to me that the issue was discussed between them by e-mail and "prawns" allegation untrue. If you want to maintain total confidentiality the lesson must be, dont go into print yourself inviting open public discussion in the first place. YM didn't put all this in the public domain. Prawn did! You can't have your cake and eat it.. The e-mail in question was all I have seen though, although I have been told that other correspondence exists which I have not seen. Presumably the broker considered that this was indeed of a confidential nature, I don't know (and frankly don't care).
What I care about is that, as a customer of Yachtmasters, I had my question answered fully and it was proven to me that there was a great deal more to this issue than "prawn" claimed. I never set out to do more that put my own mind and those of others concerned at rest. What I learned was that this was a most unusual and awkward situation for Yachtmasters, not of their own making, which I believe they dealt with as best they could. As far as timing is concerned I believe the problem arose between Yachtmasters and the primary insurers in August. I don't know exactly when but I am in no doubt that they made every attempt to contact everyone affected quickly because as I said previously the contracts were in fact between Yachtmasters and the owners and they were themselves at risk until this had been done. The date of correspondence with Prawn was 25th, and as he/she said there was previous correspondence to this it could not have been very long.. They further assured me that they recognised that they would have had to settle any justifiable outstanding claim themselves in the period in question and claim in turn on their PI insurance if the primary insurers refused cover. Luckily for all parties concerned this situation didn't arise. Interestingly they did say that there were other claims though that the insurers paid up in full although I have no details.

My belief is that "prawn" was never without cover, although Yachtmasters were exposed to risk in the short period until they informed everyone. I think it is pretty obvious that they would have wanted to minimise tis risk by contacting owners ASAP and I am sure they did.

It is quite clear however that either "prawn" did not fully understand this at the time, or was thoughtlessly vindictive in posting what he/she did. I would rather assume the former.

I should further add that all conclusions reached and opinions expressed by me regarding this situation are entirely my own and I do not represent any other party in this debate. Neither do I wish to continue it.
 
All I can say is that I would not be happy with my insurance broker if he was discussing my private correspondence with a third party. It's very unusual and, in my view, not the correct way to address a complaint.

I can only assume that Emma posted in good faith and we need to see what else she can or wants to add to this story. I certainly got the impression that she felt a it was a genuine grievance. It may simply be that there was a misunderstanding on one side or the other.
 
To answer your question, Tisme:

Yachtmaster Insurance cancelled my insurance without informing me. I only got to hear about it when I sent them a courtesy e-mail to inform them that my boat was out of the water. They replied that my insurance had been cancelled - past tense.

I AM NOT TELLING ANY LIES as boatmike is very strongly implying. I would have absolutely no reason to. I am not a vindictive person and I'm sure that if the same thing had happened to other members of this forum, far stronger words would have been said!!

I actually have no greivance with Yachtmaster Insurance and contrary to Boatmike's allegation, have said nothing disparaging or liableous about them. I have only stated what actually happened.

Something that for some reason Boatmike seems to have taken exception to.

Boatmike, the reason that I mention my profession is that my boat is in the unusual situation of sometimes being legitimately alongside superyachts and generally in closer proximity to them than would usually be allowed and my question related to a third party claim against me, not the loss of my boat, which could run into millions.

Further, as I'm sure you must be aware - marine law is part of the syllabus of the MCA class IV (yacht) examination. So yes, I do have a MCA reconised grounding in marine law.

I do not understand Boatmike's stance as I am only reporting a factual occurrence. All I am trying to do is find out if there is an underwriter somewhere who will offer comprehensive cover for a factory built ferro cement yacht.

SO - lets get onto a more constructive theme. I know that there are many ferro boats out there - can anybody help with an answer to the above?

Best regards,

Emma

PS:FYI - As there seems to be some confusion here; I am FEMALE!!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Emma,

I've got no problems with what you have said and I think we are agreed that there is no point in taking this further. It must be frustrating, to put it mildly, to discover you are not insured when you think you are.

In answer to your question about insuring a ferro boat. Sorry, but I've got no idea.

With regards your gender there's no confusion here. I've not met many male Emmas! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Good luck.
 
Yes, Thanks Tisme.

It's a shame that this post went the way it did! Just a genuine request for help.

I have heard that there is a new insurance company about to start looking at marine risks, based in Gibraltar.

I have it on good authourity that ferro & classic boats might be on the agenda. There seems to be not so much bigotry about these types of vessel in and around Spain.

I promise to keep the forum posted as it appears that we are not the only boat with this problem.

Regards,

Emma.

PS. The gender thing was not aimed at you!!! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
It seems possible that an important issue got burried in the liveliness of the debate.
Perhaps both central parties are quite correct in their standpoints, hence the heat.
Not disputed is that insurance cover was withdrawn by the underwriter, mid term and possibly without adequate notice to either intermediary or insured. Unusual, rare, but not unknown and worrying in its implications for all long term cruisers. Especially considering that TP cover goes with it.

The intermediary claims to have notified their client. There seems no reason to disbelieve that occured. The question that would be posed is: was the action taken to notify the insured reasonable, having regard to the circumstances? Reasonable does not necessarily mean effective.

The (un)insured maintains that they did not receive adequate notice and there is no reason to disbelieve that either.

That suggests the real issue is, how did this perceived gap in communication occur and what can be done, if anything, to ameleriorate it in the event of a recurrence?

Going beyond this instance.

Just writing to the agreed address for correspondence may be sufficient, in law, but that doesn't help the hapless boat owner much.

So the question becomes, what steps would your intermediary take to contact you in such an event?

Many of us would be up a gum tree in such circumstances, if it were not for e-mail, but then again, it is the nature of cruising to be out of contact for weeks at a time. What are the reasonable expectations under these unusual, but critical, circumstances?

We cannot easily measure the likelihood of this happening again, though the world of small craft insurance seems particuarly turbulent at the moment.

We can ask our intermerdiaries how they would handle such a situation and judge accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top