.
Just to be clear, that clause is merely one of many clauses that I would not accept, when there is much better coverage on offer in the market
I’m with insure4boats
https://www.insure4boats.co.uk
Very good price and let you pay monthly 0% too
JFM....... have I cocked up
Each to their own but the two cases where I pursued insurers for members of this forum and eventually won after a long battle including for one of them an upper level ombudsman appeal and drafting the high court papers were Coleman/Towergate. Both eventually paid but it was a scary fight for the two policy holders. One of the battles was very long because the insurer could see I was right but chose to use "grind them down" tactics.
You'd think that but the facts are different. Insurance is sticky in that most customers just renew. Most customers don't read the policy and because they never have a total loss or big claim they will never need to. The regulator's insistence on a "key facts" document at the front of every policy has done the public a great disservice imho because it makes it even less likely that people will read the actual contract, and imho the key facts doc doesn't tell you what you need to know because the devil tends to be in the detail. Then of course people choose the policy with a low price, which is as I say like buying the cheapest umbrella without checking its diameter. It's an odd market.
I generally agree BJB and I approach this from a position closer to the second of your two examples so my comments should be read in that light. Also, when you talk of "value", what matters is probably value compared with the insured's ability to absorb the loss rather than value relative to the boat market generally. But as regards one size fitting all, some insurers bury sneaky wording and then the customer isn't getting the size he/she thinks he's getting, which is of course a different point. As you know, with marine insurance (unlike other insurances) it can be lawful to contract for an agreed value in the event of total loss. Premia are generally calculated off this number. Pantaenius and Y then offer a policy that does what it says on the tin: they pay agreed value if the yacht is lost. Others (like DeNovo that OP linked to and GJW at least until recently) appear to offer agreed value when you turn most of the pages but then they insert 6.1.1 giving them an express right to get a merely similar 2nd hand boat of inferior spec and thrust it upon you in the event of a total loss. IF the customer is aware of that then fine - its not one size fits all as you say. If the customer doesn't realise that little devil is in there then it's useful to point it out. In a perfect world everyone reads the policy but of course in this day and age people do take things for granted (which is fine - I don't think I read the licence every time I update my iPhone, for example).
. Yes indeed! The graph would be more useful though if each insured person knew what the insurer did and did not cover. If one were forced to buy insurance with the limited 3rd party cover mentioned above, and knew about it, one would probably insist that brokers and VolvoPauls sign disclaimers before setting foot on the passrelle!
