Interesting insurance clause...

[pvb]

I was looking at my boat insurance policy and noticed a clause which I hadn't noticed before. It says "Whilst you are away from your vessel for any period in excess of 45 consecutive days you must arrange for a suitably competent person or management agency to be responsible for the safe-keeping of the vessel. Keys, security fittings or access codes permitting external and internal access must be provided and authorisation given for those with responsibility to take appropriate action in the event of any incident where applicable."

Now this doesn't greatly concern me, as my boat is in a marina with 24-hour staffing and the marina has a spare key to the boat. But if the boat were on a swinging mooring, or ashore in a yard, it might be a problem with the current restrictions on travel. Does anyone else have a similar clause?

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Yes, identical, Nautical Insurance Services. Like you, I am not too bothered as marina based. Marina has actually sent and email and posted a video on line, stating that boat owners just have to contact them and they will inspect, pump bilges, charge batteries and even video inside of boat for owners to check, etc under instruction from owner. Like you they have access to a spare set of keys and the a padlock code.

Whilst you are away from your vessel for any period in excess of 45 consecutive days you must arrange for a suitably competent person or management agency to be responsible for the safe-keeping of the vessel. Keys, security fittings or access codes permitting external and internal access must be provided and authorisation given for those with responsibility to take appropriate action in the event of any incident where applicable.

 

[Lucky Duck]

I was looking at my boat insurance policy and noticed a clause which I hadn't noticed before. It says "Whilst you are away from your vessel for any period in excess of 45 consecutive days you must arrange for a suitably competent person or management agency to be responsible for the safe-keeping of the vessel. Keys, security fittings or access codes permitting external and internal access must be provided and authorisation given for those with responsibility to take appropriate action in the event of any incident where applicable."

Now this doesn't greatly concern me, as my boat is in a marina with 24-hour staffing and the marina has a spare key to the boat. But if the boat were on a swinging mooring, or ashore in a yard, it might be a problem with the current restrictions on travel. Does anyone else have a similar clause?

I don't think your marina having the keys and carrying out the usual checks while on the pontoons would meet those requirements, particularly in the event of a substantial claim.

The RYA did ask insurers for some clarification last March but the answers were not terribly comforting.

 

[TernVI]

Does this apply while the boat is laid up ashore?
45 days is a long time to neglect any boat afloat.
On a mooring it's a very long time.

I think underwriters are growing tired of some owners leaving boats afloat and un-cared-for for extended periods. People increasing want cover for 12months afloat, because we've got heaters and better clothing etc, but we don't want to pay insurance premiums to cover those who don't come down from the Midlands often enough to check out their boats. Boats afloat need checking over before and after every 'chunk of weather'.
Back in the day, people used to pay boatyard staff to keep an eye on their boat. Many people used to have a paid or unpaid 'boat person' who lived locally, some still do, although we have to be less un-PC about it this century. At the posh end, it's part of your 'Yachtmaster' 's job.

Insurance companies are continuously evaluating where their real risks are. This is a bit like insuring a house that's not lived in, which has lately got more expensive. Often similar string attached. Documented regular inspections etc.

 

[C08]

In the situation of a boat club pontoon mooring that would be difficult as the club would not be willing to take on that responsibility and a independent "boat minder" would not have pontoon access.

 

[Scubadoo]

One solution if you can't get to check your boat is to have cameras fitted. That way you can simply check cabin, cockpit, engine bay etc. No longer expensive to do, mifi router, couple of cheap cameras and a data sim (6gb minimum for the year), can all be done for less than say £100 for piece of mind. Cameras are wifi and dont need to be permanently fitted, just access to USB power.

 

[pvb]

One solution if you can't get to check your boat is to have cameras fitted. That way you can simply check cabin, cockpit, engine bay etc. No longer expensive to do, mifi router, couple of cheap cameras and a data sim (6gb minimum for the year), can all be done for less than say £100 for piece of mind. Cameras are wifi and dont need to be permanently fitted, just access to USB power.

That wouldn't satisfy the needs of the insurance clause I quoted.

 

[pvb]

Does this apply while the boat is laid up ashore?

The wording of the clause would suggest so.

 

[Graham376]

Pants used to have a clause (may still have) along the lines of - boats not covered for sinking from gradual water ingress if not inspected for 30 days. I suppose they were worried about leaking stern glands and similar slow leaks.

 

[Scubadoo]

That wouldn't satisfy the needs of the insurance clause I quoted.

Maybe not but could provide early warning if something was amiss and hence reduce the risk of an insurance claim.

 

[Sandy]

I know of one company in Plymouth offering a boat checking service.

 

[Slowboat35]

It doesn't need this clause for them to wriggle out of paying.
I had a boat sink on dry land when the yard propped it bows-down and it flooded 2 ft deep inside. They said I had breached my duty of care in not employing the 'universally accepted necessity" of guardinage , and that insurance covers a single catastrophic or damaging event and flooding over a period of months was not a single event as it must have involved numerous rainstorms.
Why the **** would I have paid for guardiange when the boat was on the hard??? Unfortunately they thought differently.
They refused to pay.
The yard, in the E Med naturally denied responsibility too. The boat was an economic write-off.

Moral, a boat does appear to need eyes-on whether the policy says so or not and also don't insure with Yachtline...single event my @rse!

 

[colind3782]

Had a quick look through my GJW policy and I can't see such a clause.

 

[Slowboat35]

Like I just said, it doesn't need to be there for them to apply it!

 

[Greemble]

Why the **** would I have paid for guardiange when the boat was on the hard?

Why? Well, because...

I had a boat sink on dry land when the yard propped it bows-down and it flooded 2 ft deep inside.

 

[Stemar]

Had a quick look through my GJW policy and I can't see such a clause.

Is there a clause that says something like "the owner will take all reasonable steps to prevent loss or damage"? I reckon a court would say that leaving a boat unattended all winter would contravene that.

 

[Boathook]

It doesn't need this clause for them to wriggle out of paying.
I had a boat sink on dry land when the yard propped it bows-down and it flooded 2 ft deep inside. They said I had breached my duty of care in not employing the 'universally accepted necessity" of guardinage , and that insurance covers a single catastrophic or damaging event and flooding over a period of months was not a single event as it must have involved numerous rainstorms.
Why the **** would I have paid for guardiange when the boat was on the hard??? Unfortunately they thought differently.
They refused to pay.
The yard, in the E Med naturally denied responsibility too. The boat was an economic write-off.

Moral, a boat does appear to need eyes-on whether the policy says so or not and also don't insure with Yachtline...single event my @rse!

When my boat is lifted out I'm either there or get down within a few days to make sure that everything is OK and level. I must st admit that boat and myself are both in the UK about 100 miles apart so easier to visit than the med.

 

[Bobc]

Is there a clause that says something like "the owner will take all reasonable steps to prevent loss or damage"? I reckon a court would say that leaving a boat unattended all winter would contravene that.

There is. I have the same policy. I did however get an email from the a few weeks ago stating that they understand that people are not able to visit their boats at this time, and hence all boats will be fully covered should a problem occur.

 

[starfire]

It would be interesting to know which insurers have this, or similar wording

 

[BabaYaga]

Pants used to have a clause (may still have) along the lines of - boats not covered for sinking from gradual water ingress if not inspected for 30 days. I suppose they were worried about leaking stern glands and similar slow leaks.

Nothing like this in my current Pantaenius policy.
There is however a general exception for loss or damage caused by accumulation of rainwater, ice or snow (although damage from rare and extreme weather conditions is still covered). There is also a clause saying that the payout may be reduced for damage caused by gross neglect from the policy holder's side.