Is cruising yacht insurance expensive?

[alanw1947]

Unless you have a survey that's less than three years old, it seems impossible to change insurer, so I have been with mine for eight years based on the original purchase survey of a 40 year-old GRP boat. And to be fair the premium has risen by about £100 over that time so it's now £400.
But when I tried shopping around, as I do with all other policies for vehicles and property, I came across the survey blocker which means that the insurers leave us with Hobson's choice. Or I could spend (say) a couple of hundred quid and would that save the cost, even if amortised over three years? And would such a survey reveal necessary work and cost - for example, how many of us replace standing rigging on a routine basis?
Is this an anti-competitive ? A truly competitive market could put pressure on premiums - not that I know what the claims record is for yacht policies, but we are not in the habit of suffering regular catastrophic storms. Does anyone know what is the largest type of claim? Rigging failure? Fire? Grounding and loss?
Are we happy to leave matters as status quo and pay up and trust the insurers? Or could we have a limited survey - presumably rigging is their main concern - and checks of seacocks, sails and general hull condition using a pro-forma survey for a much reduced fee? And if so would it make a blind bit of difference to the premiums?
Just the lock-down musings of an idle sailor, watching the rain.

 

[[178529]]

I think anything less than 20k value it's probably easier to have a third party cover.

 

[neil_s]

I'm going third party this year. My boat is 44 years old. I'm not arguing against the requirement for a survey but I have to be honest about the realistic value of a boat that even I joke about as 'a well maintained 1980's marine time capsule'.

 

[alanw1947]

I think anything less than 20k value it's probably easier to have a third party cover.

Good point - I should have added the agreed insurance value is £40K - so I wouldnt put that it risk

 

[Mudisox]

Y Insurance having closed down or will do shortly means me changing Insurers, who all want an out of water survey, which is £250+ before even the surveyor arrives. The just 3rd party route is certainly an option, especially as I cannot see much sailing this year.

 

[[178529]]

My boat is worth a lot to me but at most, as a nice MGC 27 1988, maybe 14-15k.

3rd party is obv. essential. but if it got stolen, caught fire, crashed or sunk, as long as damage caused to others is covered then that's all I care about really. It doesn't stop me doing stuff that would be in a survey, I had the keel bolts changed when I bought it and a 20 item list being worked on by various professionals as I can't get to see the boat in lockdown.

I did have a crazy moment at one stage of thinking, wouldn't a brand new beneteau 30.1 be fantastic but then you think of insurance, risk, more money tied up. and how much more fun would it really be at the end of the day?

 

[Concerto]

Does anyone know what is the largest type of claim? Rigging failure? Fire? Grounding and loss?

This is a breakdown from Navigators and General.

"Navigators & General claims data from 2008 to 2018, revealed the most common claims they handled were as follows:

• A boat colliding with another vessel (31% of claims handled)
• Storm damage (21%)
• Grounding or collision with underwater obstacle (20%)
• Ingress of water (15%)
• Theft of equipment, fittings and personal effects (13%)

The costliest type of claim was storm damage, with an average cost per claim of £17,600. Ingress of water, including sinking, leads to typical claims worth £11,200; grounding or collision with underwater obstacle, £10,000; collision with another vessel, £3,000; and theft, £1,800."

Source Navigators & General Insurance

 

[pvb]

£400 is about the going rate for your boat. Unless you're desperate to change insurer, it's probably best just to keep paying the premium.

 

[alanw1947]

£400 is about the going rate for your boat. Unless you're desperate to change insurer, it's probably best just to keep paying the premium.

Not particularly - it is a good policy, but pay less for motor insurance on similar values. But the system appears anti-competitive when you consider the survey issue

 

[pvb]

Not particularly - it is a good policy, but pay less for motor insurance on similar values. But the system appears anti-competitive when you consider the survey issue

There are lots of boat insurers which offer online quotes. Try a few, and see what they'd propose to charge. Most will want a recent(ish) survey on a boat over say 20 years old. Unless you can get a quote around £100 less than the £400 you're paying, it wouldn't be worth the cost of a survey. Motor insurance is a totally different matter.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Not particularly - it is a good policy, but pay less for motor insurance on similar values. But the system appears anti-competitive when you consider the survey issue

I am in the same boat! Paying £327 for 10k more valuation, I get a loyalty discount with Nautical Insurance Services. Had my 10 year survey in 2019. I would not shop around as the fee is acceptable to me and the survey is just a hassle.

I should add that I had gas and rigging survey carried out as well.

 

[eddystone]

£400 seems very high to me; cover for my 35 year old boat has remained under £200 since first insuring it 7 years ago.

 

[pvb]

£400 seems very high to me; cover for my 35 year old boat has remained under £200 since first insuring it 7 years ago.

What is the agreed value of the boat?

 

[Northern Star]

Just did my renewal with MS Amlin and £219 for fully comp on a 35ft steel boat from 1986.

No mention of any survey requirement after it was run passed the underwriters.

 

[[178529]]

This is a breakdown from Navigators and General.

"Navigators & General claims data from 2008 to 2018, revealed the most common claims they handled were as follows:

• A boat colliding with another vessel (31% of claims handled)
• Storm damage (21%)
• Grounding or collision with underwater obstacle (20%)
• Ingress of water (15%)
• Theft of equipment, fittings and personal effects (13%)

The costliest type of claim was storm damage, with an average cost per claim of £17,600. Ingress of water, including sinking, leads to typical claims worth £11,200; grounding or collision with underwater obstacle, £10,000; collision with another vessel, £3,000; and theft, £1,800."

Source Navigators & General Insurance

From this I can't see why they demand a survey. The only one of those likely to be related to something that could be picked up in a survey would be 'ingress of water'

 

[alanw1947]

There are lots of boat insurers which offer online quotes. Try a few, and see what they'd propose to charge. Most will want a recent(ish) survey on a boat over say 20 years old. Unless you can get a quote around £100 less than the £400 you're paying, it wouldn't be worth the cost of a survey. Motor insurance is a totally different matter.

It was those online quotes that got me thinking about this in the first place. As soon as the value is over (I think) £25k, the system invites you to call and the answer is the same - at least that was my experience. And it was the same a few years ago at the Boat Show when the Navigators rep told me the same story and agreed that his job was made more difficult because he couldn't attract existing policy-holders if their boats didn't have a recent survey.

 

[pvb]

Just did my renewal with MS Amlin and £219 for fully comp on a 35ft steel boat from 1986.

No mention of any survey requirement after it was run passed the underwriters.

What is the agreed value of the boat?

 

[pvb]

It was those online quotes that got me thinking about this in the first place. As soon as the value is over (I think) £25k, the system invites you to call and the answer is the same - at least that was my experience. And it was the same a few years ago at the Boat Show when the Navigators rep told me the same story and agreed that his job was made more difficult because he couldn't attract existing policy-holders if their boats didn't have a recent survey.

Yes, but the online quotes let you see how much they want to charge. Look at Craftinsure for starters.

 

[RJJ]

Unless you have a survey that's less than three years old, it seems impossible to change insurer, so I have been with mine for eight years based on the original purchase survey of a 40 year-old GRP boat. And to be fair the premium has risen by about £100 over that time so it's now £400.
But when I tried shopping around, as I do with all other policies for vehicles and property, I came across the survey blocker which means that the insurers leave us with Hobson's choice. Or I could spend (say) a couple of hundred quid and would that save the cost, even if amortised over three years? And would such a survey reveal necessary work and cost - for example, how many of us replace standing rigging on a routine basis?
Is this an anti-competitive ? A truly competitive market could put pressure on premiums - not that I know what the claims record is for yacht policies, but we are not in the habit of suffering regular catastrophic storms. Does anyone know what is the largest type of claim? Rigging failure? Fire? Grounding and loss?
Are we happy to leave matters as status quo and pay up and trust the insurers? Or could we have a limited survey - presumably rigging is their main concern - and checks of seacocks, sails and general hull condition using a pro-forma survey for a much reduced fee? And if so would it make a blind bit of difference to the premiums?
Just the lock-down musings of an idle sailor, watching the rain.

This is very much my bag, and might be worth dropping a note to the CMA.

• What you're wondering is this: does the survey requirement constitute an unfair barrier to switching, such that your existing insurer has you captive? If so, they're able to charge you a "premium premium" that's unfair relative to the risk of a claim.
• At the heart of the CMA's philosophy is that shopping around shouldn't in itself cost you money. If it does, then the insurers are quietly happy (whether unconsciously, tacitly or deliberately, with the latter being illegal) each to have a share of the market.
• Where barriers to switching are the result of information advantage, what really bothers the CMA is they can be a barrier to entry and expansion. It's not such a big deal if incumbent firms are serving the market badly, if there's an opportunity for upstarts to come and help customers out. Here, it doesn't seem that a new entrant would need to insist on these surveys etc.
• So what justification for the survey requirement would an insurer give? The no-claims history comes across with you. They are perfectly entitled (as is the existing insurer) to ask you questions about e.g., age of rigging. So I don't see the CMA being impressed that new customers are required to leap through hoops while renewal customers are not; it's not as though the act of switching insurers itself causes risks.

 

[pvb]

This is very much my bag, and might be worth dropping a note to the CMA.

• What you're wondering is this: does the survey requirement constitute an unfair barrier to switching, such that your existing insurer has you captive? If so, they're able to charge you a "premium premium" that's unfair relative to the risk of a claim.
• At the heart of the CMA's philosophy is that shopping around shouldn't in itself cost you money. If it does, then the insurers are quietly happy (whether unconsciously, tacitly or deliberately, with the latter being illegal) each to have a share of the market.
• Where barriers to switching are the result of information advantage, what really bothers the CMA is they can be a barrier to entry and expansion. It's not such a big deal if incumbent firms are serving the market badly, if there's an opportunity for upstarts to come and help customers out. Here, it doesn't seem that a new entrant would need to insist on these surveys etc.
• So what justification for the survey requirement would an insurer give? The no-claims history comes across with you. They are perfectly entitled (as is the existing insurer) to ask you questions about e.g., age of rigging. So I don't see the CMA being impressed that new customers are required to leap through hoops while renewal customers are not; it's not as though the act of switching insurers itself causes risks.

In principle, is requiring a boat survey every few years much different from requiring a car MOT every year?