sailorman
Well-Known Member
Its £75 cheaper than last year 
Just got my boat Ins renewal via email
- Thread starter sailorman
- Start date
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
Senior citizens discount.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Stork_III
Well-Known Member
Its £75 cheaper than last year
That will be £1 for every mention of Y Yacht Insurance you have made on the forums.
Does that get me a £1 off my renewal?
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Sundowner 39
Well-Known Member
Just had a quote from them............£34 cheaper than my last years renewal with another company......... with a higher hull value and seemingly better cover.........I am considering Y Yachts seriously.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
read their policy & compare to others, there is a difference. Pheonix of Hamble was the first to spot deficiencies of other Insurers
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
Stork_III
Well-Known Member
Have you read this thread. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...BW-outstanding-service-award-you-voted-for-it in particular jfm's posts.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
you might get a YBW discount
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
Yes, I was aware of the main issues with HKJ's policy last year after Neal first brought it up.... I then followed up Neals warning at my renewal time and pursued it with them... And mentioned my talk with them here...
Following on from that I had quite a bit of communication with them that seemed to address my main concerns... And they followed it up with a thread here as well after all the bad pr they recieved... But seeing JFM's posts there are odvioulsy more issues than I spotted... I think if JFM has a issue then I would be inclined to take it seriously!
It would be nice if JFM was to be encouraged to post hereabouts his concerns.. And the key things that we should be looking for...
I have asked y insurance for a quote...
sailorman
Well-Known Member
send John a PM & ask what he recons
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
The EU has decided that car insurance for young women drivers should be the same as for men, even though the men are much more likely to have a crash. They are forcing this on insurance companies who for some strange reason thought that their policy rates should be linked to risk !!!!!!
As this ruling has not yet been enforced on the boating community should I put our insurance in my wife's name as she has never claimed for anything or hit anything?
As this ruling has not yet been enforced on the boating community should I put our insurance in my wife's name as she has never claimed for anything or hit anything?
Stork_III
Well-Known Member
Check the link in post 3, of the link I quoted, from Paul Gooch, that is clearer on what the current issue is about.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Hi
My concerns with HKJ policy are as follows. This is based on their current policy; I asked them for a quote and their policy docs only last week after seeing they won the ipc garmin award. I replied to them setting out these issues and told them I didn't want to buy their policy. Their premium was ok, £13.5k, which is a couple of k less than GJW quoted me a year ago and a thou or so more than I pay Pantaenius (for excellent cover imho, and I've been a customer 10 years with nil claims)
My reading of HKJ policy they sent me is:
1. You are not covered for loss arising directly or indirectly from meachnical breakdown. So even if your engine is newish and always serviced by the book etc etc, if it conks out and you get washed onto rocks, no cover
2. you are not covered if vessel is unseaworthy. Their definition of unseaworthy is having a defect at start of voyage that makes vessel unsuitable for the voyage. So if you sink, their surveyor merely has to find a defect that existed at start of voyage. The facts the boat is newish, recently surveyed, well looked after, properly serviced, even checked over pre voyage, don't give you any protection. And there is no reference to whether you ought to have known of the defect. If the defect merely existed, then there is no cover: tough. Other policies are based on reasonable diligence on the part of the skipper on this score
3. more a mobo than raggie point, but if design speed of vessel is >30kts (I think, or maybe it was 32kts; whatever) the excess is doubled if your sterngear is damaged. It is irrelevant whether you were actually travelling at 30kts. My excess was £10k, so the sterngear excess was £20k, which means no insurance in effect
4. Policy is a "stated value" payout policy. But then they say if you get the value wrong there is no cover. Example they give: you buy new boat, then value can be the new price. If a few years later you put it up for sale and a broker merely recommends a sale price of (say) £70k ,HKJ say you must tell them immediatley of the new 75k figure. If you don't tell them there is nil cover. As you can imagine, it is quite easy to let little time slip by and your boat depreciates, and your failure to tell HKJ voids your cover. This is crazy in my book, but that's what the words say. The penalty for failing to revise the price downwards ought to be a payout of only market value, not a withdrawal completely of cover
5. The injury payouts are absolutely tiny. I don't recall if this was for injuries you case to 3rd parties. I think it was, but I'd given up by this point.
There may be others . I might have forgotten some. The above is just my reading of the policy last week and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong. I'd advise people to think very carefully whether this policy suits them before buying it and check the PI point above
Anyway, their emailing was courteous and efficient. They won the Garmin award. My guess is that the votes were from people who enjoyed their excellent fast email responses and didn't actually read the small print.
Final point: can someone tell me if point #1 above is the same issue that (I now understnad) Phoenix of Hamble mentioned last year, and which HKJ said (I believe) they were going to fix? If it was, they seem to have duped you, becuase it seems to me this has not been fixed. The point I make at #1 above was clearly in the policy terms they sent me last week. And blimmin ybw let them have the endorsement of the Garmin award, I ask you...
My concerns with HKJ policy are as follows. This is based on their current policy; I asked them for a quote and their policy docs only last week after seeing they won the ipc garmin award. I replied to them setting out these issues and told them I didn't want to buy their policy. Their premium was ok, £13.5k, which is a couple of k less than GJW quoted me a year ago and a thou or so more than I pay Pantaenius (for excellent cover imho, and I've been a customer 10 years with nil claims)
My reading of HKJ policy they sent me is:
1. You are not covered for loss arising directly or indirectly from meachnical breakdown. So even if your engine is newish and always serviced by the book etc etc, if it conks out and you get washed onto rocks, no cover
2. you are not covered if vessel is unseaworthy. Their definition of unseaworthy is having a defect at start of voyage that makes vessel unsuitable for the voyage. So if you sink, their surveyor merely has to find a defect that existed at start of voyage. The facts the boat is newish, recently surveyed, well looked after, properly serviced, even checked over pre voyage, don't give you any protection. And there is no reference to whether you ought to have known of the defect. If the defect merely existed, then there is no cover: tough. Other policies are based on reasonable diligence on the part of the skipper on this score
3. more a mobo than raggie point, but if design speed of vessel is >30kts (I think, or maybe it was 32kts; whatever) the excess is doubled if your sterngear is damaged. It is irrelevant whether you were actually travelling at 30kts. My excess was £10k, so the sterngear excess was £20k, which means no insurance in effect
4. Policy is a "stated value" payout policy. But then they say if you get the value wrong there is no cover. Example they give: you buy new boat, then value can be the new price. If a few years later you put it up for sale and a broker merely recommends a sale price of (say) £70k ,HKJ say you must tell them immediatley of the new 75k figure. If you don't tell them there is nil cover. As you can imagine, it is quite easy to let little time slip by and your boat depreciates, and your failure to tell HKJ voids your cover. This is crazy in my book, but that's what the words say. The penalty for failing to revise the price downwards ought to be a payout of only market value, not a withdrawal completely of cover
5. The injury payouts are absolutely tiny. I don't recall if this was for injuries you case to 3rd parties. I think it was, but I'd given up by this point.
There may be others . I might have forgotten some. The above is just my reading of the policy last week and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong. I'd advise people to think very carefully whether this policy suits them before buying it and check the PI point above
Anyway, their emailing was courteous and efficient. They won the Garmin award. My guess is that the votes were from people who enjoyed their excellent fast email responses and didn't actually read the small print.
Final point: can someone tell me if point #1 above is the same issue that (I now understnad) Phoenix of Hamble mentioned last year, and which HKJ said (I believe) they were going to fix? If it was, they seem to have duped you, becuase it seems to me this has not been fixed. The point I make at #1 above was clearly in the policy terms they sent me last week. And blimmin ybw let them have the endorsement of the Garmin award, I ask you...
Last edited:
John Macaulay
New Member
In reply to various concerns over the Haven Knox-Johnston policy I would like to clarify the various points raised.
Firstly, our original response to the issue raised by jfm in point 1 still stands and I repeat it below. The wording in question is due for redrafting during the first half of 2013. This has been delayed due to further changes that will be required due to changes in our regulated body which are likely to be announced Q1 2013. I would repeat that we have not and would not refuse to pay a claim to any customer because of this.
Secondly, seaworthiness is addressed for all contracts of Marine Insurance under the Marine Insurance Act. We choose to bring it to our customer's attention rather than hiding behind something that applies that you are not aware of. I would add that for a claim to be declined by us for being unseaworthy, it would have to have been causative of the loss not just any old defect as suggested by jfm. In addition it would have to be as a result of something an insured should have been aware of.
Thirdly, many policies have restrictions on underwater gear for faster boats. Some have serious restrictions in cover, some only pay a percentage of each loss, and some give no cover at all. We are happy to discuss individual requirements for each customer.
Fourthly, jfm's comment here is totally incorrect and that is not what the wording says. What we actually say (within general information, not the actual policy wording) is that if the information you have provided is "FALSE" as to the value or price you paid for the vessel we may refuse to pay your claim. This is very different to "WRONG". This is because our policies are agreed value rather than market value which would only pay out what an Insurer might think your boat is worth at the time of loss. I would add that it is clearly of benefit to an owner to review the value of their boat each year at renewal as the premium is linked to the value.
To clarify the fifth point, all our policies in the UK provide a minimum of £3 million for damage or injuries to third parties that you may be legally liable for. Hardly tiny!
Post submitted to blog forum on YBW.com 4.17pm 2nd May 2012
As the General Manager and Director of Haven Knox-Johnston, I would like to clarify the situation that is being discussed here for the benefit of all our many policy holders and readers of YBW.
The wording as it stands in the Haven Pleasure craft policy under exclusion 3.5 is not correct and is a result of a drafting error. It has never been our intention to exclude such claims and we never have. The problem has arisen as a result of the words “directly and indirectly” which when strictly interpreted suggests that any consequential or resulting damage would also not be covered. As above this was never the intention and I can assure all our customers that this will not be applied. The following wording is how we actually deal with this.
The Insured is not covered for…
3.5 claims for
3.5.1 lack of reasonable maintenance;
3.5.2 wear and tear;
3.5.3 gradual deterioration, weathering or damp;
3.5.4 corrosion or electrolysis;
3.5.5 damage caused by insects or marine life of any description whatsoever;
3.5.6 mechanical breakdown;
Should any of our policy holders require their individual policies endorsed to reflect this we are more than happy to do so. We do not charge any fees either for new policies or making changes to existing ones. The next version of our policy wording due out soon will address this.
If any client requires further clarification please contact our Underwriting Manager on 01732223827 or email Ric.Decristofano@amlin.co.uk.
John Macaulay
Director & General Manger
Haven Knox-Johnston.
Firstly, our original response to the issue raised by jfm in point 1 still stands and I repeat it below. The wording in question is due for redrafting during the first half of 2013. This has been delayed due to further changes that will be required due to changes in our regulated body which are likely to be announced Q1 2013. I would repeat that we have not and would not refuse to pay a claim to any customer because of this.
Secondly, seaworthiness is addressed for all contracts of Marine Insurance under the Marine Insurance Act. We choose to bring it to our customer's attention rather than hiding behind something that applies that you are not aware of. I would add that for a claim to be declined by us for being unseaworthy, it would have to have been causative of the loss not just any old defect as suggested by jfm. In addition it would have to be as a result of something an insured should have been aware of.
Thirdly, many policies have restrictions on underwater gear for faster boats. Some have serious restrictions in cover, some only pay a percentage of each loss, and some give no cover at all. We are happy to discuss individual requirements for each customer.
Fourthly, jfm's comment here is totally incorrect and that is not what the wording says. What we actually say (within general information, not the actual policy wording) is that if the information you have provided is "FALSE" as to the value or price you paid for the vessel we may refuse to pay your claim. This is very different to "WRONG". This is because our policies are agreed value rather than market value which would only pay out what an Insurer might think your boat is worth at the time of loss. I would add that it is clearly of benefit to an owner to review the value of their boat each year at renewal as the premium is linked to the value.
To clarify the fifth point, all our policies in the UK provide a minimum of £3 million for damage or injuries to third parties that you may be legally liable for. Hardly tiny!
Post submitted to blog forum on YBW.com 4.17pm 2nd May 2012
As the General Manager and Director of Haven Knox-Johnston, I would like to clarify the situation that is being discussed here for the benefit of all our many policy holders and readers of YBW.
The wording as it stands in the Haven Pleasure craft policy under exclusion 3.5 is not correct and is a result of a drafting error. It has never been our intention to exclude such claims and we never have. The problem has arisen as a result of the words “directly and indirectly” which when strictly interpreted suggests that any consequential or resulting damage would also not be covered. As above this was never the intention and I can assure all our customers that this will not be applied. The following wording is how we actually deal with this.
The Insured is not covered for…
3.5 claims for
3.5.1 lack of reasonable maintenance;
3.5.2 wear and tear;
3.5.3 gradual deterioration, weathering or damp;
3.5.4 corrosion or electrolysis;
3.5.5 damage caused by insects or marine life of any description whatsoever;
3.5.6 mechanical breakdown;
Should any of our policy holders require their individual policies endorsed to reflect this we are more than happy to do so. We do not charge any fees either for new policies or making changes to existing ones. The next version of our policy wording due out soon will address this.
If any client requires further clarification please contact our Underwriting Manager on 01732223827 or email Ric.Decristofano@amlin.co.uk.
John Macaulay
Director & General Manger
Haven Knox-Johnston.
Chrissie
Well-Known Member
Look out for latent defect clause which basically says any manufacturing fault that you and your surveyor cant even see, if found after a problem, by their surveyor, ie delamination, voids etc. They wont pay out
sailorman
Well-Known Member
To be fair as were GJW, a forumite had problems & they made a fair offer
jfm
Well-Known Member
You're right in general, but to be fair to HKJ they DO expressly provide cover for losses caused by latent defect. Their only exclusion is for the cost of the actual component that had the defect, but that is perfectly ok and generally involves a trivial amount of money.
jfm
Well-Known Member
John, thanks for response in detail. I'll reply using numbers that correspond to your "firstly" etc. I have no axe to grind here. I just read your contract and think in good faith that your policy contained several clauses that were heavily stacked against the customer, and I put my views on here. I’m always happy to be corrected if wrong and will back down if that occurs, though as you'll see below I don't agree much of what you write on this occasion
1. I'm amazed you are so proud of yourself on this one. You have a contract that even you admit is poor, and it's been like that since at least May 2012, and you still haven't got round to fixing it. You say on here that you'll ignore the unfair wording and pay out, but why don't you just fix it? The "due to" reason you give for the delay holds no water as an excuse. Look, when folks have a couple of million quid bobbing around on the sea they want an enforceable contract giving them sensible cover, not a contract giving poor cover and then a forum post from a director saying "don't worry it will be ok". (And without researching I can't see if you are underwriter/broker/etc so even your assurance's watertightness is hard to be sure about).
2a. Your post here is pretty misleading. The Marine Insurance Act makes absolutely no requirement for an unseaworthiness exclusion to be drafted as harshly as yours is. If you disagree, quote me the section number. What you wrote there is I'm afraid a pretty shoddy attempt at blaming regulation+law for what you have chosen to do.
b. I agree the fault with the boat would have to be causative of the loss in order for the insurer to escape liability, but that's always the case, so much so that I thought it not worth mentioning. However if I was wrong not to mention that particular point then I apologise and say now that I agree with you on that point.
c. However here is the really annoying part of your post: you wrote: "In addition it would have to be as a result of something an insured should have been aware of" (my emphasis) but it is crystal clear that your insurance policy contains no such relief for the insured. Your policy as a matter of simple English excludes cover if the loss was caused by a fault in the boat at start of voyage and there is no exception for a fault so obscure that it could not be said that a reasonable owner should have been aware of it. I might as well quote your policy (blue text) so that readers can see :
The Insured is not covered for: ... 3.4 any loss, damage, liability or expense arising from the Unseaworthiness of the Vessel; and Unseaworthinessmeans the Vessel is not reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the conditions that may reasonably be anticipated in respect of any use to which it is put on any navigable waterway.
Nothing in those words excludes a fault in the boat of a type which the owner didn't ought to be aware of. The two "reasonably"s refer to fitness of the vessel and anticipations of conditions of the voyage, not the owner's knowledge of the fault that will this afternoon sink the vessel
3. No worries. Everyone can decide for themselves if they're happy with a proposed excess or not. I was just pointing out that your sterngear excess on a large-ish motorboat is £20k, which is the kinda same thing as not being insured, and is the highest I've ever been quoted. People can decide freely, and I was merely pointing out the facts
4a. You say my comments are "totally incorrect". Your policy (not your notes) says "If the Insured provides information about the value of the Vessel ... which is false, this insurance may not be valid and Insurers may decline to pay any claim." The trigger event for non payment by insurer is not merely false information about the price paid for the boat as your post incorrectly says, it is also false information later about the (then) value of the boat. You then go on to say "false" and "wrong" are "very different". Exactly how? In my book, something can be false with no bad intent on the part of the person saying it, ie it can be false in good faith, so to speak. Are you saying "false" means something done in bad faith, ie a lie, basically? If you aren't then my point stands. If you are, then how does this wrong/false distinction get squared away with your clause 8.5 which clearly includes within the meaning of "false" mere innocent errors? Thus i stand by my criticisms of your clauses dealing with the boat's value. Sure, you may be a super customer-service firm and you might not apply the clauses as harshly as I'm saying they could be applied, but then why not do a proper job and remove your discretion on this, and create enforceable liabilities? Why should the customer have to rely on your niceness (which i don't doubt exists as evidenced by the Garmin prize - there's nothing personal meant here
) rather than an enforceable contract? Which, in essence, is my point #1 and #4 as well. 4b. Again, we have the contract versus your niceness point. You emphasised the word "may" as if that defeats my criticisms. It doesn’t. Look, a good insurance policy puts an enforceable liability on the insurer to pay in the defined circumstances. It doesn't merely give the insurer discretion/choice about paying. He has that has anyway. But we are covering the same ground as above...
5. On personal liability you can see that i said in my post above that I was losing interest by this stage. Your policy didn't make the cut due to all the other things, so these limits didn't matter to me. Now because of these exchanges let’s look at this. There is indeed a personal injury limit of £3m which is nice and high, good stuff, but policyholders need to note this £3m applies to what I’ll call “remote” third parties only. It does not apply if you as boat owner are found to have negligently caused injuries to your guests (see the MBY column on this point 4 months ago by Brian from Ashfords the marine lawyers), to the broker/surveyor/prospective customer on the sea trial when you are selling it, to the guy/girl delivering your croissants in the morning who trips on the hosepipe you shouldn't have left on the passerelle, and a million other similar circumstances. It only applies to remote third parties eg if you negligently collide with another boat and injure someone on board it. This is totally different from UK car insurance: if someone injures a friend and passenger by negligent driving, the car policy pays out. Folks can make their own minds up on this one, but I want them to be aware of this distinction, and so far I’m the only one pointing out because you sure aren’t. Indeed, your statement "all our policies in the UK provide a minimum of £3 million for damage or injuries to third parties that you may be legally liable for" is imho a pretty poor description. If I’m wrong, and the boat owner is insured in the croissant guy/girl scenario, then please point me to the clause and I’ll retract of course and apologise
Best wishes
Last edited:
