just insured the boat again but did more digging this year

[lanerboy]

Well its that time of year where I have to insure the boat so after reading various posts on here and a certain episode that happened in my marina I thought I would do a little more digging this year, I contacted my current insurer ********* and directly asked them if they would cover my boat if a sea cock failed and to put it in simple terms they just would not give me a straight answer they kept dodging the direct question and giving various scenarios but they would not give me a straight answer they did say they don't cover wear and tear items

So I sent the small print of my policy to a couple of people to look at it for me and the general feeling was they WOULD NOT pay for any consequential damage but WOULD pay for the sea cock (no use to me at all could not risk it imho)

So with this in mind I contacted Pantaenius and asked them the same question and they were more than happy to put it in an email that they WOULD COVER ALL DAMAGE caused by another part that had failed due to wear and tear so with this I have now taken my next years cover out with Pantaenius it is a little more expensive BUT I feel I will sleep better at night as I am in no position to foot a HUGE bill that my insurance company would not cover

Obviously this is just my personal thoughts and Pantaenius may not be for everyone but I feel I have made the right choice

 

[Nigelpickin]

Was going to change but HKJ have revised their wording and written me a comprehensive reassurance regarding the dodgy clause...so happy to stay with them.

 

[lanerboy]

That's good then at least you did your home work and made sure your covered

 

[rafiki_]

That's good then at least you did your home work and made sure your covered

I did likewise with Colemans too.

 

[jfm]

Good call Lanerboy. It is also true that HKJ have amended their standard wording following the various threads on here, to cure this problem ( I had a few meetings with them!) so they are firmly in the good guys camp provided you get the right policy from their range of policies. I don't know about the policies coleman represent ( they're a broker) and can't find a link to the policies on their website

 

[AdeOlly]

I've also just moved to Pantaenius from an AXA policy via Bishop Skinner. It was only an extra £150 odd, and for that I have peace of mind. They asked me why I moved and listened to my points, which was in the main if I suffer a total loss I want a payout without months of argument and hiding behind seaworthiness and wear and tear clauses, but made no comment other than would I consider them next renewal... only if they change their policy said I.

I also looked at the revised HKJ policy and that was much better than I was expecting given the criticism they've taken.

With thanks to JFM for raising awareness of the policy differences.

I did find one policy that would only provide cover for sinking if there had been an actual hull breach! Unbelievable.

 

[CLB]

Hello JFM

Have you ever looked at a Traffords Policy? I am just about to renew with them and wondered if they were a good company.

Thanks

 

[jfm]

Hello JFM

Have you ever looked at a Traffords Policy? I am just about to renew with them and wondered if they were a good company.

Thanks

I can't remember whether we looked at this in previous threads. Do you have a link to the policy?

 

[aquapower]

Was going to change but HKJ have revised their wording and written me a comprehensive reassurance regarding the dodgy clause...so happy to stay with them.

I have a friend who's been battling with HKJ for 18 months now and got nowhere, his boat sunk during the winter and they paid for the salvage but won't pay for anything else, they got a local boatyard to look and can't even decide a reason why boat sunk, they refuse to get a surveyor involved, when hearing this I would never let them insure my boat.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

would I consider them next renewal... only if they change their policy said I

Yep, I had exactly the same conversation with Denovo, when I moved from them to Pantaenius. I hope this migration of policies to Pantaenius does prompt the other insurers to improve their respective offerings.

 

[jfm]

I have a friend who's been battling with HKJ for 18 months now and got nowhere, his boat sunk during the winter and they paid for the salvage but won't pay for anything else, they got a local boatyard to look and can't even decide a reason why boat sunk, they refuse to get a surveyor involved, when hearing this I would never let them insure my boat.

Was the boat a Princess?

 

[aquapower]

Was the boat a Princess?

No, a small fairline

 

[Nigelpickin]

I have a friend who's been battling with HKJ for 18 months now and got nowhere, his boat sunk during the winter and they paid for the salvage but won't pay for anything else, they got a local boatyard to look and can't even decide a reason why boat sunk, they refuse to get a surveyor involved, when hearing this I would never let them insure my boat.

Sounds lousy, I had a long chat with them following the concerns raised last year by team JFM. To be fair they, HkJ, asked what I specifically required in terms of wording to stop me from cancelling the policy. Their response was robust and reasuring certainly enough for me to stay with them while they worked towards removing the get out clause. This they did and I was very pleased to get a letter from them prior to my renewal highlighting the new cover all policy.
Well done to HJK for listening, while not smug at all I am glad that I did not follow the advice to jump ship.

Sorry to hear of the problems that your friend is having...perhaps he should disclose to the forum and apply some pressure .....

 

[Spi D]

Pantaenius over here too.

Due to tax on insurance a few Norwegian and German companies tried their luck (avoiding the tax collected by Danish insurers) but seemingly left customers in uncertainty.

 

[CLB]

I can't remember whether we looked at this in previous threads. Do you have a link to the policy?

I don't think they host them online, although I do have a copy in PDF format. Can you send attachments to PM's? I'll have a look.

Edit: doesn't appear possible to add an attachment to a PM. Is theer any other way I could make the Ts & Cs available for scrutiny?

 

[superheat6k]

I don't think they host them online, although I do have a copy in PDF format. Can you send attachments to PM's? I'll have a look.

Edit: doesn't appear possible to add an attachment to a PM. Is theer any other way I could make the Ts & Cs available for scrutiny?

Trafford Policy here. An answer I would be interested to read too. Used them for several years but never had to claim to test them out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/khho2fer2... Policy Wording Yacht & Motorcruiser.pdf?dl=0

 

[aquapower]

Sounds lousy, I had a long chat with them following the concerns raised last year by team JFM. To be fair they, HkJ, asked what I specifically required in terms of wording to stop me from cancelling the policy. Their response was robust and reasuring certainly enough for me to stay with them while they worked towards removing the get out clause. This they did and I was very pleased to get a letter from them prior to my renewal highlighting the new cover all policy.
Well done to HJK for listening, while not smug at all I am glad that I did not follow the advice to jump ship.

Sorry to hear of the problems that your friend is having...perhaps he should disclose to the forum and apply some pressure .....

After trying for so long and getting nowhere he's almost given up hope, what really annoys me is that in my last job I used to do a lot of their work and the amount of things they paid out for which were just down to owner neglect is shocking, I always used to deal with a surveyor which in this case they would not allow. It helps makes my mind up who I would give my money to in the future.

 

[jfm]

Trafford Policy here. An answer I would be interested to read too. Used them for several years but never had to claim to test them out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/khho2fer2... Policy Wording Yacht & Motorcruiser.pdf?dl=0

Alas I wouldn't touch that Trafford's policy with a bargepole. Pantaenius and the new HKJ are very substantially better policies ihmo. Some detail follows, and all this is just imho, and if the boss of Traffords wants to come on here and tell my how their policy does cover the things I'm saying it doesn't cover then I'd welcome that and happily eat humble pie if shown to be wrong:

1. Exclusion h on p11/18: If a seacock corrodes and the boat sinks (our comrade Seahope's exact circumstance) Traffords will pay for the boat excluding the engine and electricals, ie they will pay perhaps 2/3rds of the boat's value if it is a total loss. HKJ/Pantaenius have policies that will pay it all. This is a dealbreaker and you can stop reading this post now if you want.

2. Page 7/18: If your boat is >17knots design speed and you accidentally go aground, you are not covered for engines/ electricals and props/rudders/shafts, so you'll get perhaps 60% payout on a total loss

3. The drafting of the 3rd party cover is appalling. The whole first section of page 12/18 is constructed as one big sentence, whose first word is "If", but there is no statement of what happens if the "If" happens. It's like me saying "If you crash into my boat" and ending the sentence there. You'd say to me "Yeah, jfm, then what?" wouldn't you. The words missing of course are the one you want, namely "...then the insurers will pay up". I cannot believe such awful documents can be created by insurance companies. Talk about slapdash. Much of the rest of the document is pretty clumsy too. Anyway, for the rest of this post I'll assume they meant to say they will pay up if the "Ifs" happen, though I don't see why I should

4. Still on p12/18 (3rd party risk) I would advise everyone strongly to run away from the clause headed "Navigation by other persons". It would take me a while to explain in detail but trust me that this is a very poor clause from customer's pov

5. On p13/18, item a, they exclude cover for claims you might get for accidents suffered by people you employ to work on the boat. This isn't explicitly limited to persons with whom you have an employer/employee relationships so it could arguably extend to contractors you might hire to fix your boat. This is a major failing imho and you wont have this problem if you get the right policy from HKJ or Pantaenius.

I have further thoughts on it but there is no point in flogging a dead horse with maggots all over it so I'll stop there. Each of 1-5 above is a dealbreaker in its own right. My view is that anyone buying this policy does so at their peril

 

[jfm]

After trying for so long and getting nowhere he's almost given up hope, what really annoys me is that in my last job I used to do a lot of their work and the amount of things they paid out for which were just down to owner neglect is shocking, I always used to deal with a surveyor which in this case they would not allow. It helps makes my mind up who I would give my money to in the future.

This surprises me Aquapower because I find HKJ to be a very good bunch of people. I've spent plenty of time with their boss John Macaulay. I kinda think there must be another side to the story, but I don't know any of the detail so cannot comment any further

 

[Anders_P42]

Pantaenius here, after reading several good threads they seem best although not cheapest option.

Anders