just insured the boat again but did more digging this year

[Nigelpickin]

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?378011-Who-is-insured-with-Haven-Knox-Johnston

Amazing how opinions can be affected. Fair play to HKJ and tbh, given how far they have gone to sort out the shortfall I probably should have posted my satisfaction with them without Shawns prompt...

 

[crazy4557]

It would be handy if someone could take a look at the GJW Policy here http://gjwdirect.co.uk/media/yacht/Policy_DW.pdf: and tell me if there are any nasties. I note that they don't cover damage from corrosion so in the case of Seahope would these guys also not pay?
I am due to renew tomorrow so now is a good opportunity to look around if these guys appear to play silly buggers.

 

[tetleys]

Plus one for GJW

Cheers

Tetleys

 

[gjgm]

It would be handy if someone could take a look at the GJW Policy here http://gjwdirect.co.uk/media/yacht/Policy_DW.pdf: and tell me if there are any nasties. I note that they don't cover damage from corrosion so in the case of Seahope would these guys also not pay?
I am due to renew tomorrow so now is a good opportunity to look around if these guys appear to play silly buggers.

I discussed with them, and one of the directors then called me to discuss. I pointed him to here. They had a look and basically they said they didn't agree with JFM's observations, and it was after all their policy wording. I am not saying right or wrongs, just passing on the comment !
I cant recall the exact pcts now, but they said they have 75pct re renewals for non claims and 90pct for claims. Ok, the last 10pct might be horrors, but you could also think that most people are so happy with the claims that they will renew.
Edit, sorry I didnt make this clear. I discussed with them when this last came up and pointed them to the forum.So, I was refering to the previous time round, not this thread.

 

[julians]

I'm insured with Allianz, and recently had a small'ish claim. I have to say it was dealt with efficiently ,and wouldnt hesitate to renew with them.

The main area of contention with various policies seems to be the exlcusion clauses related to corrosion. The allianz policy (paraphrasing) states that they wont cover the item that corroded , but they will cover consequential damage as a result of the failed corroded item. I take it to mean that if a seacock fails through corrosion that the seacock itself wont be covered, but the sinking of the boat as a result would be. Which seems an odd way of wording, but thats how I interpret it, I'll post that particular section of the policy up for scrutiny later if people are interested.

edited to add, here is the relevent bit of the policy relating to corrosion etc:-

"This Policy does not cover the cost of repairing or replacing any part caused by wear, tear, osmosis or corrosion.Consequential damage to any other part of your Insured Property caused by these occurrences will be covered provided the claim is covered by this policy."

 

[tetleys]

I had exactly the same conversation with GJW this afternoon and that was their interpretation of this happening

Cheers

Tetleys

 

[volvopaul]

So is GJW a big no on underwater corrosion claims? Is so they WONT be getting my renewal in Feb next year, this was one of the discussions I had with them when I renewed for the 6th time this year, if there bowing out if this type of claim then there is not much a place for them in this industry, what's the point insuring your boat with anyone when they put clauses of get out on certain parts of a boat that DO fail causing a total loss.

The French boats spring to mind as there underwater gear is a stage of quality well down compared to a UK built boat, my last princess was nearly 20 years old and still had its original skin fittings until last year , they were thin but not unserviceable .

Sadly I have to say I may have to swap insurer next time, thanks to Lanerboy for this post.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

thanks to Lanerboy for this post

For sure, although the really big thanks here are due to jfm for providing expert professional opinion, on which I and many others here have based our selection of insurer.

 

[rafiki_]

For sure, although the really big thanks here are due to jfm for providing expert professional opinion, on which I and many others here have based our selection of insurer.

+1

 

[longjohnsilver]

So is GJW a big no on underwater corrosion claims? Is so they WONT be getting my renewal in Feb next year, this was one of the discussions I had with them when I renewed for the 6th time this year, if there bowing out if this type of claim then there is not much a place for them in this industry, what's the point insuring your boat with anyone when they put clauses of get out on certain parts of a boat that DO fail causing a total loss.

The French boats spring to mind as there underwater gear is a stage of quality well down compared to a UK built boat, my last princess was nearly 20 years old and still had its original skin fittings until last year , they were thin but not unserviceable .

Sadly I have to say I may have to swap insurer next time, thanks to Lanerboy for this post.

I have 3 boats insured with GJW. I will be looking elsewhere on renewals, starting with Eos next month.

 

[lanerboy]

For sure, although the really big thanks here are due to jfm for providing expert professional opinion, on which I and many others here have based our selection of insurer.

100% agree if it were not for JFM I would still be with my original company but now I will sleep better knowing I have top cover with pantaenius

 

[tetleys]

So that we can be clearer on the GJW policy when I asked about a failed seacock, or a failed engine hose, which resulted in a total loss or big damage I was clearly told as per Julian's discussion with Allianz that the Consequential loss/damage is covered but not the replacement cost of the failed part. That all sounded fine to me but still have concerns about section 2B Exclusions of the policy . ii ) wear, tear , depreciation and iv ) corrosion, rot, rust

I am no lawyer and like several other forumites would be grateful to receive comfort that the GJW policy wording isn't the same as others that are being called into question. My overall impression of GJW having insured various boats with them for twenty five years has been excellent , but I have only claimed once in all that time for a stolen 3.3 ho outboard.

Cheers

Tetleys

 

[Nick_H]

I have 3 boats insured with GJW. I will be looking elsewhere on renewals, starting with Eos next month.

Have I missed something? Crazy4557 asked if GJW policies were OK specifically wrt corrosion, and now others are saying they wont renew with GJW without anyone having commented on the strength of the policy.

The GJW policy excludes damage due to corrosion, but as far as I can see there's no exclusion for water ingress due to corrosion, so it seems to me it passes the JFM/Seahope test on that point at least (ie. they don't cover the cost of the seacock, but they do cover the loss of the boat).

I think there's been a bit of Chinese whispers

edit: didn't spot that the thread had moved onto a 4th page, and the point has already been covered by Tetleys #32, which does seem to confirm that GJW policy does not exclude water ingress due to corrosion.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Have I missed something? Crazy4557 asked if GJW policies were OK specifically wrt corrosion, and now others are saying they wont renew with GJW without anyone having commented on the strength of the policy.

The GJW policy excludes damage due to corrosion, but as far as I can see there's no exclusion for water ingress due to corrosion, so it seems to me it passes the JFM/Seahope test on that point at least (ie. they don't cover the cost of the seacock, but they do cover the loss of the boat).

I think there's been a bit of Chinese whispers

edit: didn't spot that the thread had moved onto a 4th page, and the point has already been covered by Tetleys #32, which does seem to confirm that GJW policy does not exclude water ingress due to corrosion.

Guilty as charged!

What I should have said is that I intend to contact GJW and ask the question. I'm not sure why I wrote what I did. Rush of blood to the head?

 

[Scubadoo]

GJW, looking at the policy it seems to be clear that they don't cover, but it is interesting that others have said that they have spoken to GJW and are covered, so confused. JFM, it would be nice to have your expertise on GJW policy.

Here is the bit from the GJW policy:

This Policy does not cover physical loss of or damage:
1. to the Vessel caused by:-
(i) theft;
(a) while left unattended at anytime on a trailer unless an antitheft
device protects the trailer;
(b) by trick or deception against you;
(ii) wear, tear or depreciation;
(iii) insects, marine borers, barnacles, marine growth, vermin, fungi or
molluscs;
(iv) corrosion, rot, rust, mildew, dampness or weathering;
(v) electrolysis;
(vi) osmosis;
(vii) civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, action by customs
officers or executive action of a government or government
department unless arising out of an event which is covered by this
Policy;
(viii) war, civil disturbance and terrorism.


Great thread, thank you.

 

[lanerboy]

or indeed a seacock that has failed in the last 12 months since last lift out due to section (ii) of the above ?????????

 

[Nick_H]

I'm not sure why I wrote what I did. Rush of blood to the head?

You posted at 10pm on a Friday night, are you sure it wasn't a different red liquid that had gone to your head?

 

[jfm]

The Gjw policy linked to above doesn't pass the "acceptability" test in my book. It says

This Policy does not cover physical loss of or damage:
1. to the Vessel caused by:-
...
(iv) corrosion, rot, rust.....
(v) electrolysis;

That is plain English and you can all read it as well as I can. If a sea clock corrodes/ electrolyses and the boat sinks, and there is no other cause further up the chain, then the cause of your loss is electrolysis and contract does not cover you. It's as clear as night and day.

Sure, talk to some director at the insurance co and hear him/her say JFM is wrong if you want, and I wish you well. Why not rely on your own ability to read plain English though? I'd say buy HKJ's new policy or pantaenius, which do not contain this language. I have no axe to grind whatsoever: I'm just a bloke who has a boat and needs insurance to cover pretty much all boat risks, the same as you guys

Remember folks that this is exactly what happened to poster Seahope. His sea cock electrolysed, boat sank, total loss. It wasn't GJW but policy had same clause. Insurer refused to pay, marine mortgage co demanded immediate payment of the outstanding loan. I cannot believe anyone would buy the GJW policy and expose themselves to this, but go ahead if you're feeling lucky! (Sure we won in seahope's case but that was a clever technicality that is VERY unlikely to apply to anyone else)

Never rely on a phonecall with someone at insurer telling you that you're covered. In the case of a big claim they play hardball ( I have that tee shirt- 5 years ago I claimed £1.5m on an insurance policy)

Fwiw, I don't like GJW's 3rd party risks clause either. HKJ's and pantaenius are better IMHO.

Nick-h, I didn't understand your second para in post 33. Exclusions are cumulative, so if there is no exclusion in relation to water ingress that doesn't help you because the exclusion quoted above is enough to deny cover. Sorry if I am missing your point!

 

[jfm]

So that we can be clearer on the GJW policy when I asked about a failed seacock, or a failed engine hose, which resulted in a total loss or big damage I was clearly told as per Julian's discussion with Allianz that the Consequential loss/damage is covered but not the replacement cost of the failed part. That all sounded fine to me but still have concerns about section 2B Exclusions of the policy . ii ) wear, tear , depreciation and iv ) corrosion,

Tetleys, what you were told is not what the clause says. The wording of the clause is crystal clear - see above. You are therefore absolutely right to be concerned

If you have the promise of cover in writing that might be ok- it depends on the detail. If you got it in a phonecall you have nothing worthwhile that you can rely on. Just remember what happened to poster Seahope, about 2 years ago in EXACTLY these circumstances ( electrolysed seacock) and the scuttlebutt poster whose rig was lost due to "corroded" rigging piece at top of mast.

(Both those posters ended up with a 100% win fortunately but they won on technicalities that were unique to their cases and are unlikely ever to be repeated.)

 

[longjohnsilver]

When I said i would contact GJW, the only reassurance I would accept would be one in writing, certainly not verbal. Seems I will be looking elsewhere, unless GJW provide a written confirmation to my satisfaction.