just insured the boat again but did more digging this year

[jfm]

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."

julians that all looks fine. At least as far as I can see- I have not read the policy
Are you sure the first sentence is quoted perfectly in you post? It's a strange sentence. It talks of a part caused by wear and tear, not damage caused by wear and tear, so it is an odd sentence

 

[rubberduck]

Anybody looked at craftinsure, they seem to have been pretty good so far, but would like to hear of any similar problems.

 

[jfm]

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.

If you can gigm, invite the person onto here. If I'm wrong I will very happily eat humble pie. I only care that this forum contains correct info on this, so I will be very happy to admit any mistake I've made

Remember though that HKJ's MD agreed with me and changed one of their large mono policy in direct response to threads on here. Full marks to them. Seahope's and the scuttlebutt guy's insurers also agreed my interpretation because they refused to pay for a total loss caused by corrosion/electrolysis to a small part. They didn't refuse just the £20 for the corroded part; they refused the whole loss claim

 

[jfm]

Rubberduck, need a link

 

[lanerboy]

Seems I will be looking elsewhere, unless GJW provide a written confirmation to my satisfaction.

They wouldnt do that for me but Pantaenius did

 

[AAF]

I am a newbie to the big Mobo (about 3 months) scene but I have read this forum for about 2 years before committing the £ to the boat and by consequence the insurance

It was JFM's comments in previous (year(s) ago) forum thread posts that any insurer would pay out the few low £k for a "in their minds minor" claim but that the real proof of their support is what happens when the £ get large with a major/total loss for a substantial vessel. As JFM wrote (paraphrased and pardon me if not precise), "most of us can stand the loss of a few £thousand, though it hurts. What really counts is when it is substantially higher and potentially ruins our livelihood for years". Since I am in the latter category, weasel wording in legalese frightens me. Are verbal promises are only worth the paper they are written on....!!

On that basis, as a check, when I insured my new pride and joy I looked at the "average" cost and policy wording of various insurers, and despite the premium being some few £100's higher, went with Pantaenius. The difference between them and the others was not enough to make me want to read the others clauses in detail. Pantaenius read OK, so OK!

I am with Lanerboy on his decision.

Not that it makes the Pataenius policy perfect, but perhaps the best of what is on offer?

If your total insurance value to protect is low thousands then it makes sense to shop for the best comparative-to-the-value-insured and assess the risk in your own likely situation. If you have substantial £ to protect then total loss scenarios surely should take precedence in your evaluation of risk. It may not be you that caused the loss!!!

All IMHO of course. And no connection etc....

And thanks JFM for your advice and thoughts on this forum. I have learned a lot. You are welcome on board for any kind of tincture though I would fully understand if you find it cramped and cold (since I am not in the Med and a lot smaller than Match II)..!!

 

[crazy4557]

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

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!

Thank you John, that is the answer I was expecting and you have clarified what I expected after reading that clause.

I will now insure my boat with either of the other two that you have mentioned.

 

[LionsDen]

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 :encouragement:

As some of you may recall earlier in the season a boat hit Lions Den whilst moored in her home berth - Luckily only the bow roller got bent and no other damage was sustained.
This item was replaced last Thursday by the guys from PMYs without effecting my no claims bonus or me having to pay any excess so a win win situation for me with Pants :encouragement:

 

[bobupanddown]

I have had claims experience with Pantaenius and can only say I was 100% satisfied with the service and would have no hesitation in recommending them! They dont seem to have all these complicated get out clauses.
No I am not associated with them in any way.

 

[julians]

Does anyone know who the underwriter of the pantaenious policy is?

 

[sailorman]

Does anyone know who the underwriter of the pantaenious policy is?

German underwriters

 

[jfm]

Does anyone know who the underwriter of the pantaenious policy is?

It's ACE European Group Ltd, which is the European arm of ACE, which is a NYSE quoted multinational mega-insurance group. The European arm is headquartered in London, http://www.acegroup.com/eu-en/ while the worldwide group www.acegroup.com is NY. Not at all German!

 

[rubberduck]

Rubberduck, need a link

Got an e-mail you could pm ?

 

[kennyh]

Have I got the "old" policy wording on my HKJ policy?

JFM, you mentioned that HKJ had made some changes to the exclusions.....

I've insurance through Insure My Boat with a Haven Knox Johnston Policy. The policy exclusions are as follows:

EXCLUSIONS
This clause is paramount and no claim shall be allowed in respect of:
(a) loss, damage, liability or expense intentionally caused or incurred by, or
with the consent of, any Insured, or arising from unseaworthiness
resulting from any act or omission of any Insured.
(b) the cost of making good any defect resulting from any repair, alteration
or maintenance work carried out on the Vessel.
(c) any loss or expenditure incurred in remedying a fault or error in design
or construction or any cost or expense incurred by reason of betterment
or alteration in design or construction.
(d) wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of reasonable maintenance,
mechanical breakdown, corrosion, electrolysis, weathering or damage
caused by insect, vermin, damp and marine life.
(e) (i) theft of insured gear and equipment, unless following violent forcible
(a) entry into the Vessel or place of storage, or
(b) removal of fixed gear or equipment from the exterior of the Vessel.
(ii) theft of insured personal effects, unless following violent forcible entry into the Vessel or vehicle while in transit.
(iii) theft of the outboard motor unless secured to the Vessel by an appropriate anti-theft device in addition to its normal method of attachment, or following violent forcible entry into the Vessel or place of storage.
(iv) theft or loss of boat(s) not permanently marked with the name of the parent Vessel.
(v) theft of trailer and Vessel (when on trailer) unless the trailer is fitted with an appropriate wheelclamp when not actually being towed.
(f) loss of or damage to sails while in use, if split by the wind or blown
away.
(g) loss or damage to mast(s), spars, sails, standing and running rigging
while the Vessel is racing unless
(i) through a risk covered by this insurance the Vessel sinks, strands
or is in contact with any object other than water, or,
(ii) there is an amount specified in the Certificate of Insurance for
mast(s), spars, sails, standing and running rigging.
(h) loss, damage, expense or liability directly or indirectly arising from
capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, war, terrorism, civil
war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection, civil conflict or commotion.
(i) loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly caused by or
contributed to by or arising from
(i) ionising radiations from or contamination by radioactivity from
any nuclear fuel or from any nuclear waste or from the
combustion of nuclear fuel
(ii) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous or
contaminating properties of any nuclear installation, reactor or
other nuclear assembly or nuclear component thereof
(iii) any weapon or device employing atomic or nuclear fission and/or
fusion or other like reaction or radioactive force or matter
(iv) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous or contaminating properties of any radioactive matter. The exclusion in this sub-clause does not extend to radioactive isotopes, other than nuclear fuel, when such isotopes are being prepared, carried, stored, or used for commercial, agricultural, medical, scientific or similar peaceful purposes.
(j) unrepaired damage in addition to a subsequent total loss sustained during the period covered by this insurance.
(k) loss or damage to engine(s), gearbox(es), electrical machinery, electrical equipment, batteries and connections resulting from
(i) negligence of any person
(ii) latent defect
(iii) frost, unless all reasonable precautions have been taken
(iv) water, unless by sudden accidental incursion into the Vessel.
(l) loss, damage, liability or expense arising while such Vessel or boat(s) is underway unless the Insured or other competent person authorised by the Insured is on board and in control of such Vessel or boat.



----

My concerns (following this informative thread) are around clauses (b) and (d). Would you think they are acceptable / does this fall in line with the "new" HKJ policy wording? Note that the Policy Wording has a Reference as follows "Ref: CETA Haven Plan HPL 04/09" at the bottom - so I'm assuming the wording is from April 2009?

Cheers
Kenny.

 

[jfm]

Kenny that is the old HKJ language and I have said on here before that I don't like it (I mean (d); there is nothing wrong with (b) imho). But you've prompted me to comment more generally on HKJ which I've been meaning to do for a few days on this thread.

HKJ have responded to the customer concerns and discussions on here and published new clauses from 15/8/2014 which are much better than before http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/policy-documents/#post

This new HKJ wording basically "passes the forum quality test" imho on this corrosion/electrolysis point that we have discussed on here and that Seahope had to endure when his boat sank. In a bit more detail (no need to read this coloured part if you're not interested in detail on the clauses!) as regards this new HKJ language:

1.1 covers accidental damage of all sorts which includes corrosion/electrolysis subject to clause 4.10

1.8 covers expressly electrolysis that is sudden (which is not to say gradual electrolysis isn't also covered, by 1.1)

There is a definition of Gradual Deterioration which is perfectly sensible (I wrote it ) and then the main "worry" clause, 4.10 excludes cover ONLY if the gradual corrosion was, basically, to be expected ie you had non bronze seacocks over 6 years old, or something like that. Now you have to remember here HKJ's market position: they pick up a lot of the small end of the market where statistically there can be a more slap dash approach to maintenance (contributors to this forum excepted of course; I'm talking about the wider boater population). Pantaenius don't do this part of the market, so they don't have the same worries. Hence HKJ need 4.10 as worded and no criticism from me on that score. That said, my understanding is that if you have a reasonably valuable boat and explain to HKJ your experience and you appear a good risk, HKJ will modify 4.10 to get to the "pantaenius standard"

In addition, HKJ's 3P cover is top of the market. Their 4.3 is excellent (um, I wrote it ) because it makes clear that you are covered if your non-deliberate negligence injures a self employed boat fixer (like a Volvo Paul). That is cover that you really do want (and Volvo Paul wants you to have it too ) but many others don't clearly provide this in such categoric terms

So I do want to make clear that while I have in the past said I think Pantaenius is the best, I now think that HKJ's new policy is, basically, equally good. HKJ have done a great job in modernising and updating their policy and I think their attitude to fixing these glitches has been excellent. I'm a complete supporter of HKJ. All this post is IMHO, as ever.

 

[kennyh]

Thanks JFM, sounds like I need to speak to them to get the updates wording then.

Was there are particular underwriter you were speaking to that I should try and contact ?

 

[jfm]

Thanks JFM, sounds like I need to speak to them to get the updates wording then.

Was there are particular underwriter you were speaking to that I should try and contact ?

No this isn't particular to any individual folks at HKJ. It is their new standard policy across the board, and I was dealing with the boss. I think they will just apply the new wording to your policy if it is mid-term, but I'm not sure about that and it might only apply when you next renew. It's easy just to ask if you can have the post 15/8 policy instead of your current one

 

[kennyh]

Thanks JFM, I'll give them a call to see if I can get the new wording.

Cheers
Kenny

 

[Nigelpickin]

No this isn't particular to any individual folks at HKJ. It is their new standard policy across the board, and I was dealing with the boss. I think they will just apply the new wording to your policy if it is mid-term, but I'm not sure about that and it might only apply when you next renew. It's easy just to ask if you can have the post 15/8 policy instead of your current one

Just fayi the letter that I received from HKJ read like the improved offering was from renewal. It's probably worth getting your broker to clarify if you have not had sight of the new terms and a renewal request...

 

[crazy4557]

Just an update for anyone interested in this subject following on from JFM's opinions of GJW's current policy and the clause re corrosion.

Firstly my policy with GJW has lapsed as of yesterday so I had some urgency about my situation. I would have preferred to stay with GJW but when I spoke to them they were very ambiguous about the clause re corrosion and non payment of claim, kept giving me the same excuse that they wouldn't be market leader if they weren't seen as fair or words to that effect. In his favour he was going to speak to their underwriter to see if the policy wording for this clause needs addressing.