sharpness
Active member
From previous insurance posts / debates, another company whose policy wording came out positive who i have insured with for the last 2 seasons is yyachtinsurance .
just insured the boat again but did more digging this year
- Thread starter lanerboy
- Start date
PEJ
Active member
I wanted to wake up this very interesting thread with an update from GJW with whom I insure my boat. I asked them to clarify the situation with regard to their cover if a seacock eroded and the boat sank.
They said not to worry it would be covered but I asked them to put that in writing which they did by email. Here is what they said on the matter
[GJW]So far as our position is concerned in the event that a part corroded and failed causing damage to any other part or parts providing that the corrosion was neither known nor ought to have been known (because it was obvious or would be discovered by a reasonable inspection) we would consider ourselves on risk for the damage to the other insured parts. That has been our position for upwards of 30 years (which is as far back as we have been able to trace) and we would expect that to be the reasoning of the Financial Ombudsman Service. This may well be the reason we have no recorded complaint in respect of this or any connected issue.
Legal advice we have received in the past is clear that this is the correct and only construction that can be placed on this wording.
We trust you find this explanation acceptable and certainly so far as we are concerned we have no objection to you publishing this letter to correct the errors that are apparently being propagated.[/GJW]
They said more than this in the email but it was mostly a discussion on what erosion is and their comments on what is covered in the HKJ and Pantaenius policies. If any one is interested in what GJW say about HKJ and Pantaenius let me know and I'll post that too.
So GJW customers are you happy with that?
JFM - does this pass the test?
They said not to worry it would be covered but I asked them to put that in writing which they did by email. Here is what they said on the matter
[GJW]So far as our position is concerned in the event that a part corroded and failed causing damage to any other part or parts providing that the corrosion was neither known nor ought to have been known (because it was obvious or would be discovered by a reasonable inspection) we would consider ourselves on risk for the damage to the other insured parts. That has been our position for upwards of 30 years (which is as far back as we have been able to trace) and we would expect that to be the reasoning of the Financial Ombudsman Service. This may well be the reason we have no recorded complaint in respect of this or any connected issue.
Legal advice we have received in the past is clear that this is the correct and only construction that can be placed on this wording.
We trust you find this explanation acceptable and certainly so far as we are concerned we have no objection to you publishing this letter to correct the errors that are apparently being propagated.[/GJW]
They said more than this in the email but it was mostly a discussion on what erosion is and their comments on what is covered in the HKJ and Pantaenius policies. If any one is interested in what GJW say about HKJ and Pantaenius let me know and I'll post that too.
So GJW customers are you happy with that?
JFM - does this pass the test?
Last edited:
lanerboy
New member
I don't like this little quote as this STILL gives them a get out of jail card imho as they could say it should have been noticed on a weekly inspection etc etc etc
they lost my business as I still did not trust these sort of quotes
burgundyben
Well-known member
Some of you may recall I started this.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?378001-Who-to-insure-with&highlight=
The point which I took away is that all the companies are fine and pay out a 'Jeffery' when you crunch the bathing platform parking.
However...if your boat is a total loss many policies allow too much potential for wiggle room.
The Pants policy is written in such a way that was easy for a layman like me to grasp the concept, they list a set of possible 'events', sinking, grounding, fire, crash, no matter the root cause, if the 'event' happened, then Pants are on risk.
Simples.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?378001-Who-to-insure-with&highlight=
The point which I took away is that all the companies are fine and pay out a 'Jeffery' when you crunch the bathing platform parking.
However...if your boat is a total loss many policies allow too much potential for wiggle room.
The Pants policy is written in such a way that was easy for a layman like me to grasp the concept, they list a set of possible 'events', sinking, grounding, fire, crash, no matter the root cause, if the 'event' happened, then Pants are on risk.
Simples.
LionsDen
New member
Hope you lot check your seacocks on at least an annual basis and don't just rely on insurance cover 
Lions Den had a faulty seacock last February which came to light in Berthon @ 04.00 in the morning with the bilge pump kicking in every 30 minutes - Transpires to be a faulty casting but I would have been covered if the worse case scenario happened.
I check all seacocks every 3 months and operate them to ensure they are not seized.
I know one chap who never touches his seacocks just in case he breaks them - He is not one of us lot btw
Terry
Lions Den had a faulty seacock last February which came to light in Berthon @ 04.00 in the morning with the bilge pump kicking in every 30 minutes - Transpires to be a faulty casting but I would have been covered if the worse case scenario happened.
I check all seacocks every 3 months and operate them to ensure they are not seized.
I know one chap who never touches his seacocks just in case he breaks them - He is not one of us lot btw
Terry
burgundyben
Well-known member
Beer and curry in Yarmouth is £50.
Dinner and wine in our favourite place in Cowes is £100.
Shifting to Pants cost £200 more than I had paid GJW and £50 more than I had paid for a Nav and Gen policy for a decade.
Not a lot is it?
Dinner and wine in our favourite place in Cowes is £100.
Shifting to Pants cost £200 more than I had paid GJW and £50 more than I had paid for a Nav and Gen policy for a decade.
Not a lot is it?
Scubadoo
Well-known member
Hope you lot check your seacocks on at least an annual basis and don't just rely on insurance cover
Lions Den had a faulty seacock last February which came to light in Berthon @ 04.00 in the morning with the bilge pump kicking in every 30 minutes - Transpires to be a faulty casting but I would have been covered if the worse case scenario happened.
I check all seacocks every 3 months and operate them to ensure they are not seized.
I know one chap who never touches his seacocks just in case he breaks them - He is not one of us lot btw
Terry
Just wondered how you check your seacocks every 3 months, what do you do?
For me I check mine annually when the boat is out and that involves scraping the antifouling off the outside fittings to show any signs of pinking and check the fittings don't move etc. Every time I visit the boat I check my seacocks by operating them and check for any signs of leaks/corrosion. I only have two seascocks so it is quite straight forward. I also fitted a customised alarm, so if the bilge pump comes on I get a text message.
But I do wonder what the insurers seems reasonable in terms of maintenance of these things. I also keep a log of all maintenance which may help with insurers, but that wasn't the reason, it was so I could keep track of what has been done and when etc.
Scubadoo
Well-known member
Thanks PEJ, I am with GJW and was going to ask the same question when it is time for renewal. I find their response more reassuring. Basically I think if you do maintenance and keeps records there shouldn't be a problem. I see plenty of boats that get very little attention but still expect insurance to cover them. Only this year, a boat near me bilge pump kept coming on, on inspection with the marina staff it was slowly filling up with water in the engine bay through the outdrive, throughout the night the marina staff visited the boat and manually pumped it out. I later found out the owner knew about this but did nothing, it is those situation I think the insurance what to cover themselves.
PEJ, could you email me on what GJW had to say about HKJ and Pantaenius, thanks.
Last edited:
LionsDen
New member
I do a visual inspection and fully open and close each one half a dozen times or so and do a visual inspection re sign of pinking.
When the boat is lifted out they receive a good squirt of aerosol grease.
Be good to hear your set up for the customised alarm on here or pm me instead - many thanks
Terry
LionsDen
New member
Does anyone on here routinely change there seacocks on a 5 or 10 year basis inc adjacent waste pipes etc as part off there maintenance regime
dj43
Active member
What do others do when not on there boats, re sea cocks, ours are always left turned off, all 14 of them by the sound of it if peps do not inspect them let along use them how can they no of any problems that might be occurring , what is the position of your insurance of a boat left unattended with sea cocks left turned on, anyone who,s worked on there wc,s will be aware that only a single none return valve is holding the water back ,
by the sound of it if peps do not inspect them let along use them how can they no of any problems that might be occurring , what is the position of your insurance of a boat left unattended with sea cocks left turned on, anyone who,s worked on there wc,s will be aware that only a single none return valve is holding the water back ,
rubberduck
Well-known member
Just renewed with Craftinsure, below is an extract from the wording that concerns me slightly. JFM has the full wording so will no doubt comment when he's had time to look at it. Fortunately it can be cancelled at any time !
We will not pay physical loss or damage claims for:
• Wear and tear, depreciation, deterioration, and mildew.
• Any expense incurred in treating the consequences of osmotic action.
• Loss of or damage to motor and electrical machinery and batteries and their connections (with the exception of the shaft and propeller) and metalling unless caused by “atlas” being stranded, sinking from a peril insured against, burnt, on fire or in contact with any external substance (ice included) other than water or by malicious damage or by theft following upon forcible entry to “atlas” or store, or while being removed from or placed in “atlas”, or by fire in store ashore, or by frost (provided all manufacturers recommendations complied with) or by the sudden accidental incursion of water into “atlas”, or by dropping off or falling overboard of outboard motors.
• Loss or damage to consumable stores, fishing gear or moorings.
• Loss of or damage to protective covers or sails split by the wind.
• The cost of repairing, replacing or renewing any defective part in consequence of a latent defect.
Am I wrong of is the sudden accidental incursion of water not what happens when a boat sinks
We will not pay physical loss or damage claims for:
• Wear and tear, depreciation, deterioration, and mildew.
• Any expense incurred in treating the consequences of osmotic action.
• Loss of or damage to motor and electrical machinery and batteries and their connections (with the exception of the shaft and propeller) and metalling unless caused by “atlas” being stranded, sinking from a peril insured against, burnt, on fire or in contact with any external substance (ice included) other than water or by malicious damage or by theft following upon forcible entry to “atlas” or store, or while being removed from or placed in “atlas”, or by fire in store ashore, or by frost (provided all manufacturers recommendations complied with) or by the sudden accidental incursion of water into “atlas”, or by dropping off or falling overboard of outboard motors.
• Loss or damage to consumable stores, fishing gear or moorings.
• Loss of or damage to protective covers or sails split by the wind.
• The cost of repairing, replacing or renewing any defective part in consequence of a latent defect.
Am I wrong of is the sudden accidental incursion of water not what happens when a boat sinks
julians
Well-known member
They're saying they will pay for the motor if the loss or damage is caused by the sudden accidental incursion of water into "atlas".
I've put the key word in CAPS below, If any of the events listed after the "UNLESS" is what caused the loss or damage to motor and machinery, then they will pay for it.
• Loss of or damage to motor and electrical machinery and batteries and their connections (with the exception of the shaft and propeller) and metalling UNLESS caused by “atlas” being stranded, sinking from a peril insured against, burnt, on fire or in contact with any external substance (ice included) other than water or by malicious damage or by theft following upon forcible entry to “atlas” or store, or while being removed from or placed in “atlas”, or by fire in store ashore, or by frost (provided all manufacturers recommendations complied with) or by the sudden accidental incursion of water into “atlas”, or by dropping off or falling overboard of outboard motors.
I've put the key word in CAPS below, If any of the events listed after the "UNLESS" is what caused the loss or damage to motor and machinery, then they will pay for it.
• Loss of or damage to motor and electrical machinery and batteries and their connections (with the exception of the shaft and propeller) and metalling UNLESS caused by “atlas” being stranded, sinking from a peril insured against, burnt, on fire or in contact with any external substance (ice included) other than water or by malicious damage or by theft following upon forcible entry to “atlas” or store, or while being removed from or placed in “atlas”, or by fire in store ashore, or by frost (provided all manufacturers recommendations complied with) or by the sudden accidental incursion of water into “atlas”, or by dropping off or falling overboard of outboard motors.
jfm
Well-known member
Rubberduck, I looked at the craftinsure policy (Zurich) that you emailed. I don't love it. It does not contain a blanket exclusion for damage resulting from corrosion etc, so in that respect it is good. But it is an insured perils policy and so any loss has to fall within one of the perils. A good perils policy imho should be drafted like the Pants, which is also a perils policy, ie state that the typical boater risks of flooding, sinking, grounding, etc are covered. Craftinsure doesn't, so with the seacock scenario the peril you will need positively to be within is physical loss/damage resulting from "external accidental means". You might also get within the peril of "negligence" though that will often be harder than you think. On balance I think you'd just about win on the seacock thing but (and each to their own), I don't like that drafting and wouldn't buy it
In addition, you have no cover for engine damage due to sterngland or rudder gland failure, and the 3P cover doesn't meet my (!) quality standard imho, on the accident-to-boat-fixer point. HKJ and Pantaenius are just better, imho
Last edited:
jfm
Well-known member
Yup - I would change the manufacturer installed ones at 5 years and thereafter at say 6 years (as I would know the quality and bronze nature of the replacements). Changed them all on my brother's boat couple of years ago. On my current boat I found a hosetail that was too pink for my liking. It was an isolated case, they are generally dzr/bronze, but you cannot eliminate a mix up between bronze/brass at the distant end of the supply chain. So I changed it immediately for one I Knew was bronze. You can't be too careful imho and having insurance isn't a reason to skimp - I don't want the boat to sink, insured or not! Also the boat SMS-es both my mobiles if there's water in bilge
jfm
Well-known member
No it doesn't "pass the test". What a crummy bunch GJW are. Let's get a few facts straight:
1. GJW's policy wording is
This Policy does not cover physical loss of or damage:
1. to the Vessel caused by:-
...
(iv) corrosion, rot, rust.....
(v) electrolysis;
As a matter of plain English, that wording means you are not covered if the proximate cause of boat sinking is seacock corrosion/electrolysis. You can all see that as well as I can. This legal advice GJW say they have received in the past will not have said anything different - I invite them to post it here. I do contract stuff at a much higher level than this (I mean a higher level than a law firm advising a small boat insurer) and I'm absolutely correct on the meaning of those policy words, whatever GJW say. Anyone with a basic grasp of English can see that. Also HKJ's lawyers agree with me, and HKJ changed their policy this year - good on 'em for that
2. The same wording was in the policies held by Seahope and the scuttlebutt poster (who wants to be nameless). Their insurers/claims handlers (BIG names in the UK market, but not GJW) refused to pay out, based PRECISELY on those words. This is 100% contrary to what GJW say above
3. In Seahope's case we won by a clever bit of thinking early in proceedings, before any ombudsman intervention. In the scuttlebutt case we appealed to both levels within the ombudsman service and lost - I mean the ombudsman junior + senior levels both specifically and categorically decided (among other things) that these words excluded the boat owner's claim. So do not attach any credence whatsoever to GJW's predictions of what the FOS would say. We won the scuttlebutt case (with 100% payout + interest; insurers got a well deserved bloody nose lesson but it was hard work and my knuckles got pink) just as I was starting legal proceedings based on a clever bit of procedural footwork, but we did not win on the interpretation of those words in the policy, nor could we, nor would I have wasted my breath asking a high court judge to rule that those words allowed the claim to succeed. So, I repeat, GJW are wrong about the FOS
Now, if GJW will pay out on the seacock corrosion scenario then I applaud them for that. That's obviously a good thing. But they're paying DESPITE the policy words not BECAUSE of them. I much prefer to have my insurance and my risk transfer based on CONTRACT not GOODWILL, so I'd still say imho do not buy GJW policy because there are better offerings from others. You PEJ are in a strong position because you have an email from GJW to you on this very point, and that gives you a strong position. Others merely reading this are not in anywhere a near as strong a position
As regard GJW's "correct the errors that are apparently being propagated", that is just incorrect. There are no errors here on my part; GJW are very firmly in error in saying to people that their wording (as distinct from their practice/goodwill/concession) provides payout in the seacock scenario. That is very misleading advice and if someone were to rely on it but buy say Seahope's policy (which has substantially the same wording as GJW), that would result in a bad outcome in the seacock scenario
GJW, if you really care about this just change your policy words. I'll happily read a redraft and sing your praises as I now do HKJ's; I have zero axe to grind other than wanting the folks on here to get good contractual cover for the main risks a boater faces (even at higher premium, but if as you say your practice is to pay out in these circs then you wont need to raise your premium). Others, be very careful before attaching any credence to what GJW write above. GJW's customers shouldn't imho be "happy" (to use PEJ's word), and this doesn't "pass the test".
(Of course we have the classic problem here that GJW are a big name in boat insurance whereas I'm an anonymous internet poster, so people in general are going be inclined to believe the "brand name" GJW rather than the random forum poster guy
. That's a pity and I cant help it; I don't want to get into a badassery competition with GJW employees about who knows more/is right on this stuff )
Last edited:
LionsDen
New member
Yup - I would change the manufacturer installed ones at 5 years and thereafter at say 6 years (as I would know the quality and bronze nature of the replacements). Changed them all on my brother's boat couple of years ago. On my current boat I found a hosetail that was too pink for my liking. It was an isolated case, they are generally dzr/bronze, but you cannot eliminate a mix up between bronze/brass at the distant end of the supply chain. So I changed it immediately for one I Knew was bronze. You can't be too careful imho and having insurance isn't a reason to skimp - I don't want the boat to sink, insured or not! Also the boat SMS-es both my mobiles if there's water in bilge
+1 :encouragement:
jfm
Well-known member
It's entirely up to you, but you might want to reflect on how much you may in law claim you have relied on GJW's email to PEJ. Sure, you'd have a decent leg to stand on, but you'd be wobblier than the HKJ or Pants policyholder. I'd say get yourself a direct contractual right to a payout, which is what an insurance policy is meant to be.
Speaking to the forum generally not you in particular Scubado, pause for a minute and imagine how bad a day our fellow posters mr and mrs seahope had when the insurers refused to pay a c£100k total loss (sinking) and Lombard or whoever asked for the entire outstanding loan balance by the end of the week? He didn't have the cash, but he had equity in the family home that the bank could get. Can you imagine how they felt for a few days? It was a potentially life changing scenario that could set the family finances back several years. Why even go there? I cannot believe how smart folks with big boats cling onto relationships with insurance companies with interior cover, which is what I sense happens on this forum. You're not in love with them for chrissakes, this is just business. Get yourself an insurance contract that makes sure the Seahope scenario will never happen to you - HKJ and Pants are good places to start. Don't rely on a second hand email on an internet forum (with no disrespect meant to PEJ for getting the email from GJW)
When my house burnt down and I claimed £1.4m, the mood of the insurance company (a big UK household name) changed somewhat from the service I'd had till then. I endured 15 months of forensic investigators, lawyers, loss adjusters each from the top firms. Insurers must have spent I guess £150k in professional fees in order not to pay me (it's ok, I won in the end but had sore knuckles
). I had no lawyer so looked like easy pickings initially . They got electronic experts to interrogate the house brain (it was a high tec house) to find things to use against me. They interviewed the fire service, police, neighbours without any representation from me and asked them imho leading questions to get material to use against me. I was told they examined youtubes of the fire to find stuff against me. My point is that insurance companies are all lovely when selling you the policy or paying a small claim, but when you make a life-changing claim they are sometimes not so friendly and what you need to get paid is a CONTRACT that clearly transfers your typical boating risks to the insurer.crazy4557
Member
No it doesn't "pass the test". What a crummy bunch GJW are. Let's get a few facts straight:
1. GJW's policy wording is
This Policy does not cover physical loss of or damage:
1. to the Vessel caused by:-
...
(iv) corrosion, rot, rust.....
(v) electrolysis;
As a matter of plain English, that wording means you are not covered if the proximate cause of boat sinking is seacock corrosion/electrolysis. You can all see that as well as I can. This legal advice GJW say they have received in the past will not have said anything different - I invite them to post it here. I do contract stuff at a much higher level than this (I mean a higher level than a law firm advising a small boat insurer) and I'm absolutely correct on the meaning of those policy words, whatever GJW say. Anyone with a basic grasp of English can see that. Also HKJ's lawyers agree with me, and HKJ changed their policy this year - good on 'em for that
2. The same wording was in the policies held by Seahope and the scuttlebutt poster (who wants to be nameless). Their insurers/claims handlers (BIG names in the UK market, but not GJW) refused to pay out, based PRECISELY on those words. This is 100% contrary to what GJW say above
3. In Seahope's case we won by a clever bit of thinking early in proceedings, before any ombudsman intervention. In the scuttlebutt case we appealed to both levels within the ombudsman service and lost - I mean the ombudsman junior + senior levels both specifically and categorically decided (among other things) that these words excluded the boat owner's claim. So do not attach any credence whatsoever to GJW's predictions of what the FOS would say. We won the scuttlebutt case (with 100% payout + interest; insurers got a well deserved bloody nose lesson but it was hard work and my knuckles got pink) just as I was starting legal proceedings based on a clever bit of procedural footwork, but we did not win on the interpretation of those words in the policy, nor could we, nor would I have wasted my breath asking a high court judge to rule that those words allowed the claim to succeed. So, I repeat, GJW are wrong about the FOS
Now, if GJW will pay out on the seacock corrosion scenario then I applaud them for that. That's obviously a good thing. But they're paying DESPITE the policy words not BECAUSE of them. I much prefer to have my insurance and my risk transfer based on CONTRACT not GOODWILL, so I'd still say imho do not buy GJW policy because there are better offerings from others. You PEJ are in a strong position because you have an email from GJW to you on this very point, and that gives you a strong position. Others merely reading this are not in anywhere a near as strong a position
As regard GJW's "correct the errors that are apparently being propagated", that is just incorrect. There are no errors here on my part; GJW are very firmly in error in saying to people that their wording (as distinct from their practice/goodwill/concession) provides payout in the seacock scenario. That is very misleading advice and if someone were to rely on it but buy say Seahope's policy (which has substantially the same wording as GJW), that would result in a bad outcome in the seacock scenario
GJW, if you really care about this just change your policy words. I'll happily read a redraft and sing your praises as I now do HKJ's; I have zero axe to grind other than wanting the folks on here to get good contractual cover for the main risks a boater faces (even at higher premium, but if as you say your practice is to pay out in these circs then you wont need to raise your premium). Others, be very careful before attaching any credence to what GJW write above. GJW's customers shouldn't imho be "happy" (to use PEJ's word), and this doesn't "pass the test".
(Of course we have the classic problem here that GJW are a big name in boat insurance whereas I'm an anonymous internet poster, so people in general are going be inclined to believe the "brand name" GJW rather than the random forum poster guy
Following my conversation with GJW on this very clause my stance at the end didn't change despite their assurances that they are nice people and market leaders. As far as I was concerned GJW can and possibly always stand by their policy wording and if they don't want to pay they won't. As JFM says above, a goodwill payment is very honourable but they are an insurance company and they play by their rules not ours.
I'm happy that I have changed to another insurer even after 10+ years but I would revert back to them if their policy wording changed for the better and they were competitive.
burgundyben
Well-known member
There's the nub of the matter and that's why I'm with Pants. It seems to be a hard concept for some to grasp.
Exactly.
