just insured the boat again but did more digging this year

[lanerboy]

(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 . )

I don't think so John, I would bet most the regulars on here will believe you over GJW every time I did that's why I changed from them to Pants

 

[PEJ]

No it doesn't "pass the test". What a crummy bunch GJW are. Let's get a few facts straight:
............

John,

I am sure that everyone on here will join with me in thanking you for the time and effort you have put in to posting your expert knowledge on here to help us to make sure we have the right insurance policy. As Shawn has said, I know who am going to listen to.

GJW tell me that they have been following this thread but don't want to comment directly on here but they have had discussions at the highest level on the matters raised. I shall be urging them to do as HKJ did and change their wording. I'll let this thread know how I get on.

 

[PEJ]

Here is the first part of the email from GJW.......


We are grateful to you for bringing to our attention the thread appearing on YBW. We have a specific group that consider all these matters called “the Customer Focus Group”.

They have looked at other policies. The Haven policy excludes Gradual Deterioration. The Pantaenius UK policy excludes “electrolysis, wear and tear, faulty materials, faulty design and construction, latent defect” but goes on to provide for cover in respect of consequential damage to any other part of the insured property caused by the failure of any part due to the defect providing an insured peril also occurred.

It is far from clear that the Pantaenius policy gives anything beyond our own policy because there also has to be an insured peril and if the “cause” is “wear and tear” what other insured peril would there be? Probably none.

Furthermore corrosion is defined as the gradual destruction of materials (usually metals) by chemical reaction with their environment. That is certainly gradual deterioration and wear and tear.

Corrosion is just one aspect of wear and tear. So far as concerns causation this is a complex area and has troubled the courts on more occasions than anyone would care to remember.

Against this background it does seem to us that some of the discussion appears to be ill-informed.

 

[jfm]

Here is the first part of the email from GJW.......


We are grateful to you for bringing to our attention the thread appearing on YBW. We have a specific group that consider all these matters called “the Customer Focus Group”.

They have looked at other policies. The Haven policy excludes Gradual Deterioration. The Pantaenius UK policy excludes “electrolysis, wear and tear, faulty materials, faulty design and construction, latent defect” but goes on to provide for cover in respect of consequential damage to any other part of the insured property caused by the failure of any part due to the defect providing an insured peril also occurred.

It is far from clear that the Pantaenius policy gives anything beyond our own policy because there also has to be an insured peril and if the “cause” is “wear and tear” what other insured peril would there be? Probably none.

Furthermore corrosion is defined as the gradual destruction of materials (usually metals) by chemical reaction with their environment. That is certainly gradual deterioration and wear and tear.

Corrosion is just one aspect of wear and tear. So far as concerns causation this is a complex area and has troubled the courts on more occasions than anyone would care to remember.

Against this background it does seem to us that some of the discussion appears to be ill-informed.

This is getting ridiculous. GJW are now uttering some rubbish imho, and doing no-one any favours especially themselves. This is all in my opinion ("imho") and where I say GJW say something I am of course relying on and referring only to PEJ's reports of what they say; I have nothing first hand from GJW

1. The insured peril in the case of Pantaenius is sinking. GJW's criticism of the policy seems to be that there is no cover unless the insured peril is a proximate cause of the loss, as distinct from something that merely has to occur. If the seacock fizzes away, and the boat sinks, then the peril of "sinking " has occurred, or to use the policy section A vernacular it has "operated". I do not love Pantaenius's clarity of drafting here but in the round when you read their part A in its entirety (see esp the 3rd para under Section A) together with the italicised para in B4 which expressly says a peril merely has to occur, I'm confident the insured peril of sinking/flooding needs only to occur, not be itself a proximate cause. Indeed sinking, like fire and explosion, is invariably a consequence of something, not a proximate cause of some other boat owner's property loss. In conclusion therefore the Pantaenius policy works in this regard, imho. Then as ever you have to look at the exclusion clauses, and Pantaenius excludes the £50 cost of the fizzed seacock but not the consequences of the seacock fizzing. Job done; you're covered.

2. HKJ's new policy, in this scenario, only fails to pay if (a) the sinking is caused by gradual degradation (which includes galvanic action/electrolysis/corrosion) AND IF (b) the gradual degradation could have been identified by routine inspection or could have been prevented by servicing according to manufacturer instructions/generally accepted practice/surveyor advice. (I have paraphrased slightly). The upshot is that if you have brass seacocks you'd need to changed them at 5 years, and bronze at whatever intervals are "officially" quoted for bronze, etc.

3. I have to say that I find GJW's selective quotation of HKJ's policy above disingenuous: they write "The Haven policy excludes Gradual Deterioration" without explaining that HKJ's definition of GD creates more cover for the policy holder than the words "gradual deterioration" would on their own. It's very bad form of you GJW to do this. The correct view on HKJ is as stated in #2 immediately above

4. I'd also remind readers, as mentioned earlier, that HKJ might amend this already-good wording even more in favour of the policyholder, in the case of good quality risks.

5. In contrast, the GJW policy fails to pay if the seacock fizzes away. End of. It doesn't matter that you were as assiduous as any boat owner could be. It doesn't help if you changed it 2 years ago and the manufacturer says they're good for 7 years, or that a survey commented positively on your seacocks recently, or that you are 2x as diligent as Joe Average. The mere fact it corroded/fizzed away is enough to mean you are not covered. Likewise the mere fact your masthead fitting corroded causing the mast to fall down means you're not covered for a new rig. Precisely as happened to the two posters on this forum, so I'm not inventing hypothetical scenarios to make a point.

6. So GJW, it might be "It is far from clear" to you "that the Pantaenius policy gives anything beyond our own policy" but it is crystal clear to me and many others (and it is equally clear as regards HKJ) imho.

7. Moving away from seacocks, the 3P cover with HKJ and Pantaenius is materially better than GJW's imho, in the case of self employed workers a la volvopaul working on your boat ( a fact that not only the policy holder but also volvopaul will appreciate)​

GJW, cut out the disingenuous description of the cover your competitors provide and just amend your own policy. Not difficult and you could be done by the start of next season if you start now. This is i think the biggest boating forum in the UK and everyone will sing your praises if you do - you are a much liked big name in this market. There are no axes being ground here; people just want confidence that they have contractual cover for the main risks a boat owner faces, following the painful history of posters on this forum suffering payout refusals when they suffered big losses that had "corrosion" somewhere in the causation chain. Heck, you even say above that it is your policy to pay in these circumstances anyway!

 

[swifty]

JFM thank you for your time and expertise on this matter, my policy is due renewal at the end of the year. I will be leaving GJW and moving to Pantaenius.

Well done!!!!!

 

[jfm]

JFM thank you for your time and expertise on this matter, my policy is due renewal at the end of the year. I will be leaving GJW and moving to Pantaenius.

Well done!!!!!

It's rather a shame GJW don't just get on with it and fix their policy. Maybe they will announce something in time for your renewal.

I would suggest you do not jump automatically to Pantaenius. Take a look at the new HKJ policy as well. When you weigh everything up I'd say that for a diligent boater with a sensible maintenance attitude, the HKJ policy is as good as Pantaenius's, and both firms are (like GJW) known for being nice people with good customer service. Take a look at both, compare premiums, and choose the one you prefer, imho

 

[Scubadoo]

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

I will put something together and send it to you.

 

[Scubadoo]

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.

Thanks JFM for your guidance, appreciated. Something to think about when it comes to renewal, but if I was to stay with GJW then I would get it in writing and not rely on PEJ post.

 

[MystereMarcus]

I realise that this thread has been superseded by other insurance threads but I think it's the correct place to add my insurance experience. I insure with Navigators and General through Coleman Brokers. As my renewal was due I decided to go through the documentation for the cover, a copy of which can be found here:
http://www.zurich.co.uk/internet/home/sitecollectiondocuments/navandgen/ng87908yachtmotorboatpolicydoc.pdf
In the Accidental Cover section it states that you are not covered for
• wear, tear, depreciation or gradual deterioration.
• loss or damage resulting from electrolysis, osmosis or like conditions.

I raised concerns with Coleman about this, stating how I maintain the boat to minimise any failures and under the circumstances I would like to be covered for all eventualities (e.g. a failed seacock). I also supplied a link to this thread to show the actions of other insurers.
I have been very impressed with the reply from both Coleman and Navigators, Coleman’s representative was very helpful in agreeing with what I was asking and representing this to Navigators. Navigators have replied to me in writing that they will cover my boat for accidental loss minus the cost of the cause of the failure, giving the example of sinking by a failed seacock, they would pay for the boat but not the cost of a new seacock.
I understand that they are now looking into updating their policy to offer this cover as standard but understand there are many compliance procedures to follow so I’m not sure how long this will take.
Whilst these discussions were taking place my insurance had lapsed but Coleman continued the cover.
All in all I’m happy with the outcome and would like to give credit where it is due.

 

[rafiki_]

H

I realise that this thread has been superseded by other insurance threads but I think it's the correct place to add my insurance experience. I insure with Navigators and General through Coleman Brokers. As my renewal was due I decided to go through the documentation for the cover, a copy of which can be found here:
http://www.zurich.co.uk/internet/home/sitecollectiondocuments/navandgen/ng87908yachtmotorboatpolicydoc.pdf
In the Accidental Cover section it states that you are not covered for
• wear, tear, depreciation or gradual deterioration.
• loss or damage resulting from electrolysis, osmosis or like conditions.

I raised concerns with Coleman about this, stating how I maintain the boat to minimise any failures and under the circumstances I would like to be covered for all eventualities (e.g. a failed seacock). I also supplied a link to this thread to show the actions of other insurers.
I have been very impressed with the reply from both Coleman and Navigators, Coleman’s representative was very helpful in agreeing with what I was asking and representing this to Navigators. Navigators have replied to me in writing that they will cover my boat for accidental loss minus the cost of the cause of the failure, giving the example of sinking by a failed seacock, they would pay for the boat but not the cost of a new seacock.
I understand that they are now looking into updating their policy to offer this cover as standard but understand there are many compliance procedures to follow so I’m not sure how long this will take.
Whilst these discussions were taking place my insurance had lapsed but Coleman continued the cover.
All in all I’m happy with the outcome and would like to give credit where it is due.

I too have a very positive relationship with Coleman's, and went through a similar process a year ago. i renewed with them in August as a result.

 

[robertj]

It's rather a shame GJW don't just get on with it and fix their policy. Maybe they will announce something in time for your renewal.

I would suggest you do not jump automatically to Pantaenius. Take a look at the new HKJ policy as well. When you weigh everything up I'd say that for a diligent boater with a sensible maintenance attitude, the HKJ policy is as good as Pantaenius's, and both firms are (like GJW) known for being nice people with good customer service. Take a look at both, compare premiums, and choose the one you prefer, imho

Thankyou so much for your input and expertise. I have been with GJW for 10years plus but will not renew with them again.
It is a shame but as you said business is business.