Leaving Shore Power Connected.

[oceanfroggie]

Leave ours plugged in and smart battery charger on to keep batteries afloat. Also for heater and dehumidifier during winter weather in storage shed or in the water. Advantage of leaving battery charger on is bilge pumps are not going to run out of battery in the event of any mishap. Heating left on to prevent any frost damage and enables dehumidifier work more reliably in winter.

 

[Scubadoo]

It´s a pity that nobody answers my question. No matter, I made a query to my insurance company Pantenius.
My inquiry with the insurer showed that a damage due to a permanent unattended shore power connection can be rated as grossly negligent...

But what does "permanent unattended shore power" mean. If you check your boat every few weeks or once month, is that permanent unattended shore power.

 

[Orthop]

Motivated through this thread I asked my Insurance Company Pantenius yesterday . They gave me the answer today.
In the event of damage caused by gross negligence, the insurer is entitled to reduce its benefits, in proportion to the severity of the fault...
And Pantenius told me that a permanent unattended shore power connection can be rated as grossly negligent...
In case of damage with a total loss up to 10. 000 EUR, the insurer waives this objection. So with Pantenius Germany.

Perhaps it should be not bad to ask the personal Insurance Company.
I hope I got the right words as English is not my first language (which you have probably already noticed?)

 

[TwoHooter]

We leave shore power connected to preserve our very expensive batteries and keep a tiny bit of background heat on during the winter, and we have a Solwise Envirotxt to send a text message if shore power goes off.
But the cost of marina electricity is becoming eye-watering. Just got the first bill from this winter's berth and it is £0.1657 per unit for power plus £0.0704 service charge, total just under 24p per kWh. To us that's amazingly high. Never seen a price like that before. £150.82 from 31/10/19 to 18/12/19, admittedly we were on the boat quite a bit. We have 4 token solar panels and a decent MPPT controller - at these prices it will definitely pay to work out a way to put a lot more panels on the boat.

Re. the comments about Pantaenius saying that leaving shore power on might be grossly negligent. That's mad - what if batteries go flat and a bilge pump can't work and the boat sinks? Mind you, I'm half way through fighting a Pants claim at the moment and I'm ready to believe anything (bad) about them.

 

[Momac]

It would seem Pantenius is not a suitable insurer for people who like to leave shore power connected when the boat is unattended.

 

[Portofino]

Actuarial risk is what drives the decisions I suspect .
Unattended boats , the penny has dropped = potentially a larger pay out , than an attended boat .

Remember I enquired innocently about a wishy washy unclear wording regarding leaving a boat unattended at anchor .Scene was basically a calm Med , popular anchorage in the high season with us going ashore to a beachside restaurant.Got back from Amlin the underwriters “ line of sight and ability to rtn with 1/2 hr “ or words to that effect .

So with shore power I guess it’s fire and I further give a sub set of risk home DIY electrics and various house hold appliances like heaters / dehumidifier etc . Un maintained wet acid bats , poorly maintained fire auto extinguishers in the ER .

With both examples the ins Co s have not the time patients or inclination to qualify each proposed case of “ unattended “ and would rather for simplicity just broad brush a easily winner able set of rules which they can uphold in refuting a claim ( in there eyes according to the legal eagles on this forum ) on each point .

The Pants position on shore power is incompatible with most Med boaters and equally is the Amlin position of unattended @ anchor .

Choose your poison.

 

[petem]

Actuarial risk is what drives the decisions I suspect .
Unattended boats , the penny has dropped = potentially a larger pay out , than an attended boat .

Remember I enquired innocently about a wishy washy unclear wording regarding leaving a boat unattended at anchor .Scene was basically a calm Med , popular anchorage in the high season with us going ashore to a beachside restaurant.Got back from Amlin the underwriters “ line of sight and ability to rtn with 1/2 hr “ or words to that effect .

So with shore power I guess it’s fire and I further give a sub set of risk home DIY electrics and various house hold appliances like heaters / dehumidifier etc . Un maintained wet acid bats , poorly maintained fire auto extinguishers in the ER .

With both examples the ins Co s have not the time patients or inclination to qualify each proposed case of “ unattended “ and would rather for simplicity just broad brush a easily winner able set of rules which they can uphold in refuting a claim ( in there eyes according to the legal eagles on this forum ) on each point .

The Pants position on shore power is incompatible with most Med boaters and equally is the Amlin position of unattended @ anchor .

Choose your poison.

Honestly, I've never heard such a load of bollocks. How can something that 75% if people (as witnessed by this poll) be regarded as gross negligence!

Incidentally, my poison is to choose an insurer who doesn't make up exclusions that aren't present in the policy document.

I would be interested to know what Pants would say if Orthop phoned them up and asked if he was covered in the event that his boat sprang a minor leak then sunk because the batteries ran flat due to the bilge pump constantly running and the charger not being connected to the main.

 

[Portofino]

Honestly, I've never heard such a load of bollocks. How can something that 75% if people (as witnessed by this poll) be regarded as gross negligence!
Petes quote ^^^^


This “ poll “ is treated the same as turkeys having a poll to ban Christmas.........I can assure you regardless of the % ......turkey will on the table next Christmas.

Exclusion list
The onus if the prospective policy holder has any doubts what is or is not covered is to simply enquire for clarity .....up front preferably. Broker worth his salt invites enquires/ clarification before selling , and consults the underwriters.
Ideally the answer is in writing for future reference if applicable.
What s wrong taking that approach?

 

[petem]

We've discussed the perils of your approach at length and I have no intention of repeating the arguments again!

 

[maby]

...

Re. the comments about Pantaenius saying that leaving shore power on might be grossly negligent. That's mad - what if batteries go flat and a bilge pump can't work and the boat sinks? Mind you, I'm half way through fighting a Pants claim at the moment and I'm ready to believe anything (bad) about them.

That is both interesting and surprising - Pants are expensive compared with most insurers, but widely regarded as the best policy. I guess the trouble is that claims are really quite rare and we assess the quality of insurance companies based of limited evidence and hearsay.

 

[Portofino]

We've discussed the perils of your approach at length and I have no intention of repeating the arguments again!

In post #67 you quoted me and then asked a question “ how can ........// ..... “ etc .
So politely I took that at face value it was aimed at me , you requested some sort of engagement?

Seems odd adopting ostrich syndrome, hoping for the best , you are covered etc ....then later finding out in writing, in this case shore power Seemingly unattended with Pants , and in the other case leaving a boat unattended @ anchor with a Amlin based architecture policy , you are not covered in there eyes in certain circumstances.

Why not easily find out by asking beforehand? clarify any wishy washy wording or silence .

btw I,am with neither at the mo ........after finding a underwriter that better fits covering our intended use pattern .

How ever no harm in alerting others on here to any ins current Co Achilles heals .

 

[Orthop]

Honestly, I've never heard such a load of bollocks. How can something that 75% if people (as witnessed by this poll) be regarded as gross negligence!

Incidentally, my poison is to choose an insurer who doesn't make up exclusions that aren't present in the policy document.

I would be interested to know what Pants would say if Orthop phoned them up and asked if he was covered in the event that his boat sprang a minor leak then sunk because the batteries ran flat due to the bilge pump constantly running and the charger not being connected to the main.

I did Pete and asked Pants and that´s their answer:

"You or a commissioned person should then check the boat regularly and charge the batteries if necessary.
We assume that the pumps do not run continuously and are therefore not always empty."

Sorry that I can´t give any advice. So the final decision wether it could be a gross negligence or not, lies at least only by a court with appreceation of all circumstances and under consultation with an expert…imho.

 

[petem]

I did Pete and asked Pants and that´s their answer:

"You or a commissioned person should then check the boat regularly and charge the batteries if necessary.
We assume that the pumps do not run continuously and are therefore not always empty."

Sorry that I can´t give any advice. So the final decision wether it could be a gross negligence or not, lies at least only by a court with appreceation of all circumstances and under consultation with an expert…imho.

Feels like you are digging a deeper hole for yourself. For example, how frequent is "regularly" (weekly, monthly)? Every time you ask a question like this you are creating wiggle room for them to refuse a claim.

 

[Momac]

I think it sounds like Pantenius are also digging their own hole.

 

[Orthop]

Feels like you are digging a deeper hole for yourself. For example, how frequent is "regularly" (weekly, monthly)? Every time you ask a question like this you are creating wiggle room for them to refuse a claim.

No! This is not a reaction of a single inquiry or even a moment. This are the statements of a insurance company to some points, and up to now ...imho... not a bad one. Isn´t it better to know the basic principles rather than getting the big Enlightenment after... Obviously it cannot be said , that i am digging a hole for myself or anyone.

 

[TwoHooter]

I want to know whether Pantaenius are the only marine insurer who consider that it is grossly negligent of a recreational boat owner to keep shore power connected to their boat at all times. For the reasons given above I consider their position to be unacceptable.

 

[maby]

I want to know whether Pantaenius are the only marine insurer who consider that it is grossly negligent of a recreational boat owner to keep shore power connected to their boat at all times. For the reasons given above I consider their position to be unacceptable.

I'm not sure that is strictly true, is it? The messages quoted above seem to indicate that they are only requiring that the boat be inspected regularly - which is not too unusual.

 

[petem]

No! This is not a reaction of a single inquiry or even a moment. This are the statements of a insurance company to some points, and up to now ...imho... not a bad one. Isn´t it better to know the basic principles rather than getting the big Enlightenment after... Obviously it cannot be said , that i am digging a hole for myself or anyone.

I will try and explain this one last time.

My ('Y') insurance policy is an All Risks one covering me for accidental damage. "Accidental" means "happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly".

I have a smart battery charger has a storage mode, specifically designed for leaving the batteries on charge for long periods. The charger reduces the charging voltage to eliminate any charge of gassing.

So in the unlikely event that my boat catches fire, I can claim that this is something that has "happened by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly" and my claim will be paid. That's simple black and white legal/contract stuff. There's no way that they could accuse me of being negligent or reckless.

However, you have now given your insurer the opportunity to dispute your claim as they have told you that leaving your battery charger permanently on is gross negligence. They've effectively created an exclusion for no reduction in premium.

Consider this. What happens if you accidentally forget to disconnect your shorepower when you leave your boat and the battery charger causes a fire (unlikely I know)? You will find that your insurer will refuse to pay your claim.

And to make matters worse, if your routine is to leave your battery charger off and your boat springs a leak, the batteries are depleted and the boat sinks. You will find yourself having to prove to the insurer that your maintenance routine has ensured that your batteries were regularly checked and charged. God only know what they mean by regularly (do them mean weekly for example)? And how do they expect you to check the batteries, do you need to load test them with a multimeter?

 

[TwoHooter]

I'm not sure that is strictly true, is it? The messages quoted above seem to indicate that they are only requiring that the boat be inspected regularly - which is not too unusual.

I did Pete and asked Pants and that´s their answer:
"You or a commissioned person should then check the boat regularly and charge the batteries if necessary...."

My interpretation of Orthop's post is that Pants are saying the charger should only be turned on if an inspection shows that the batteries need to be charged. Which implies (to me at least) that the charger (and again by implication the shore power) should be turned off at all other times.
Given that our boat is worth more than our house, and it is connected to shore power at all times, and Pants are our insurer, and I've already had one problem with them this year (a claim which is currently in the hands of lawyers) I regard this issue as being one which legitimately causes me a considerable amount of concern.
Perhaps if anyone from Pantaenius reads this forum it is high time they stepped in to give some guidance.
Alternatively, another insurer may want to take the opportunity to differentiate their policy from that which Pantaenius offers.

However, you have now given your insurer the opportunity to dispute your claim as they have told you that leaving your battery charger permanently on is gross negligence. They've effectively created an exclusion for no reduction in premium.

I agree with that, but during the 50+ years I have been an insured party I have often asked insurers to clarify cover and policy terms, both for personal and business insurances, and I can't recall a single previous instance where the answer I have received has made me decide to find another insurer and cancel my existing cover. If you walk down the pontoons of any British marina you will find over half the boats (I'd say more like three quarters as reflected in the straw poll above) are continuously connected to shore power. If Pants are seriously suggesting that their claims experience persuades them that this practice constitutes gross negligence then we need to know why that is.

 

[maby]

My interpretation of Orthop's post is that Pants are saying the charger should only be turned on if an inspection shows that the batteries need to be charged. Which implies (to me at least) that the charger (and again by implication the shore power) should be turned off at all other times.

...

I agree that the wording is ambiguous - which is a very bad thing when it is on an insurance policy. A couple of years ago, following a similar thread to this on this forum, I called my insurer (Y) to ask if I would be covered if a dehumidifier caught fire on an unattended yacht. Their answer was that their policy was "all risks" which meant that everything was covered unless there was an explicit exclusion.