Leaving Shore Power Connected.

[petem]

As has been said many times, those in the know consider "Y" to be the most comprehensive policy.

 

[petem]

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 ACCIDENTAL was covered unless there was an explicit exclusion.

Fixed that for you.

 

[maby]

Fixed that for you.

That's your interpretation - which may be true in practice - but it was not their response - they specifically said that any loss that wan not the subject of a specific exclusion was covered.

 

[petem]

That's your interpretation - which may be true in practice - but it was not their response - they specifically said that any loss that wan not the subject of a specific exclusion was covered.

It's not my interpretation it's what it says in the policy!

What is covered

1 Whilst ashore or afloat, being lifted, hauled out or launched, in transit by road, rail, air or car ferry the Vessel is covered for losses arising from:

1.1 all risks of accidental damage;

 

[petem]

Note that the Pants policy contains the following exclusion....

"loss of or damage to the yacht that is attributable to your recklessness or that of the legal or beneficial owner of the yacht;"

I'd be interested to know what they regard as reckless.

The "Y" policy doesn't contain such a clause.

 

[Momac]

Reckless means ‘’heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions’’.

Leaving shore power connected on a boat that is designed for the same with a suitable breakers and consumer unit doesn’t seem to me to be reckless. Indeed, it is using the equipment as it is intended and is common practice.

Nothing is completely free of risk – that’s why we have insurance.

 

[BartW]

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"

ha ha, I like that statement

 

[Seastoke]

I think it would be prudent by any owner to have their shore power lead pat tested annually, therefore showing you have done what you could also have the dehumidifier done , what £3 each if that

 

[John100156]

Is a simple power supply cable a Portable Appliance...?

 

[John100156]

I know it is of course and have my own PAT tester, but surely just simple regular inspection is sufficient, unless of course you leave it dangling in sea water for months, which is what I observed in our marina to several boats this month. I got fed-up pulling them up onto the pontoon in the end....! Even saw one with an electrical connection taped-up in the water, not ideal!

 

[Seastoke]

I know it is of course and have my own PAT tester, but surely just simple regular inspection is sufficient, unless of course you leave it dangling in sea water for months, which is what I observed in our marina to several boats this month. I got fed-up pulling them up onto the pontoon in the end....! Even saw one with an electrical connection taped-up in the water, not ideal!

What I mean john is say the dehumidifier set the boat on fire ,if you have had it tested , you can prove you have done the most you could.

 

[John100156]

I do understand, nothing wrong with undertaking all reasonable tests to ensure all appliances and cables are in good order, totally support that argument. Anything you can to mitigate risk can only be a good thing. You do see some horrors sometimes.

Leaving anything live whilst away from the boat is of course a risk, but I would assess that risk to be very low, certainly in my case, as I only leave my charger on that's designed to operate in that state. Like many maintained emergency and escape lighting systems in buildings.

I would not seek my insurers permission, prefer to keep it off their radar. Happy to challenge any argument from insurers should a problem occur.

It would be simple I suppose to install fire detection and alarm systems on a boat that could be interfaced to isolate power but in my opinion this would be over engineering. I carried out a similar poll to this many years ago, think that may have been on SCM Forum and IIRC the results were broadly similar - around 3:1 in favor of leaving connected....!

 

[Sandyshore]

Pants have two policies one comes under the control of the Financial Conduct Authority whom I would doubt support a declinature of a claim based on "Grossly negligent" unless the boat owner was reckless which is far reaching in legal jargon.
The other policy from Pants being Yachting 24 which is outside of Financial Conduct Authority and may have a different interpretation in a German Court of law.

Y is a broker who offers MSAmlin as insurer .Might pay to check with the insurer MSAmlin the interpretation of insurance cover available ..After all they are the decision makers.

 

[jrudge]

when I spoke with the MD of Y a while ago they actually have wide powers to decide what to pay and what not to. That will have some limits I assume but their model is they underweight and authorise the claims.

 

[petem]

Pants have two policies one comes under the control of the Financial Conduct Authority whom I would doubt support a declinature of a claim based on "Grossly negligent" unless the boat owner was reckless which is far reaching in legal jargon.
The other policy from Pants being Yachting 24 which is outside of Financial Conduct Authority and may have a different interpretation in a German Court of law.

I don't know where Gross negligence comes from in the posts above. But as I said in a previous post, the Pants policy contains the clause...

"loss of or damage to the yacht that is attributable to your recklessness"

...so a policyholder could find themselves in court trying to justify that their actions were not reckless. Why anyone would choose a policy with this exclusion, when there are better policies available, is beyond me.

 

[TwoHooter]

.....Might pay to check with the insurer MSAmlin the interpretation of insurance cover available ..After all they are the decision makers.

EDIT: I wrote this at the same time as Jrudge was writing his post above and he finished first. I have deleted "Y" from my examples.

I think this is the lesson which most people end up learning the hard way if anything goes wrong. The people we think of as "Insurers" (Pantaenius etc.) are NOT actually insurance companies at all. What they do is design policies which they want to market, find underwriters who will underwrite (and, usually, re-insure) the risks, then offer the policies to the market. Sometimes different risks which the policy covers will be underwritten by different underwriters. But the company you buy the policy from isn't really the insurer and if there is a claim all the important decisions will be taken by the underwriters. It's nothing like the old days where you could buy an insurance policy from a company like Commercial Union who would underwrite their own policies. In practice what this means is that however much the "insurer" would like to accept your claim for a fire if the underwriter says they won't pay because you had shore power connected you are stuffed. And you can't talk to the underwriter directly. You have to go via the claims handler at the "insurer". Sometimes the "insurer" doesn't even do its own claims handling, it sub-contracts that elsewhere. I experienced this recently when I made a claim under a car hire excess insurance policy.

 

[petem]

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

Who have you moved to Porto?

 

[petem]

EDIT: I wrote this at the same time as Jrudge was writing his post above and he finished first. I have deleted "Y" from my examples.

I think this is the lesson which most people end up learning the hard way if anything goes wrong. The people we think of as "Insurers" (Pantaenius etc.) are NOT actually insurance companies at all. What they do is design policies which they want to market, find underwriters who will underwrite (and, usually, re-insure) the risks, then offer the policies to the market. Sometimes different risks which the policy covers will be underwritten by different underwriters. But the company you buy the policy from isn't really the insurer and if there is a claim all the important decisions will be taken by the underwriters. It's nothing like the old days where you could buy an insurance policy from a company like Commercial Union who would underwrite their own policies. In practice what this means is that however much the "insurer" would like to accept your claim for a fire if the underwriter says they won't pay because you had shore power connected you are stuffed. And you can't talk to the underwriter directly. You have to go via the claims handler at the "insurer". Sometimes the "insurer" doesn't even do its own claims handling, it sub-contracts that elsewhere. I experienced this recently when I made a claim under a car hire excess insurance policy.

I disagree. It's somewhat irrelevant who the insurer or broker is, what's important is the cover provided by the policy as specified in the Policy Document. It's that that you'll be waving in front of the Insurance Ombudsman and ultimately the courts. People shouldn't make the assumption that policies sold by different insurer are the same. As I've tried to illustrate above, they vary greatly. It's really important to take 10 minutes to read the policy before you buy. And ideally avoid any policies that contain subjective terms such as "recklessness". in the grand scheme of things (the cost of running a boat) the difference between a cheap crappy policy riddled with exclusions and the best ones is trivial.

 

[petem]

I experienced this recently when I made a claim under a car hire excess insurance policy.

I'm in no way minted but I no longer hire cars that have any excess whatsoever (life is too short to be arguing with these people / taking photos of cards before and after a rental)!

 

[Portofino]

Who have you moved to Porto?

It’s with N+G part of Zurich .Its on the boat .
Colemans are the broker / claims handler .
I’ve used Coleman’s since buying a S/Sker from the factory in 2005 .
Underwriters have changed over the years .
Zurich
MS Amlin
Martello was a sub group of MS Amlin
now Navigators + General

I leave it up to he broker to twitch a muscle and find a suitable policy .This is after outlining my intended use .

Its got the “ reckless” Clause in but I dont leave any AC appliances on .......only the uber modern charger cum battery conditioner and the batts are all sealed .Its designed to be on full time .
Aside I have paperwork to support the ER fire extinguisher date etc .

Not worried at all by the “reckless “ wording , in relation to my particular charger / batt arrangement.
Nor worried about the Zurich replace with a like for like risk .A total loss would be pretty inconsequential tbo .
Wouldn't loose sleep of being offered a Otam or Magnum if they couldn't find another Itama .
Obviously with a bespoke higher value item i can see that replacement clause being a deal breaker ......I get that !
They rarely do that anyhow in terms of it’s just easier to write a cheque .That clause is basically for say a 20 ft Norfolk broads cruiser ....stuff at that end .

How ever turning to the 2 nd forum insurance row ( Ok hands up i instigated it ) .....leaving your boat @ anchor in a typical med fashion to go ashore Zurich ( at the time I took the policy ** ) has got more clarity .
I can leave it unattended and be covered in a “ Recognised mooring “

Recognised mooring: A professionally laid and maintained yacht mooring or sheltered anchorage which appears in a marine publication such as a chart, almanac or area/pilotage

Where as as per Two Hooter ^^^^ I did get Colemans to go back to MSAmlin as you recall and got back “ line of sight and ability to rtn in 30 mins “ for unattended @ anchor .
JFM wisely went through a scenarios like if out side initially and it rains and move indoors loosing sight etc .
Plus you might not want always to be in “ line of sight “ etc .

As you know i,am firmly in the camp know thy enemy so if you can send a written Q up to the underwriters via the broker for clarity , and get back a written answer why not ?

Unattended: The insured property is unattended if you, or somebody appointed on your behalf, is not in a position to monitor the insured property and able to go to its immediate aid in the event of an incident or external inter


Also for me moving to Italy and planning some big trips I thought theses items a welcomed additions / trade off
• contaminated fuel
*Vet bills up £500


I listed the 4 Underwriters Pete in 15 years to illustrate the every changing goal posts .
** that’s the point it’s a for ever changing playing field .