LiFePO4 and insurance

[pessimist]

We've been considering a change to this battery type. We are virtual liveaboards during the summer, usually off grid, and these seem to have many advantages for this kind of usage. Before proceeding we thought we would check with or insurers. The following is an excerpt from their reply.

===========================================================

Please note that discussions concerning the use of Lithium Ion batteries have occupied underwriters for some time and you should appreciate that the addition of such equipment constitutes a significant change to the risk. We are aware that some insurers are refusing cover for yachts that have these items installed.

If you are considering the installation of such items, please provide full details of the proposed battery installation including the associated chargers and ancillary installation. Please also confirm whether these will be installed as replacements for the domestic batteries or propulsion/engine starting or both. Underwriters will expect any installation to be carried out by a competent electrical engineer. We will require this information before we can confirm how this affects the cover under your policy. Please note that underwriters may impose additional conditions on the insurance following their examination of the information.

===========================================================

Doesn't sound too promising. Lead carbon anyone?

 

[Pete7]

Who was the insurer?

 

[Daverw]

I think you have to really be careful to use the correct terminology for the battery type as this could make all the difference. We need to make sure that insurance companies don’t start to group them with the same risks which they are clearly not.

 

[[70521]]

We are virtual liveaboards

An interesting concept. Would it not be more fun if you actually lived aboard?

 

[vas]

LifePO4 is NOT a general Lithium battery, agree with Daverw, be very specific!

 

[geem]

LifePO4 is NOT a general Lithium battery, agree with Daverw, be very specific!

The title of the post says lifePO4. I think that is pretty specific.
The bigger problem is that underwriters are dumb. It's a crazy situation that yacht owners have to educate insurers about the difference between different lithium technologies.

 

[Tranona]

The title of the post says lifePO4. I think that is pretty specific.
The bigger problem is that underwriters are dumb. It's a crazy situation that yacht owners have to educate insurers about the difference between different lithium technologies.

but they are only asking for details of the new installation so that they can make an assessment - does not mean they can't differentiate between different types of installation. The OP did not say what type of battery or installation he was considering - only "lithium", so not unreasonable the insurer would ask for details of what it was and who installed it.

 

[pessimist]

Who was the insurer?

Prefer not to identify them as they may regard the correspondence as confidential. Suffice to say the are well respected and not at the budget end of the market.

 

[Poey50]

Insurers need to get their act together. Lithium ion batteries seem to be a significant factor in the 55 fires on super yachts since 2000. That is 1% of all those built. All the indications are these were frequently caused by guests carrying on lithium ion battery-powered equipment that needed charging. I'm not aware of a single verified LiFePO4 boat fire ... on any boat.

 

[geem]

but they are only asking for details of the new installation so that they can make an assessment - does not mean they can't differentiate between different types of installation. The OP did not say what type of battery or installation he was considering - only "lithium", so not unreasonable the insurer would ask for details of what it was and who installed it.

The title of the thread is lifePO4 and insurance. The OP hasn't mentioned any other lithium technology

 

[Daverw]

The title of the post says lifePO4. I think that is pretty specific.
The bigger problem is that underwriters are dumb. It's a crazy situation that yacht owners have to educate insurers about the difference between different lithium technologies.

My comment was based upon the insurers quoting “Lithium Ion” not the OP thread title. Don’t want us to go the same way as rigging replacement requirements with no real world data

 

[KompetentKrew]

Prefer not to identify them as they may regard the correspondence as confidential. Suffice to say the are well respected and not at the budget end of the market.

It sounded to me like Pants' way of writing.

I was very impressed with their underwriter, who was happy to talk with me on the phone when I signed up, and who seemed very practical and pragmatic.

But I have found them less amenable since, and feel like the need for surveys when switching insurers traps me in my contract with them.

Aside from that, all yacht insurers seem to be 'derisking" at the moment, so I'm not surprised about their attitude to new-flanged batteries (whether they be "lithium" or LiFePO4)

 

[vas]

The title of the post says lifePO4. I think that is pretty specific.
The bigger problem is that underwriters are dumb. It's a crazy situation that yacht owners have to educate insurers about the difference between different lithium technologies.

fully agree,

what I meant is be very specific in the comms with the insurer. OP was clear enough on his post, but as you say he has to get into educating insurer (or even the broker...) on the differences between tech and chemistries...

 

[ashtead]

I would not read this response as too negative from underwriters -they are just trying to clearly establish the set up as they would with any modifications to the standard set up. This looks to me like a standard template clause to be sent whenever lithium is mentioned to obtain full disclosure.

 

[Tranona]

The title of the thread is lifePO4 and insurance. The OP hasn't mentioned any other lithium technology

Not wanting to be too pedantic, but the OP does not say how his enquiry was worded - it is only the title of the thread that is specific. One would think that if the enquiry to the insurer was specific the response would be. However, as ashstead says the response looks like a general template - just asking for specific details of the proposed changes. All to easy to read in too much when there is an lack of detail about the exact wording of the request.