Lithium Positive and Negative Insurers

[aqua_sax]

Following on from my suggestion in the other thread, this thread is intended solely to provide a list of lithium positive and negative insurers in the UK market. It is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of lithium ion batteries.

I was going to limit the coverage to LiFePO4 batteries only, but I don't think that is practical, too many insurance policies lump all lithium batteries into the same box, so to speak.

To be lithium positive, an insurer must either (a) have an explicit publicly available document or (b) have replied in writing to a specific enquiry to the effect that they neither object to or place burdensome restrictions on both the presence of lithium batteries on board, and the DIY installation of LiFePO4 batteries. Burdensome restrictions are things like a requirement (not recommendation) to have a 'professional' (whatever that means) installation and/or sign off, while a DIY recommendation to follow manufacturers guidelines is not. Likewise, a military grade robotic lithium fire control system is a burdensome requirement, having a £35 so called lithium fire extinguisher on board is not.

A lithium negative insurer is one who does not meet the lithium positive criteria.

Hearsay is not sufficient, there has to be something in writing.

This original post will serve as a summary, by listing all the positive and negative insurers, as (hopefully) they get added in comments below.

The obvious immediate utility is having a list of insurers to approach if you want to have DIY installed lithium/LiFePO4 batteries on board. A possible future effect may be that it might encourage insurers to think about what is a sensible approach to lithium battery insurance.

I may amend the definitions of lithium positive and lithium negative if at any time it seems sensible to do so.

We may seem some interesting quirks eg a positive and a negative broker, both of whom use the same underwriter.

The Lists (with evidence in brackets):

Lithium Positive:

Craftinsure (my webchat correspondence with them, see below)

Porthcawl Insurance (said to be so by PR so must be so)

GJW (see this recent post, but there are some silly restrictions)


Lithium Negative:

HKJ Specialist (my email correspondence with them, see below)

 

[PaulRainbow]

Following on from my suggestion in the other thread, this thread is intended solely to provide a list of lithium positive and negative insurers in the UK market. It is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of lithium ion batteries.

I was going to limit the coverage to LiFePO4 batteries only, but I don't think that is practical, too many insurance policies lump all lithium batteries into the same box, so to speak.

To be lithium positive, an insurer must either (a) have an explicit publicly available document or (b) have replied in writing to a specific enquiry to the effect that they neither object to or place burdensome restrictions on both the presence of lithium batteries on board, and the DIY installation of LiFePO4 batteries. Burdensome restrictions are things like a requirement (not recommendation) to have a 'professional' (whatever that means) installation and/or sign off, while a DIY recommendation to follow manufacturers guidelines is not. Likewise, a military grade robotic lithium fire control system is a burdensome requirement, having a £35 so called lithium fire extinguisher on board is not.

A lithium negative insurer is one who does not meet the lithium positive criteria.

Hearsay is not sufficient, there has to be something in writing.

This original post will serve as a summary, by listing all the positive and negative insurers, as (hopefully) they get added in comments below.

The obvious immediate utility is having a list of insurers to approach if you want to have DIY installed lithium/LiFePO4 batteries on board. A possible future effect may be that it might encourage insurers to think about what is a sensible approach to lithium battery insurance.

I may amend the definitions of lithium positive and lithium negative if at any time it seems sensible to do so.

We may seem some interesting quirks eg a positive and a negative broker, both of whom use the same underwriter.

The Lists (with evidence in brackets):

Lithium Positive:

Craftinsure (my correspondence with them)

Porthcawl Insurance (said to be so by PR so must be so)

Any particular need for the sarcastic comment ?

GJW (see this recent post, but there are some silly restrictions)

Clause 14 surely falls into your "burdensome" category:

"Clause 14:
Any lithium batteries on board must be stored and used in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations and must not be left unattended whilst charging. In addition, there must be a fully operational lithium specific hand held fire extinguisher on board."

How is that "Lithium positive" ?

Lithium Negative:

HKJ Specialist (my correspondence with them)

 

[aqua_sax]

Craftinsure webchat with me (yes I know it is not the policy wording, but it is in a transcript sent by them to me):

(12:06:07) Me: There is just one other question for now. Can I check with you
that I can self-install and use a lithium battery (LiFePO4, the safest type of lithium battery) for domestic (house)
use without limits or restrictions of any kind? I should add it is a straight forward uncomplicated installation, and
I am generally very DIY competent.
(12:07:51) Craftinsure: We can provide cover for lithium batteries however it is a condition of the insurance that they
can not be left unattended when charging and you must have a lithium specific fire extinguisher on board.
The batteries must also be installed and maintained in line with the manufacturer's guidelines as well as any
equipment used in connection with the batteries.
So as long as you install the battery as per the manufacturer's guidelines this would be covered under our policy.
(12:11:26) Me: OK, that is better than some insurers, in that you will allow
self-installation (provided it is done correctly of course). But I still don't get they cannot be left unattended when
charging, because this precludes the use of solar to keep them topped up. I'm not suggesting for a moment I
would leave them charging from a running engine unattended, just that a solar top up seems very low risk.
(12:12:32) Craftinsure: It's simply due to the risk of fire from batteries. Let me just double check the point around solar
charging with our underwriting to team to get some clarification.
(12:12:56) Me: Thanks, that would be very helpful.
(12:20:23) Craftinsure: Hi, thanks so much for waiting.
Our underwriter has confirmed there is no issue with keeping the solar panels connected to top up the battery
when the vessel is unattended.
However we would expect that you do not leave the vessel unattended when the battery is being used to charge
any portable items.

 

[aqua_sax]

Haven Knox Johnston Specialist: email reply from them after I asked about LiFePO4 batteries on board including DIY installation

Your insurers as per most have the following stipulations around having lithium batteries.

5.7 If Your Craft , tender or toys are fitted with Lithium- ion batteries they must be charged within daylight hours , must not be left unattended whilst being charged and they must be used in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations/instructions.

Also, your insurer would require the batteries be fitted by a professional.

 

[aqua_sax]

Any particular need for the sarcastic comment ?

It's not meant to be sarcastic, it is tongue in cheek ie cheeky. It's also there because, until we see written evidence, it is hearsay evidence - but I gave you the benefit of the doubt (and still do), but it would be helpful to see something in writing).

Clause 14 surely falls into your "burdensome" category:

"Clause 14:
Any lithium batteries on board must be stored and used in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations and must not be left unattended whilst charging. In addition, there must be a fully operational lithium specific hand held fire extinguisher on board."

How is that "Lithium positive" ?

That's why I referred to silly restrictions, and provided a link to the post. But it doesn't say you can't do a DIY install, just that you must follow manufacturer recommendations.

 

[mjcp]

(OP of the GJW post)

I'm not sure clause 14 is particularly "silly". It's not unreasonable to expect a suitable extinguisher to be onboard - that's arguable "reasonable care" to maintain seaworthiness no?

The charging - slightly more grey area, but mine charges from the alternator, so I'm onboard when the engine runs. I accept that some may leave their boat with the engine running or use shore-power unattended and find it onerous, but not "silly".

M

 

[aqua_sax]

I'm not sure clause 14 is particularly "silly".

I did say some silly restrictions (in the OP), not that the whole clause was silly. The silly bit is "Any lithium batteries on board must...not be left unattended whilst charging." What about those solar charged lithium battery powered masthead instruments? Somehow they need to me made to stop charging when you go ashore. But I suspect in practice most owners and insurers are going to accept that is not a reasonable requirement in such cases, and can be safely ignored.

One of the reasons for starting this thread was to try to get some sensible discussion (with hopefully insurers involved, if not hopefully some will at least read some of this) about sensible requirements. Like most owners and DIY installers, it is just as much, if not more so, in my interests (insurers may lose £££, but I may lose not just £££, but my life) to have a sensible installation.

Edited to correct loosing my life typo...

 

[PaulRainbow]

It's not meant to be sarcastic, it is tongue in cheek ie cheeky. It's also there because, until we see written evidence, it is hearsay evidence - but I gave you the benefit of the doubt (and still do), but it would be helpful to see something in writing).

There is absolutely no mention of batteries of any kind in my policy, so nothing to see in writing, unless i post my whole policy, which i'm not going do do.

 

[Moodysailor]

I applaud the intent on this post, it's very much a case of 'caveat emptor' and check with your own insurers first though.
As an example, my query to Craftinsure from March this year was different to yours:

"Hello, I am considering a LiFePO4 battery installation on my boat. I am a trained marine engineer, and an ABYC certified marine electrician. Can you let me know if there are any policy issues or restrictions regarding lithium battery installation?"

"Thanks for getting in touch.
Provided the upgrade and installation of lithium battery system is undertaken by suitably qualified contractors in line with the manufacturer's recommendations, the changes will not affect your policy terms of conditions.
I hope this can help!"

"Thank you for the reply.
I was not intending to contract the work, the plan was to undertake the installation myself.
Given my experience and qualifications, would this be acceptable? I can provide proof of qualifications if necessary."

"As you have indicated that you are suitably qualified, we are more than happy to continue covering the vessel if you install the new battery yourself provided that they are installed as per the manufacturer's guidelines.
I hope this helps, if I can be of further assistance please do get back in touch."

 

[Refueler]

Sorry but I do not agree with such listings ... they can actually backfire on purpose by highlighting aspects that lead amenable Insurers to then change their policies and you lose out.

Don't forget also that all the Companies quoted are BROKERS - not the real insurers .... the Underwriters always have possibility to amend / require ...

 

[aqua_sax]

There is absolutely no mention of batteries of any kind in my policy, so nothing to see in writing, unless i post my whole policy, which i'm not going do do.

I wouldn't even ask you to post the whole policy. However, the fact they don't mention batteries in the policy doesn't necessarily mean they don't have some restrictions. I know, if it is not in writing, but...maybe they can stretch clauses that are in writing, eg maintain in a seaworthy condition. As cases in point, Craftinsure also don't mention batteries at all in their policy document, but they do have some minor restrictions, only discovered by asking them, while HKJ(S) have this in their policy:

"If Your Craft , tender or toys are fitted with Lithium- ion batteries they must be charged within daylight hours , must not be left unattended whilst being charged and they must be used in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations/instructions."

but there is no mention of the professional installation requirement, which only came to light when I asked them. Of course, it could be argued that is it is not in the policy document, then it can't imposed, but...what if they use another clause to do the imposition?

 

[aqua_sax]

As an example, my query to Craftinsure from March this year was different to yours:

Interesting. I wonder if different underwriters are involved (as an intermediate post notes brokers are not underwriters). In fact it is all rather bizarre. I've mentioned this before, but no harm in mentioning it again: both HKJ(S) (lithium negative) and Craftinsure (lithium positive) use the same underwriter (HCC International Insurance Company plc (‘HCCII’), trading as Tokio Marine HCC), but the policies have different names, and the money man in the middle is different (N&G vs Geo Specialty). It all points to the fact they don't seem to have got their act together.

Sorry but I do not agree with such listings ... they can actually backfire on purpose by highlighting aspects that lead amenable Insurers to then change their policies and you lose out.

I did consider this very carefully before starting the thread (and left the suggestion that I do so hanging on the other thread for a few days before posting). Normally I would agree - let sleeping dogs lie. But I think - though may be wrong - that this is an exception, where market forces may prevail. The fact is many boats now have many lithium batteries on them, and the owners of those boats want insurance cover that doesn't disappear when the lithium question comes up. They are therefore likely to vote with their feet.

A small and rather silly part of me also hopes that by bringing the subject up, we may ultimately end up with an outbreak of common sense from marine insurance. Not holding my breath though...

 

[Pye_End]

https://www.porthcawl-insurance.co.uk/documents/18/pc_pw_1123.pdf

5.7 If Your Craft , tender or toys are fitted with Lithium- ion batteries they must be charged within daylight
hours , must not be left unattended whilst being charged and they must be used in accordance with the
manufacturers’ recommendations/instructions

 

[aqua_sax]

https://www.porthcawl-insurance.co.uk/documents/18/pc_pw_1123.pdf

5.7 If Your Craft , tender or toys are fitted with Lithium- ion batteries they must be charged within daylight
hours , must not be left unattended whilst being charged and they must be used in accordance with the
manufacturers’ recommendations/instructions

Interesting, on the face of it suggests the whole thing is a right old mess, but in fact there is an interesting clue there: the name of the pdf is the same as the pdf that detailed my HKJ(S) policy, and the policy wording - even to the gap between lithium and -ion - and clause number - is identical. Perhaps Paul has a different policy, but through the same broker.

This suggests, perhaps unsurprisingly, that it is the policy that matters, not the broker. Perhaps the better brokers might care to offer policies which are lithium friendly to owners who want to make use of lithium technology.

 

[Pye_End]

Perhaps Paul has a different policy, but through the same broker.

Or this wording is being phased in at renewal.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

The concept that a bunch of posts on a forum interferes with underwriters decisions on risk is odd. The owner of the risk and their ability to shield themselves from loss depends on many aspects and not just the technical risk. The underwriter that covers the loss may have a wide spread of low cost polices that cover low cost assets and as such may decide they can cover the odd loss from, these low value assets due to Lithium tech batteries. Some may have more super yacht assets and the loss to them is difficult to cover at a risk which is acceptable. On the other side, the underwriters may have access to assets to cover loss who receive a high return for a risk burden, others may get lower returns for lower risk burden. It all depends on how they have structured their business to make profit, and as such, I doubt any of us influence that by posting on here.

The listing of insurance companies is pointless anyway, as next year, more decisions, more changes may be presented, which makes the list rapidly redundant.

 

[Refueler]

I did consider this very carefully before starting the thread (and left the suggestion that I do so hanging on the other thread for a few days before posting). Normally I would agree - let sleeping dogs lie. But I think - though may be wrong - that this is an exception, where market forces may prevail. The fact is many boats now have many lithium batteries on them, and the owners of those boats want insurance cover that doesn't disappear when the lithium question comes up. They are therefore likely to vote with their feet.

A small and rather silly part of me also hopes that by bringing the subject up, we may ultimately end up with an outbreak of common sense from marine insurance. Not holding my breath though...

Sorry but I cannot help but think you have put both feet into the hole. By highlighting an item - you have opened the door to 'Bail-out Clauses'.

Its the same ball game of the idiot who first talked about 10yr Standing Rigging life ... total prat ! Now if rigging has even a sniff of a mention - up comes that ridiculous 10yrs.

 

[Refueler]

https://www.porthcawl-insurance.co.uk/documents/18/pc_pw_1123.pdf

5.7 If Your Craft , tender or toys are fitted with Lithium- ion batteries they must be charged within daylight
hours , must not be left unattended whilst being charged and they must be used in accordance with the
manufacturers’ recommendations/instructions

Obvious that the clause was written not understanding difference of LiPo and LiFePo4 batterys.

LiPo - you charge observed .. and in safe area.

LiFePo4 are far safer and can be charged unnattended as long as you use proper charge methods.

 

[Refueler]

The concept that a bunch of posts on a forum interferes with underwriters decisions on risk is odd. The owner of the risk and their ability to shield themselves from loss depends on many aspects and not just the technical risk. The underwriter that covers the loss may have a wide spread of low cost polices that cover low cost assets and as such may decide they can cover the odd loss from, these low value assets due to Lithium tech batteries. Some may have more super yacht assets and the loss to them is difficult to cover at a risk which is acceptable. On the other side, the underwriters may have access to assets to cover loss who receive a high return for a risk burden, others may get lower returns for lower risk burden. It all depends on how they have structured their business to make profit, and as such, I doubt any of us influence that by posting on here.

The listing of insurance companies is pointless anyway, as next year, more decisions, more changes may be presented, which makes the list rapidly redundant.

Sorry - but utter 'tosh' .....

I know a few Underwriters as 'friends' .... they DO react to public info / trends etc.

They do not want to spend 1 euro if they can help it ... and they do NOT balance claims by loss vs gains ..

 

[aqua_sax]

The listing of insurance companies is pointless anyway, as next year, more decisions, more changes may be presented, which makes the list rapidly redundant.

That is a good point which I hadn't really taken into account. But for some reason which I can't quite put my finger on I do think airing this matter is useful. I think it is to do with the fact that the position some insurers (underwriters) take just doesn't make sense. The 5.7 clause restrictions on charging unattended means no solar top up of LiFePO4 batteries while you are away from the boat. A run ashore to do some shopping? You have to disconnect the solar panels.

The there is the professional installation requirement. I am sure we can all agree that a competent DIY installation can be good (and that some professional ones are bad). What matters is that the installation is sound, not who actually does it. That (professional installation requirement) is the specific reason I didn't renew with HKJ(S). It's just the easy answer to suit underwriters convenience, but it creates a headache (having to find another insurer) for competent DIY installers. It's not as if we are fitting home made rocket engines inside a wooden boat...

Amongst the many variables that affect insurers is the inescapable one that they need customers to generate income. There's nothing to stop an enterprising underwriter seeing a niche market (not small and growing) to provide LiFePO4 friendly insurance, in other words, airing the subject here may cause some underwriters to tighten restrictions, but it may also cause others to become more lithium friendly. One thing is pretty sure, lithium technology isn't going to go away anytime soon, and insurers won't be very popular, if they start tightening up pointless restrictions.