Lithium Positive and Negative Insurers

[thinwater]

I have seen this sort of language in many policies.

e. Any loss, damage, expense or cost of
repair caused directly or indirectly by
incomplete, improper or faulty repair,
maintenance, or renovation;

Obviously very broad with lots of room for arguments. In the case of fire, it would be hard to tell anything in the cases I've seen; fiberglass boats tend to burn until they sink. The last boat fire I saw, the boat is now in 100' of water and will be there forever.

---

Question. Does anyone know of a case where a claim was denied dirrectly related to a LiFePO4 battery on a boat? I've heard a lot supposition, but is it a really likelihood?

(I once had an incipient fire started by incompetent PO work (wires for a fan twisted together and stuffed under the carpet--the rest of the electrical work was factory and robust, but he added this one fan....) while offshore. It wasn't funny at all, since any help would have been many hours away. We put it out with no more damamge than some melted carpet and no insurance claim. I am very careful with boat work and obviously I am not suggesting otherwise. Certainly using certified techs and such is a very good precaution, but I'm not seeing strong evidence that it is mandatory. I have LiFePO4 on one boat and LA on the other. Both are good.)

 

[PaulRainbow]

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.

Different policy to mine, with a different underwriter.

 

[aqua_sax]

Different policy to mine, with a different underwriter.

The same underwriter, assessing exactly the same risk, can produce two policies, one lithium friendly, the other lithium unfriendly. How can that make sense, given it is the same people assessing the same risk? If they have the facts, ie know the risk, then each policy should be the same. Unless they don't have any facts, and their approach to lithium is based on opinion.

 

[Tradewinds]

Lithium awkward for diy install

Pantaenius

 

[Refueler]

The same underwriter, assessing exactly the same risk, can produce two policies, one lithium friendly, the other lithium unfriendly. How can that make sense, given it is the same people assessing the same risk? If they have the facts, ie know the risk, then each policy should be the same. Unless they don't have any facts, and their approach to lithium is based on opinion.

Underwriters policys are actually usually produced by the Broker for and on behalf of Underwriter ... with Underwriter checking its in keeping with his risk assessment. Its why he's called Underwriter ... he's underwriting a policy. If an item such as LiFePo4 is not explained properly or mentioned - this can give rise to same Underwriter effectively having two different policies. Underwriters - you have to remember - are underwriting hundreds of policies ... not just a few from Broker XXX ... and if he's working via the 'slips' - then his know;edge of the item he's underwriting is even more limited.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

I'm insured through a specialist insurance broker who covers private aircraft and yachts .... (Bavaria AG) .... and the underwriter for the policy is AXA Versicherung AG.

There was a question on the application concerning Lithium batteries, I queried if the LiFePO4 house batteries were of concern, and was told by the broker that they were not of concern and the question was there to catch propulsion batteries which are usually a different chemistry - this would have an effect on the cost of the policy as far as I could ascertain.

There is no mention of batteries in the small print of the policy.

 

[lustyd]

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?

It’s utterly ridiculous in my view. If a Lithium Ion battery catches fire (such as a phone) then there are no suitable extinguishers since it provides the heat, fuel and oxygen itself. This has been widely reported for many years and is of particular concern with electric vehicles (especially those where the door handles are also electrically operated).

The policy doesn’t distinguish chemistries so it’s irrelevant that LiFePo4 doesn’t burn in that way. They refer to all as Lithium and require a lithium specific extinguisher.

 

[aqua_sax]

Underwriters policys are actually usually produced by the Broker for and on behalf of Underwriter ... with Underwriter checking its in keeping with his risk assessment. Its why he's called Underwriter ... he's underwriting a policy.

Thanks for explaining this, now you have done so it makes sense. Or maybe what I called the 'man in the middle', Navigators & General trading as Geo Underwriting Services Limited for Craftinsure, Marine & Leisure @ Geo Specialty is a brand name for business written by Geo Underwriting Services Limited foe HKJ(S) - hullo, they are the same again! - write the policy and the underwriters (HCC International Insurance Company plc (‘HCCII’), trading as Tokio Marine HCC in both cases) underwrite it? What exactly do the men in the middle do?

There's also the anomaly that Craftinsure said they 'checked with underwriters' whether I could have LiFePO on solar charging unattended - why check with underwriters if someone else sets the policy detail? Or is it because its about 'risk'?

Understanding insurance has never been my strong suit.

 

[geem]

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

That makes total sense as it is these items that have caused fires on many superyacht around the world in the last couple of years. None lifepo4 chemistries

 

[ylop]

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.

Is there a question on the application form (or at renewal) which asks if there are any modification to the boat?

Clearly some of the advice/rules are meant to be for laptops/phones/drones etc rather than the main boat batteries.

And of course is a user is certain that their LiFePO4 install is done properly and present no meaningful fire risk it’s not clear why they would care if not insured.

 

[Refueler]

Thanks for explaining this, now you have done so it makes sense. Or maybe what I called the 'man in the middle', Navigators & General trading as Geo Underwriting Services Limited for Craftinsure, Marine & Leisure @ Geo Specialty is a brand name for business written by Geo Underwriting Services Limited foe HKJ(S) - hullo, they are the same again! - write the policy and the underwriters (HCC International Insurance Company plc (‘HCCII’), trading as Tokio Marine HCC in both cases) underwrite it? What exactly do the men in the middle do?

There's also the anomaly that Craftinsure said they 'checked with underwriters' whether I could have LiFePO on solar charging unattended - why check with underwriters if someone else sets the policy detail? Or is it because its about 'risk'?

Understanding insurance has never been my strong suit.

Yes - Risk Assessment and whether accepted by the Underwriter.

This is why policys change as items and useage changes as we evolve. As new items come on market and get used - some Brokers 'keep up' with it .. Underwriters review and Brokers amend the policies.

 

[Refueler]

That makes total sense as it is these items that have caused fires on many superyacht around the world in the last couple of years. None lifepo4 chemistries

No it does not make sense ... the :

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

Confuses different Li chemistrys - lumping them all in as one ... showing a complete lack of understanding on Insurers part.

Its valid for LiPo where the chemistry is known to have serious effects if charger or use is subject to error ... but LiFePo4 .. LiCo etc are far safer and literally as safe as LA unless really stupidly abused !

 

[aqua_sax]

That makes total sense as it is these items that have caused fires on many superyacht around the world in the last couple of years. None lifepo4 chemistries

The problem is that lithium-ion batteries includes LiFePO4 batteries. It seems insurers are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the different chemistries, and the fact that lithium- ion and lithium iron (phosphate) sound the same doesn't help. But the unfortunate fact is that, without being further qualified, lithium-ion (and just plain lithium) batteries includes LiFePO4. If you have the infamous clause 5.7 then you have the restrictions including no unattended charging. You have to turn off your solar LiFePO4 charging whenever you leave the boat unattended, even if you go ashore for a short period.

 

[aqua_sax]

And of course is a user is certain that their LiFePO4 install is done properly and present no meaningful fire risk it’s not clear why they would care if not insured.

On one level this covers a point I have made before, my installation will be done properly not to satisfy some insurance jock, but to satisfy me. I don't want my boat damaged, other boats damaged, or people injured or worse. Insurance is merely a secondary belt and braces affair, to cover the truly unexpected.

On another level this (not having a LiFePO4 installation OK'd abd/or insured by insurers) does unfortunately make one vulnerable to one of the general exclusion clauses (material alterations, not maintained in a seaworthy condition etc). This is one of the rare occasions when I think it does make sense to get written clarity before doing anything rather than chancing it after the event if something does happen.

 

[geem]

The problem is that lithium-ion batteries includes LiFePO4 batteries. It seems insurers are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the different chemistries, and the fact that lithium- ion and lithium iron (phosphate) sound the same doesn't help. But the unfortunate fact is that, without being further qualified, lithium-ion (and just plain lithium) batteries includes LiFePO4. If you have the infamous clause 5.7 then you have the restrictions including no unattended charging. You have to turn off your solar LiFePO4 charging whenever you leave the boat unattended, even if you go ashore for a short period.

Like I said, for none lifepo4 chemistries. The insurance industry is incompetent in the world of lithium. What may surprise you more, is that the marine surveying world is not much better. Most surveyors are totally clueless about lithium and the distinction between chemistries

 

[geem]

No it does not make sense ... the :



Confuses different Li chemistrys - lumping them all in as one ... showing a complete lack of understanding on Insurers part.

Its valid for LiPo where the chemistry is known to have serious effects if charger or use is subject to error ... but LiFePo4 .. LiCo etc are far safer and literally as safe as LA unless really stupidly abused !

There are 5 chemistries in regular use. Toys and tenders often utilise volatile chemistries. 90 superyacht fires in 18 months attributed to toys suggests its a sensible clause. It may be a blanket approach but at least they are not targeting domestic lifepo4 batteries installed in small yachts

 

[lustyd]

There are 5 chemistries in regular use. Toys and tenders often utilise volatile chemistries. 90 superyacht fires in 18 months attributed to toys suggests its a sensible clause. It may be a blanket approach but at least they are not targeting domestic lifepo4 batteries installed in small yachts

Quite a few due to washer/driers too, but those are considered acceptable.

 

[aqua_sax]

Most surveyors are totally clueless about lithium

I have known some good surveyors and some bad surveyors. In most cases, a competent conscientious owner will always know his or her boat better than a surveyor, and is therefore better placed to give an opinion on condition. I had my previous wooden boat for 38 years, and did all my own maintenance, and knew that boat like the back of my hand. I have had my current GRP boat for only three years, but I already know her better than a surveyor would know her, including the things the last surveyor missed, like the engine raw water below the waterline hose clip that had a stainless strap with a ferrous tightening screw. The latter was all rust and no substance, and disintegrated when I attempted to remove it. Yet the surveyor passed it, and even took a colour photo to show it was OK, in which you can see that the tightening screw is rust coloured!

 

[aqua_sax]

90 superyacht fires in 18 months attributed to toys suggests its a sensible clause.

But it isn't, because clause 5.7 lumps together all lithium-ion batteries into one group, yet these fires are started by a subset of lithium batteries that aren't LiFePO4 batteries. The wording 'lithium-ion batteries' catches all such batteries, regardless of risk level.

 

[jakew009]

I’ve been digging into this subject a bit and it’s fair to say the marine insurance industry is in a state of utter confusion about lithium batteries.

Something has clearly spooked them into action (I guess a series of fires) but their response is currently incoherent.

I think most of the problem is that there are not really any available standards for the installation of lithium batteries, nor are there any qualifications for people working in boat electrical systems.

It gets even more complicated when you start asking the insurance companies what their stance is if the batteries were installed by a previous owner and you don’t know the providence of the installer who did the work.

One interesting thing that does seem to have come up is that “if it’s not in your policy wording, it doesn’t exist”.

My current insurer told me that lfp batteries would need to be professionally installed. I asked where that statement was in my policy. They then retracted it and said it would only apply at my renewal and currently there are no restrictions on my policy.

I subsequently asked what happens at renewal if I have fitted lfp under my current policy, and they now seem to be hiding under a rock unable to answer.