Mildly interesting step up the insurance learning curve.

[jeanne]

My insurance is due for renewal, so I was reading the terms and conditions, and came across the part of the small print which said that the outboard was not covered for theft unless secured to either the yacht or the tender with " a cylinder type lock." Mine is locked on, but with a wire and a padlock.
This led to some guesswork about how much such a lock would cost, what the value of an outboard that I acquired second hand in 1992 was, the amount of "excess" that I would have to deduct from any claim, and the possibility of some other small print which would invalidate any claim, anyway.
The result was a decision to delete the outboard from the cover. It was listed at 250 pounds, so I anticipated a saving of a fiver or so. It produced a saving of 15 pounds.
If I had not insured it at all, I would now be approaching the point when the premiums saved would have paid for a new engine, a 2Hp Mariner.
The moral is, only insure things which you cannot afford to handle yourself.

 

[William_H]

Yes quite so in many cases insurance is not necessary if you consider that the boat is not vital to our life and we could easily carry on after total loss. However insurance for things like collision means we don't have to worry about other people's crazy claims which might ruin us.
Further we can lend the boat to friends or children and know that if there is a claim it will not come out of our own pocket so removing bad feelings.

Yes I did a stock take of items listed as insured and removed the dinghy o/b and trailer. The chances were any single item would be lost in isolation and the excess would mean virtually no return.
Trailer I believe is covered by the car insurance for 3rd party damage. olewilll

 

[jerryat]

>>The result was a decision to delete the outboard from the cover. It was listed at 250 pounds, so I anticipated a saving of a fiver or so. <<

Yes. I came to this conclusion many year ago and haven't insured any of my 'eggwhisks' since. And you are right, the difference it makes to the premium as well as the risk of loss of NCB makes it uneconomical.

You can see their point I suppose, these little dinghy jobbies must be some of the most nicked bits of marine kit I'd guess.

 

[Lakesailor]

Insurance is the biggest legally supported con there is. If you sit and read all your policies' small print you'll give up.
I insured my photographic equipment for years. The proposal form enquired in great detail about what type of photography I undertook (they are paranoid you will have Kate Moss in your car in a war zone)
My main work for a long time was civil engineering photography. I discovered after about 10 years that in changing underwriters the company I used had added the condition that I was not insured if more than 20 feet from the ground.
Which wasn't much use to me.

 

[aitchw]

Is that the Humber Bridge Lakey?

 

[Lakesailor]

Yus. He is draining collected water from the main cable casing to test for corrosion products. (scary thought)

 

[cliffordpope]

It's fine removing named identifiable objects - they simply cease to be insured. But you need to be careful about reducing or underinsuring a more general coverage for unspecified objects. It is tempting to apply the reasoning that, for example, all my house contents are unlikely to be stolen at the same time, so I need only £10,000 cover not £20,000. But then if you claim on just one object, the company will assess your overall cover, and reduce the payout if they deem you to have been underinsured.
The cover has to be adequate for the items in total, not just the value of any particular loss.

Also you may still want cover for third party claims, even though willing to forgo personal insurance to cover your own loss. You may decide a battered plastic dinghy bought for £20 is not worth insuring, but if you caused damage to a £1m gin palace with it, you would probably need insurance.

 

[Aja]

If the harness fails......

That rope with the knot in the end isn't what I think it's for.....


Donald

 

[Lakesailor]

Re: If the harness fails......

I've found another pic.

He said "I'll shimmy down the rope a bit for a really good pic."

 

[Achillesheel]

Re: If the harness fails......

What were you standing on/dangling from when you took these?

 

[Lakesailor]

Re: If the harness fails......

I was stood on the top cross beam, which is quite wide (about 10ft) and has guard rails.

Then I climbed about another 20ft up to the top of the tower where the main cable sits on a saddle to take shots from a different perspective. It's a regret that I don't have any negs left from that shoot as I was working on a specific contract basis for that company and they bought the negs.

These two pic are not my shots, but show the scale of things. The one below is on the official site and is taken from the same cross beam.

 

[DaveS]

Re: If the harness fails......

Nice! I like that.

 

[Lakesailor]

Re: If the harness fails......

You can get that as a screen saver from http://www.davidleephotography.co.uk/home.html