Noble Marine Insurance, New Clause?

[Bandit]

I have been with Noble for 5 or 6 years, no marine insurance claim since 2009. My deductible excess is and was £500.
This clause appeared in my renewal offer this year :


So say the boat is insured for £400 K and you ground it causing damage of £200k Your excess for this is £20,000 !

 

[Momac]

Well done for spotting this clause which does seem a ridiculously high excess.
I suggest you speak to Noble or try elsewhere.

 

[Poignard]

I renewed my cover with Noble Marine Insurance Ltd again in February this year, and what in previous years had been a straightforward exercise became complicated due to errors in the documents sent me.

This was explained to me as 'teething problems' resulting from 'changing to a new computer system'.

It all got sorted out after several emails.

 

[Pinnacle]

I have been with Noble for 5 or 6 years, no marine insurance claim since 2009. My deductible excess is and was £500.
This clause appeared in my renewal offer this year :
View attachment 154238

So say the boat is insured for £400 K and you ground it causing damage of £200k Your excess for this is £20,000 !

Is the excess not £40k?

 

[Bandit]

I was told by the broker that it is 10% of the sum claimed.

Either way it is an incredibly badly written piece of wording.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Is the excess not £40k?

That’s correct based in the OPs snippet.
Unacceptable in my view. Find another insurer.

 

[jfm]

Correct -it's £40k excess not £20k. Just get another policy and tell the broker (who can't even read) to shove this one where the sun doesn't shine. In effect all the items listed are not insured at all. I wonder what other horrors lurk in this document.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Quite so.

 

[Mistroma]

I also read it as the excess being 10% of the vessel's insured value for any underwater damage mentioned.

I found the last part even weirder "Where there is additional damage to other parts of the vessel the higher of the two excesses will apply.".

Does this mean:

1) The excess will be 10% of the vessel's value if damage to underwater gear causes or contributes to damage in an unrelated area above water.

OR

2) Some unspecified excess that's greater than 10% will apply in such a case.

Probably the first option unless they have a 20% excess hidden away in small print. Not exactly great for peace of mind either way.

 

[jfm]

I just read the policy online (the motor cruiser version). Would take me too long to type a list of all the things that I dislike about it. Drafting style seems imho to be to take plenty of opportunity to weave in exclusions based on subjective things, so giving the insurer ways to resist claims. There are plenty of other better policies elsewhere imho - I wouldn't touch this one.

 

[jfm]

I also read it as the excess being 10% of the vessel's insured value for any underwater damage mentioned.

I found the last part even weirder "Where there is additional damage to other parts of the vessel the higher of the two excesses will apply.".

Does this mean:

1) The excess will be 10% of the vessel's value if damage to underwater gear causes or contributes to damage in an unrelated area above water.

OR

2) Some unspecified excess that's greater than 10% will apply in such a case.

Probably the first option unless they have a 20% excess hidden away in small print. Not exactly great for peace of mind either way.

I don't agree your point 1 - there is no concept of "causes" in the way you describe. Your point 2 isn't correct imho. Here's how i read it.

1. Let's assume £400k boat, and let's assume £2,000 normal excess
2. Boat runs aground
3. Cost to fix propeller/shaft £10,000
4. Cost to fix GRP and fibreglass work £15,000
5. Cost of haul out and yard facilities £12,000

So you claim £37,000, and they pay nothing because excess is £40,000
IF you had fixed the propeller and shaft at your own cost and made no claim for them, the insurer would be obliged to pay £25,000 (12+15-2). In my book that is all round unfair and sneaky.

As said above there are other horrors lurking imho.

The only thing I like in this policy is "new-for-old" if you have total loss on a new boat within first 2 years, IF the claim stands and they don't beat you with one of their exclusions.

Overall, avoid imho.