Non survey insurance?

[Tranona]

I buy my insurance through a broker, and have never been asked for a survey.

Almost all sellers of insurance are brokers. They do not determine whether a survey is needed but the underwriter. Increasingly underwriters are demanding surveys for their standard policies, but some brokers are independent and will have access to a wider range of underwriters.

 

[Tranona]

Wonder if that went to the ombudsman - as a general rule insurers have to link the fault to the loss. I’d have thought this was a 3rd party claim from the other vessel though?

That is a really tricky area, particularly with the third party aspect as you have to show that the third party vessel broke its moorings because of the owner's negligence. Not always easy and one of the reasons why all risks insurance is preferred.

The link of fault to loss is a very contentious issue in the US where some states require it from insurance contracts and others don't and the lack of this link has been exploited ruthlessly by some insurers to reduce their premiums by rejecting otherwise legitimate claims. I have not heard of this link being an issue in UK insurance and am somewhat surprised by the scenario in post#10 but more details are needed to fully understand.

 

[ylop]

as you have to show that the third party vessel broke its moorings because of the owner's negligence. Not always easy and one of the reasons why all risks insurance is preferred.

Ah - interesting point, I had presumed that any boat that broke its moorings with nobody on board could pretty much automatically be assumed to be negligent.

 

[Tranona]

Ah - interesting point, I had presumed that any boat that broke its moorings with nobody on board could pretty much automatically be assumed to be negligent.

No not necessarily. ,A few years ago there was a well reported case of a boat breaking loose from a swinging mooring in (I think ) Portland in a storm. it damaged an uninsured yacht which tried to claim on on the third party, whose insurers rejected as an "Act of God*. Its argument was that the mooring was of an approved type and recently serviced so the absent owner was not negligent as there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident. Not tested in court perhaps because the sum involved was relatively small (well under £10k).

Good example of why even old lower value boats should have all risks cover as if not the owner stands to lose his boat even if a third party was involved. All risks insurance is a contract whereas claiming on third parties is Tort.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

No not necessarily. ,A few years ago there was a well reported case of a boat breaking loose from a swinging mooring in (I think ) Portland in a storm. it damaged an uninsured yacht which tried to claim on on the third party, whose insurers rejected as an "Act of God*. Its argument was that the mooring was of an approved type and recently serviced so the absent owner was not negligent as there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident. Not tested in court perhaps because the sum involved was relatively small (well under £10k).

Good example of why even old lower value boats should have all risks cover as if not the owner stands to lose his boat even if a third party was involved. All risks insurance is a contract whereas claiming on third parties is Tort.

AMEN. My father lost his boat because of an accident; it fell away from the wall when moored for the winter against the wall of a drying harbour. It was uninsured, and Dad couldn't afford the repair, so it was sold at a loss, The boat is still sailing, I'm pleased to say, but Dad's sailing days were at an end. But there would have been no payout from third-party insurance; fully comprehensive was the only way there would have been a claim. If you insure third party you are saying "I can afford to lose the value of the boat if there's an accident." As most of us buy boats up to and maybe a bit beyond our means, even the loss of an old, low-value boat might be a severe financial hit for someone who can't afford more. And accidents happen, even to the best prepared. The example of being hit by a boat that broke its mooring is given above; in my Dad's case, it was a boat securely laid up for the winter, in the shelter of an inner harbour and under the supervision of the harbour-master.

Only use third party if the loss of the value of the boat is inconsequential to you.

 

[Refueler]

That is a really tricky area, particularly with the third party aspect as you have to show that the third party vessel broke its moorings because of the owner's negligence. Not always easy and one of the reasons why all risks insurance is preferred.

The link of fault to loss is a very contentious issue in the US where some states require it from insurance contracts and others don't and the lack of this link has been exploited ruthlessly by some insurers to reduce their premiums by rejecting otherwise legitimate claims. I have not heard of this link being an issue in UK insurance and am somewhat surprised by the scenario in post#10 but more details are needed to fully understand.

OK ..

If you have a Marina berth - you will usually find a Wreck Recovery clause in the Marina Berth agreement (UK). Most people don't read the agreements fully but its there in all the berth agreements in UK I've seen ... and had.

3rd Party Cover ... even Basic Boat has Wreck Recovery covered ... without it - any insurance is basically useless for Marina berthing - that also includes any swinging / pile / fixed mooring they control. Marinas require the clause for obvious reasons ... they don't want the costs of salvaging sunken boats on their berths.
Wreck Recovery clause is the fall-back if needed to salvage / remove the boat.

OK - you have your boat sitting in the marina or on a mooring .. another boat hits it and your boat sinks. You know which boat hit it .. (to sink your boat would likely have damage on the offending boat or at least signs of collision) ... according to your post T - you then have to prove other Owners negligence ??
Sorry but if that happened to my boat - I would be straight on to them with claim.

I've been involved in assessment of claims and it came down to who hit who ... what reason it happened is a matter between the offender and his insurance co.

 

[Tranona]

OK ..

If you have a Marina berth - you will usually find a Wreck Recovery clause in the Marina Berth agreement (UK). Most people don't read the agreements fully but its there in all the berth agreements in UK I've seen ... and had.

3rd Party Cover ... even Basic Boat has Wreck Recovery covered ... without it - any insurance is basically useless for Marina berthing - that also includes any swinging / pile / fixed mooring they control. Marinas require the clause for obvious reasons ... they don't want the costs of salvaging sunken boats on their berths.
Wreck Recovery clause is the fall-back if needed to salvage / remove the boat.

OK - you have your boat sitting in the marina or on a mooring .. another boat hits it and your boat sinks. You know which boat hit it .. (to sink your boat would likely have damage on the offending boat or at least signs of collision) ... according to your post T - you then have to prove other Owners negligence ??
Sorry but if that happened to my boat - I would be straight on to them with claim.

I've been involved in assessment of claims and it came down to who hit who ... what reason it happened is a matter between the offender and his insurance co.

Where did i say anything about wreck recovery - but thanks for reminder.

The case I referred to (written up in YM a few years ago) showed exactly what I said. The third party insurer rejected the claim as the claimant was not able to prove negligence. In third party claims you have to make a claim against the individual under tort and the third party refers you to his insurer who (as in this case) can reject the claim on the basis that the client has not been negligent. This is a well established principle in law so why your 2 question marks? It is a civil matter and if the claimant wants to challenge the insurer's decision he has to take them to court. Does not matter how much you jump up and down (as the claimant did in this case by writing to the press) it is the court that decides on the evidence.

In this case the cost of the repairs perhaps did not justify the cost and hassle of going to court, or more likely the claimant was advised by a lawyer that based on the evidence he was unlikely to be successful. Claiming against third parties is hard work unless (as in most cases) there is clear evidence of negligence. See here claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/claim-preparations/the-law-of-tort for a summary of the law of torts. Note that among other things it makes the distinction between tort and the law of Contract. Claiming under your own insurance is under the law of contract and all you have to do is show that your claim is covered by the terms of the policy. If you have all risks cover and a third party damages you boat you have a choice of pursuing him direct or claiming on your policy and leave your insurer to recover from the third party. The latter is almost always the preferred route, even though it may mean an increase in future premiums and a loss of no claims discount.

 

[Refueler]

Here's the reply from my Insurer in Germany ...... it also has Single Handed included as that was the main reason to ask questions ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Nigel,



Happy New Year!



Thank you for your email below.



Here are our reply.

If sailing alone is possible, i.e. if all necessary equipment is available to safely moor and steer the boat, it is not prohibited.

Wreck removal and salvage costs are covered by Hull policy which you have, as per conditions below:

11 Salvage/wreck removal/disposal/towing costs

11.1 The insurer will cover the total cost of salvage, wreck removal and

disposal of the vessel in question up to twice the sum insured or EUR

5,000,000, whichever amount is higher, provided that this was

preceded by an insured event and the insured is obliged by law or

official order to remove the wreck or bear the cost thereof.

11.2 Reasonable costs incurred in providing assistance and salvaging the

vessel after an accident are covered. The insured, however, may not

enter into written agreements with salvage companies or helpers

without the insurer’s written consent unless this is required due to

the specific emergency situation in which the vessel is. The same

applies to agreements concerning the amount of remuneration

following the salvage.

11.3 If an emergency situation arises because the vessel is unmanageable

for technical reasons that cannot be remedied by the vessel’s own

means, the insurer will cover towing costs to the next location where

repairs can be carried out even if no hull damage under this insurance

has occurred. The costs are capped at EUR 3,000.

11.4 The insurer will cover costs required for inspecting the underwater

hull after striking the ground even if no damage is established,

provided the insurer gave their prior consent (may be provided by

phone).



Please let us know if more details are needed.



With Best Regards,

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

OK - why did I mention Wreck Recovery in your scenario ... because its a requirement of near all marinas in UK and many other locations ...

Even Basic Boat 3rd Party includes it ... of course if they can get out of paying by directing claim to to the other party - why wouldn't they ? But if the boat sinks - then it comes under that clause ..

I agree that it can lead to legal course of action ... but fact is the clause is there.

 

[Tranona]

I really don't know why you are posting this as there is nothing unusual about wreck removal insurance. which is unrelated to third party claims.

Your post#26 raised a question about liability of third parties and I posted a summary of the (UK) law which covered this to show that "who hit who" is only one of the factors. For a claim to succeed it has to pass the 4 "tests" of negligence and I gave an example of a claim where the claimant was not able to do this - or rather the insurer's position was that the tests had not been met so rejected the claim. The basis for rejection was probably that he had not breached his duty of care - that is he had taken every reasonable precaution and there was nothing he could have reasonably done to prevent the damage caused by his boat. Note the use of the word "reasonable" - that is the level of the test.

 

[jamesmcuk]

Hi @waynes world did you manage to find insurance fo your boat as I am in a similar position to you I think?

 

[Geoff A]

I have contacted most of the companies mentioned in earlier replies to this thread. I want any one on here to name a boat insurance broker or company that will Insure a 1969 sailing boat. Without a survey for third party with wreck recovery, One company I contacted said they will do TP with no survey, but adding wreck recovery they wanted a survey. Another company stated as long as the survey is within the last 10 years they would accept it, older than that it 's a no. There a lot of if's but's and maybe's. If someone can give me a straight answer it would be much appreciated.

 

[jwilson]

Ah - interesting point, I had presumed that any boat that broke its moorings with nobody on board could pretty much automatically be assumed to be negligent.

I know of several cases where boats broke their moorings (harbour authority provided mooring tackle) because the HA had bought faulty shackles. Not a tiny obscure harbour - a very big one with expensive moorings serviced every year.

Also: I used to use twin 24mm three-strand nylon warps from buoy and riser to the boat, new ones made up every year, until one day in midsummer I went to the boat to find both heavily chewed up and almost parted - someone had obviously somehow managed to get a large sharp prop round them - lord knows how. Since then I've used 10mm chain.

 

[Tranona]

I know of several cases where boats broke their moorings (harbour authority provided mooring tackle) because the HA had bought faulty shackles. Not a tiny obscure harbour - a very big one with expensive moorings serviced every year.

Also: I used to use twin 24mm three-strand nylon warps from buoy and riser to the boat, new ones made up every year, until one day in midsummer I went to the boat to find both heavily chewed up and almost parted - someone had obviously somehow managed to get a large sharp prop round them - lord knows how. Since then I've used 10mm chain.

The important bit about these sort of incidents is that you can't sue the boat that did the damage in just the same way that you can't sue a tree that gets blown over onto your land from a neighbours. Your action is against the person responsible for the object. So following the rules of tort the first stop is the person responsible for the object, the boat owner. Usually this is easy, but then you have to show that he owed you a duty of care, which again is in these situations is easy. The next test is the tricky one - did s/he breach that duty of care? and could the breach have been avoided? In your first case the owner would have relied on the HA to supply the right shackles and they could be shown to owe a duty of care towards any boat owners who suffered damage as a result of the failure of the shackle they fitted. However in the case I referred to earlier the mooring equipment was sound and it was argued that it was an act of god and there was nothing either the boat owner or mooring provider could have reasonably done to prevent the boat from dragging and damaging another boat.

Your second one is more complicated as if your boat had broken free and damaged another boat you would likely be held responsible unless you could show that the damage to your mooring was caused by another third party. As ever it all depends on the exact facts (not always easy to determine) and what is considered "reasonable" in the circumstances. Having all risks insurance protects you and your boat if it is your boat that gets damaged, but third party leaves you to claim direct to the third party and their insurer (if any).

 

[Tranona]

I have contacted most of the companies mentioned in earlier replies to this thread. I want any one on here to name a boat insurance broker or company that will Insure a 1969 sailing boat. Without a survey for third party with wreck recovery, One company I contacted said they will do TP with no survey, but adding wreck recovery they wanted a survey. Another company stated as long as the survey is within the last 10 years they would accept it, older than that it 's a no. There a lot of if's but's and maybe's. If someone can give me a straight answer it would be much appreciated.

There is not a straight answer, Insuring old low value boats even for third party is not attractive to most underwriters. While the chances of a wreck recovery claim are small the costs are high and it is not unreasonable that the insurer should ask for confirmation that the boat is sound and unlikely to sink. You don't say whether you have an insurance record as this may have an influence on what insurers are prepared to take on. at one extreme somebody like me with 40 years or more of insurance history with only one claim would have no difficulty in getting insurance of that type but a newcomer with a first time buy of an old boat of unknown condition would have difficulty. Underwriters base their quotes on the information you provide which they match against the sort of risk profile they are prepared to accept.

 

[Geoff A]

Though I have been sailing since the mid 1970s. it has been about 10 years since I last owned a boat. I understand things will have changed in that time. It looks like I will have to find a surveyor.