sailorman
Well-Known Member
Did you check out Y Mike
Pantaenius Insurance
- Thread starter michael_w
- Start date
Did you check out Y Mike
michael_w
Well-Known Member
Sure, they are looking like the front runners, fair bit cheaper than Pants too.
awol
Well-Known Member
At the risk of sounding like an apologist for Pants, which I'm not, the other side of your example is 10 year old (<5 and the deduction doesn't apply) knackered, baggy sails being replaced with shiny new ones at only 70% of the material cost (labour isn't depreciated).
I don't like that clause and it will be a discriminator in my next insurance quote but don't forget there are some policies out there that would replace the split pin and regard the rig and sails as consequential damage and not covered at all.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
If you don't like it, change to an insurer that does not apply betterment to such items. Think what you have experienced is not common and betterment does normally only apply to things like sails which do lose value over time - see the clause from my AXA policy which I think is more common.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Mike`s issue isnt the claim he had, so much as the deduction that could apply to a major dis-masting & one not realizing that fact
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That is the whole point. Don't think it would arise if he had been insured with a company that did not apply betterment in that way. As I have said that is not in the policy I have.
Think he needs to check that the policy definitely has a clause defining where betterment applies. If it is not clear in the policy they cannot arbitrarily impose it at a later date.
awol
Well-Known Member
The deductions are clearly and unambiguously stated in the Pants policy - if you don't like it, don't buy it.
The Y Yachts single-handed clause excludes "a passage which might last 18 hours or more". Your engine "might" not start and the wind "might" not blow - so could any A to B sailing be excluded, a round trip to your own mooring not being a "passage"? I think I know what they mean but policies should not include words like "might".
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>Pantaenius made a 30% deduction because the spreader was over 10 years old “new for old deduction”.
I'm surprised about that Pantaenius usually don't qibble over claims. On the other hand they do require the rigging to be replaced every 10 years, although they don't require the spreaders to be replaced.
>Recently, I have discovered that this deductable applies for everything in the case of a “Partial Loss”
Perhaps that's new clause, I don't remember that in our policy.
I'm surprised about that Pantaenius usually don't qibble over claims. On the other hand they do require the rigging to be replaced every 10 years, although they don't require the spreaders to be replaced.
>Recently, I have discovered that this deductable applies for everything in the case of a “Partial Loss”
Perhaps that's new clause, I don't remember that in our policy.
michael_w
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to
I just wanted to warn fellow boaters, as they might have missed the clause in their own policies.
cliff
Well-Known Member
Have you tried Navigators and General? - I've been with them for years and even though I "shop around" each year I keep going back to them.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Hi Tranona
Alas your exemplary 35 years sans claim means you might not realise how Bluefin/Axa would behave if you did suffer a large loss. I haven't suffered that personally on a boat but am/have been locked in battles with them on behalf of other forumites, and would now never insure with them based on what I've seen. (I insure with Pants but my boat is <10yo so the 30% clause doesn't form part of my decision)
Squeaky
Well-Known Member
Third party vers full hull insurance
Good morning:
I have had third party insurance for years with Pantaenius however am now considering changing to full hull insurance and received two quotes - one from Pantaenius and the other from Yachting24. Pantaenius require an out of water survey while Yachting 24 does not.
I am confused as to the difference in policies because I have read about some companies making massive deductions due to the age of the yachts while others do not. I am under the impression that Pantaenius will provide a greater payout in the effect of damage while Yachting 24 will apply deductions due to age.
One of the messages I received includes this statement:
Surveys are not required for this product as the conditions are rather less generous in terms of the consequential losses arising from wear and tear which are covered under the full Pantaenius policy.
The quotes are quite close except for the requirement for a survey.
Any advice or explanation as to the difference would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Squeaky
P.S I have never made an insurance claim and have a 40% no claims with Pantaenius
Good morning:
I have had third party insurance for years with Pantaenius however am now considering changing to full hull insurance and received two quotes - one from Pantaenius and the other from Yachting24. Pantaenius require an out of water survey while Yachting 24 does not.
I am confused as to the difference in policies because I have read about some companies making massive deductions due to the age of the yachts while others do not. I am under the impression that Pantaenius will provide a greater payout in the effect of damage while Yachting 24 will apply deductions due to age.
One of the messages I received includes this statement:
Surveys are not required for this product as the conditions are rather less generous in terms of the consequential losses arising from wear and tear which are covered under the full Pantaenius policy.
The quotes are quite close except for the requirement for a survey.
Any advice or explanation as to the difference would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Squeaky
P.S I have never made an insurance claim and have a 40% no claims with Pantaenius
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Boathook
Well-Known Member
Same for me.