Pantaenius policy changes ...questions for the forum and hopefully JFM

I have insured my boat with Y Yacht Insurance. I was happy with the policy wording with the exception of the following:

3.17 in addition where the maximum designed speed of the Vessel or other boats
exceeds 17 knots (20 M.P.H.) no claim shall be allowed in respect of:
3.17.1 loss, damage, liability or expenses arising from the Vessel or other Boat
being left unattended off an exposed beach or shore, unless the
Insured can see the Vessel at all times and can return to the Vessel
within 15 minutes;

This seemed to me unreasonable as while cruising I often go ashore for longer periods leaving the boat (securely) anchored. And I can't see what the designed speed of the vessel has to do with it.

I asked them to remove this clause from my policy, and they did.
 
Never thought to ask for this clause to be removed a it has been in all of our policies in the past IIRC. Always seems to be a bit of a strange one though i.e. What has the design speed go to do with anchoring?
 
Ah!... That's not the 'All Risks' policy.

'All Risks' is the (1A) version. Doesn't have the exclusion.

Been sorting out my insurance over the last few days... Y premium and cover about the best... what swung it in their favour was the speedy responses from Claire there.. excellent to deal with.
They've gained another new customer (wonder if jfm gets a commission? ;-))
 
jimmy_the_builder said:
What was the one modification?
Click to expand...
The policy I've bought from Y, and like a lot, is their policy "1A" with the amendment that the standard clause 4.10 is deleted and replaced by a new 4.10 saying “4.10 wear and tear, or weathering”.

The original 4.10, deleted in my policy, said " No cover is provided in respect of loss or damage as a result of: ... Gradual Deterioration unless it could not have been identified by routine inspection and could not have been prevented by servicing, maintenance or replacement in accordance with the relevant manufacturer’s instructions, or generally accepted practice and advice from a qualified marine surveyor who is a member of their relevant professional
surveying body"

This amendment was essential to achieve the lay-off of risk I’m seeking (and willing to pay for). I think Y might agree it for others in the case of a largish boat owned by an experienced owner but I don't know. I am not saying they would agree this change for the mass market end of boats; they might stick to their original clause 4.10 for sensible commercial reasons (the background to which I'm familiar with; I discussed at length with HKJ when they drafted this clause).

Just to be clear, I think all of Y, HKJ and Pantaenius are run by excellent people who are trying to do a good job here. The only Y policy I'm saying I like for a valuable boat is 1A with the above amendment. Similar with HKJ (same underwriter as Y - Amlin). I don't love the new Pantaenius All Risks policy and they are looking into making some changes to it following discussions I've had with them. For my own boat I have not renewed with Pantaenius because they just weren't in the running with their new AR policy (as it currently stands).

FWIW, Y are giving me lower excess and lower premium than I've had hitherto from Pantaenius but that isn't the most important thing here.

all IMHO as far as liking/disliking policies is concerned, of course
 
Deleted User said:
All good things about Y but has anyone actually tested their All Risks policy in a claims situation? Just asking
Click to expand...
Mike, it's a good question. I don't think you need to test the policy terms because they are what they are, but it would be interesting to test payout and claims handling behaviour. However, there is almost no available hard/reliable evidence of past behaviour, so my approach is to get a policy/contract that I'm confident a judge will say pays out in the circumstances I want to have cover for. Then I don't need to worry too much about the insurer's behaviour

The only hard evidence I have first hand is that Towergate/BishopSkinner/Bluefin didn't pay out without some considerable effort, in the case of two posters on here who suffered large losses. They did pay out in the end, and should have done so much faster, and it was a VERY uphill struggle that, say, a joe average lawyer wouldn't (imho) have been able to deal with. I don't love their policies or them, and wouldn't recommend them to any boat owner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top