Prop Wrap and insurance

Y

yelbis

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Nov 2005
Messages
380
Location
Hove
Visit site
Hi

I have the bad luck of a severe prop wrap resulting in towing my Yacht back to Gosport. The wrap resulted in having to have a lift out as it could not be cut.

Is it possible that my MS Amlin fully comp. insurance may cover the damage. For instance bent shaft, cutlass, flexi coupling and possible gel repair to P-Bracket and even engine mounts.

I do know that underwriters are paid good money to avoid pay outs.

Thanks
 
yelbis said:
Hi

I have the bad luck of a severe prop wrap resulting in towing my Yacht back to Gosport. The wrap resulted in having to have a lift out as it could not be cut.

Is it possible that my MS Amlin fully comp. insurance may cover the damage. For instance bent shaft, cutlass, flexi coupling and possible gel repair to P-Bracket and even engine mounts.

I do know that underwriters are paid good money to avoid pay outs.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Yes. Exactly what insurance is for. Underwiters do not pay anybody to avoid paying out. They pay out promptly if the claim is covered by the policy. Get an assessment of the damage and submit a claim.

Once you get it fixed consider fitting a good rope cutter to minimise the chance of damage should it happen again.
 
I had just such a claim involving straightening shaft and replacing P bracket and it was paid without any issue (GJW). That was 20 years ago, though, when large companies retained a degree of integrity. Now the default position seems to be to reject or reduce any claim in the hope that every so often an insuree will accept this and go away.
 
Quiddle said:
I had just such a claim involving straightening shaft and replacing P bracket and it was paid without any issue (GJW). That was 20 years ago, though, when large companies retained a degree of integrity. Now the default position seems to be to reject or reduce any claim in the hope that every so often an insuree will accept this and go away.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence of this or is it just scaremongering? Insurers have a contract with you and if the claim is for something covered by the policy, they will pay. Does not mean there will not be some disputes, but there is always a reason for the dispute.

Nothing has changed this over the last 20 years since you made your claim.
 
Please note that the reason for the question is that it was suggested that if it was my own rope and was an accident or if it was a random rope picked up en route then the
insurance may not pay out. It appears it was one of the mooring ropes. My crew at the time have not a clue ???

The rope is still wrapped around the shaft, P Bracket bent and engine at full stretch on the mounts due to the thick rope resulting in it simulating a screw thread, hence pulling engine toward the P bracket and also pulling in a sideward direction. So plenty of evidence.

I had a claim regarding a parcel sent with a courier to a customer. The order was placed late on a Friday but for goodwill I took the package home and arranged the courier to collect from my home to deliver
to the customer saturday morning. The package did not arrive. The insurance company did not honour the claim (£5k) as the parcel did collection did not originate from my office but from my house. Although I was in effect, intercepting the courier as he had already collected other goods from the office. Hence, I dont trust the underwriters and incorrect wording may result in non payment !!
 
Don't think you have to worry about your claim even if it was your own rope. It was an accident and that is what you have insurance for. If you ran your boat aground for example that would also be covered.

The damage to your boat is classic for a rope round the propeller, so have the boat lifted and get an estimate for the damage - and notify your insurer that you will be submitting a claim.
 
don't know whether you have submitted your claim yet, but this may reassure you. As my insurance is coming up for renewal I was re-reading the policy for comparison with another policy that has been offered. This is the very first bit of the policy havenkj.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HK-J-All-Weather-Policy-Booklet-WEB.pdf and your accidental damage is covered under A1 1.1.

This is a pretty standard clause on all policies that cover "All Risks" and is what distinguishes them from third party only policies. The issue with disputed claims is almost always to do with the Exclusions which are found in each section under "what is not covered" and in some general exclusions for the whole policy. Based on what you say about your accident there would not seem to be any relevant exclusions.

Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
Tranona said:
Do you have any evidence of this or is it just scaremongering? Insurers have a contract with you and if the claim is for something covered by the policy, they will pay. Does not mean there will not be some disputes, but there is always a reason for the dispute.

Nothing has changed this over the last 20 years since you made your claim.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can offer evidence.
Both in the last 3 years.
Case 1: damage to mast which required unstepping. Insurer accepted claim but insisted insured remove sails or pay €300 for yard to do so. This entailed a 1500 mile round trip for insured. How was this not part of the repair? Would the insured be expected to remove furniture to repair keel bed after grounding?
Case 2. Boat on beach after squall. Major repair required and insurer agrees to pay claim but 'insists' owner remains with boat to oversee repair work and meets associated accommodation costs himself over several months.
Both of these decisions were reversed on the cusp of going to arbitration. The point being that there was absolutely no basis for them in the first instance and nor could either insurer proffer any explanation for their original decisions.
 
Quiddle said:
Yes, I can offer evidence.
Both in the last 3 years.
Case 1: damage to mast which required unstepping. Insurer accepted claim but insisted insured remove sails or pay €300 for yard to do so. This entailed a 1500 mile round trip for insured. How was this not part of the repair? Would the insured be expected to remove furniture to repair keel bed after grounding?
Case 2. Boat on beach after squall. Major repair required and insurer agrees to pay claim but 'insists' owner remains with boat to oversee repair work and meets associated accommodation costs himself over several months.
Both of these decisions were reversed on the cusp of going to arbitration. The point being that there was absolutely no basis for them in the first instance and nor could either insurer proffer any explanation for their original decisions.
Click to expand...
Fine, but there are always 2 sides to a story and what you have posted here is snippets of what was likely much more complex than you suggest. Disputes are like that - they become disputes because they are not straight forward. I am not saying these things do not happen, but two isolated incidents are not evidence of a systemic trend towards insurers unjustifiably refusing claims which is what you suggested earlier.

However I suspect that there may be a trend toward insurers being more rigorous about claims because yacht insurance has become an unprofitable business over the last 3 or 4 years with a series of events leading to large claims after a period of over capacity in underwriting that resulted in declining premiums (my premiums remained unchanged for 7 years until 2019). In the last year or so several insurers have left the market and others have restructured or merged with others. As a consequence premiums are edging up and certain areas of cover and exclusions are being tightened.

This means it will become even more important to read the policy booklet carefully so you know exactly what is covered and what is not so that you can make an informed decision as to who you insure with - policies are not all the same, and there is a strong link between price and cover given. Equally important is knowing exactly what your contract is with the insurer if you come to a claim, as this thread illustrates. This is particularly pertinent for me at the moment as my insurance is coming up for renewal and the new policy with the same underwriter has a number of subtle changes that I found after spending a couple of hours today comparing with the old. Most of them are not really significant and are mostly clarifying wording or responding to changes in the environment such as the pandemic, but two in my view are material to me - in that they are a reduction in benefit for the sort of claim I am likely to make. I am waiting for clarification on the more important of the 2 - the other I can live with.

Over the last 15 years or so that I have been on this forum there have been many threads on the supposed ills of insurers and in almost all cases they have arisen because the claimant has not understood the contract with the insurer and what is covered by a policy and what is excluded or not covered. Similarly there is ignorance about the difference between claiming on an all risks policy (as in this thread) which is covered by the law of contract and making a claim against a third party where the key is establishing negligence under the common law of tort. While these distinctions seem academic they have a huge bearing on the everyday issues of how such claims are dealt with.
 
Tranona said:
Yes. Exactly what insurance is for. Underwiters do not pay anybody to avoid paying out. They pay out promptly if the claim is covered by the policy. Get an assessment of the damage and submit a claim.

Once you get it fixed consider fitting a good rope cutter to minimise the chance of damage should it happen again.
Click to expand...
When we had a house break in I expected the house insurance Loss Adjuster to try and minimise the cost of the claim. He immediately told me my claim for a few hundred pounds was rubbish and I should be paid the full replacement cost at high street shop prices. He went through the small list of stuff taken and compiled a cost of about £3k, which I was paid the next day. Similarly the cost of door repair was instant and without quible. Afte the shck of being broken into it was quite a refreshing experience not to have to fight them over a claim.
 
Strangely I never thought to claim for the lift out and clearance of the rope round my own prop when something similar occurred. The shaft and prop itself were undamaged although the cutless bearing took a hammering and had to be replaced over the winter. I didn't claim for that either.
 
Topcat47 said:
Strangely I never thought to claim for the lift out and clearance of the rope round my own prop when something similar occurred. The shaft and prop itself were undamaged although the cutless bearing took a hammering and had to be replaced over the winter. I didn't claim for that either.
Click to expand...
Probably not worth it as the excess would probably be greater than the haulout charge. However if the lift had identified more extensive damage as for the OP then the lift and relaunch costs would form part of the claim.
 
Scomber said:
Our insurers too , I'd be interested in the outcome. Good luck with it.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if this claim resulted in a stand-off. They are my insurers and I have faith, although never claimed, they would be reasonable. The position is you have suffered loss through misadventure but your vessel has been saved, so the insurers should look on the positive side. There may be a wear and tear deduction of course, that will be settled on site. If you have not already talked with them, you should - all insurers like to know what's coming down the road and advise what the policy will cover. Anything by way of repairs that is arguably not directly a result of the wrap will be discounted, that's normal.

PWG
 
As this was an accident I would doubt the "incident! is an exclusion.
Check out the policy wording as some insurers use wordings that exclude full payments for certain damage involving vessels props,shafts etc .
Whilst some are reasonable with the deduction I recall reading a couple of policies when shopping around that had deductions of 70% and some that excluded if the shaft,prop etc over a certain age.
If your policy says anything along the lines such as " at our discretion " then it sounds as if you might have to be ready to debate . Of course I could be wrong and they cough up.
Good luck.
 
I'm surprised that so many contributors are paying for insurance that they assume is not going to pay up in the event of a claim.
I've had a couple of substantial claims which my insurer (GJW) have paid in full. An insurer with a reputation of not meeting claims wouldn't stay in business for long.
 
Osmosis said:
As this was an accident I would doubt the "incident! is an exclusion.
Check out the policy wording as some insurers use wordings that exclude full payments for certain damage involving vessels props,shafts etc .
Whilst some are reasonable with the deduction I recall reading a couple of policies when shopping around that had deductions of 70% and some that excluded if the shaft,prop etc over a certain age.
If your policy says anything along the lines such as " at our discretion " then it sounds as if you might have to be ready to debate . Of course I could be wrong and they cough up.
Good luck.
Click to expand...
The OP has an MS Amlin policy which is arguably the best available. Expect the claim will be met in full.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top