Sealine boat insurance required.

As I'm currently away on holiday, I've only got a PDF of the Small Craft Policy on my iPad, and this clause definitely isn't in this version. However, I'll double check my policy documents when I get home.

I've also noticed that my policy is issued by Insurance-4-boats and, perhaps, as my boat is only 6m, I'm covered under a different policy to the GJW online versions.
 
Sorry I made a typo in my post 16. I wrote "Y" in first line but meant to write "GJW". I've corrected my post 16 but I can't correct the posts where people have quoted me. Sorry for confusion.
 
That clause is a bit scary.
It suggests that FP could be replaced with another random 2010 SC35 with a "bare minimum" specification.
I would guess that this clause has not actually been invoked that often, as I don't really see insurers wanting to be Boat Replacement Consultants, and it would probably have been plastered all over the InterWeb if it happened to the owner's detriment.

But if they offered me an 2011 SC35 Limited Edition with D4-300's and the Stone coloured hull as a replacement ... I would not be complaining.

Even so, I will ask about having that clause struck off the next time I renew.
 
Last edited:
FlowerPower said:
That clause is a bit scary.
It suggests that FP could be replaced with another random 2010 SC35 with a "bare minimum" specification.
I would guess that this clause has not actually been invoked that often, as I don't really see insurers wanting to be Boat Replacement Consultants, and it would probably have been plastered all over the InterWeb if it happened to the owner's detriment.

But if they offered me an 2011 SC35 Limited Edition with D4-300's and the Stone coloured hull as a replacement ... I would not be complaining.

Even so, I will ask about having that clause struck off the next time I renew.
Click to expand...
Yup to all that. They are fully aware of the point; it has been brought to their attention at a senior level. But it's still there. It's an awful clause and rather a pity because they are a nice firm to deal with and their track record in handling small claims (as distinct from total losses) is very good and has been for decades
 
jfm said:
Sorry I made a typo in my post 16. I wrote "Y" in first line but meant to write "GJW". I've corrected my post 16 but I can't correct the posts where people have quoted me. Sorry for confusion.
Click to expand...

For a moment there I thought you were saying the 'Y' policy wording had changed for the worse.
I do think it is necessary, regardless of insurer , to review the policy wording before paying the premium. Insurers may amend the wording at any time but will , presumably , be bound by the wording at the time the premium is paid.
 
volvopaul said:
Based on working in this industry there are only 2 I'd go with, GJW and Y insurance, the rest seem to try and reject legitimate clams by using biased surveyors to defend there claim , they base the surveyors report as final so the boat owner has to go to court to defend his claim. Buy wisely .
Click to expand...

Surely you'd have to add Bishop Skinner to this list. I've found their service to be terrific (in the middle of a claim at the moment) and their prices keen.
 
bammylovechops said:
Thank you every one for taking the time to reply, will try all that you've recommended and will update acccordingly.
Mark
Click to expand...

Hi all,
As it was me that started this thread I thought it only right that I add some closure to it.
I have spoke to a lady called Debbie Ashton at GJW, I explained that it has been raised on different forums about GJW providing you with a replacement boat similar but not guaranteed to be the same. I have written confirmation that this clause is being removed from all policies for both new and renewing customers and a cash settlement will be provided for a total loss.
I also mentioned about not covering seacocks and corrosion this is also now rectified.

I have no connection to GJW, other than now being a customer, having read people's comments about how good they are, other than these two anomalies that are now corrected.

Mark
 
Thanks Mark. That's good to hear. As mentioned above I'm aware that their management has been on this topic.

The timing isn't clear from your post: have the changes actually been made, or are they merely in the works?
 
jfm said:
Thanks Mark. That's good to hear. As mentioned above I'm aware that their management has been on this topic.

The timing isn't clear from your post: have the changes actually been made, or are they merely in the works?
Click to expand...

Hi jfm,

This is the actual email sent to me, hope it helps:-

On 19 Aug 2017, at 09:23, Debbie Ashton (GJW) <Debbie.Ashton@gjwltd.co.uk> wrote:

Hi Mark

Further to our telephone conversation, I now have pleasure in attaching our final summary quotation which I hope is acceptable to you. I have also attached a copy of our current Plain Language Policy

I can confirm that we will agree to delete the “Replacement Option” under Section 2 of the policy (page 9) . We have never actually used this wording and have taken the decision to remove it in a new policy that is currently being drafted. I further confirm that in the event of a total loss and subject to policy terms and conditions we will pay the sum insured stated on the policy schedule.

With regard to the ‘seacock/corrosion’ issue we discussed, I confirm that our Policy has previously been amended and I would refer you to Section 2 – The Vessel-A Cover for the vessel – Clause (ii) Latent Defect. (Page 7).

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Debbie Ashton
Senior Assistant Yacht Underwriter

<image001.gif>Email: Debbie.Ashton@gjwltd.co.uk
<image002.gif>Tel: 0151 473 8023
<image003.gif>Fax: 0151 473 8060
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe JFM recommended MS Amlin after a previous thread where he negotiated with them re policy details
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top