Skippers Liability Insurance - again

A

alant

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
37,589
Location
UK - Solent region
Visit site
If there are any legal or insurance 'experts', could they advise if the following, taken from a Delivery Skippers Liability Insurance Proposal Form, indicates whether there is or isn't cover -

“This policy provides coverage for you as an individual in your occupation as a Yacht Delivery Skipper in the event that the Hull and Liability insurance policy maintained by the owner in respect of the contracted Vessel(s) does not respond to any liability claim for which you may be responsible.

It is a pre-requisite to cover being provided hereunder that you ensure that any vessel you are operating has both Hull and Liability insurance coverage extended to include its Delivery by you. This policy is invalidated if there is no such coverage in place.”

If, the owner’s policy refuses to pay out, then to be pedantic, “there is no such coverage in place”.
Therefore it follows from the above, that “This policy is invalidated if there is no such policy in place”.

(1) you must be fully covered by the owners insurance for the Skippers Liability to kick in
(2) If you ARE covered, why would you want a second policy?
(3) Would this policy actually provide ANY cover if the owners insurance was withdrawn - technically leaving any skipper not covered, which allows the liability insurance exclusion to also refuse cover.

What do the experts think?
Or is this view, that of a paranoid? /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
Way I read it they are saying the owners insurance has to cover the boat and any related liability issues whilst your skippers insurance covers you for personal liabilities. The skippers insurance doesnt cover the cost of the boat sinking because a sea cock gives way, for example

In the final analysis, ask them what it does cover that the owners insurance doesnt.
 
Sounds like a crock to me.

If I take out a PLI policy I reasonably expect it to cover me against my personal liability (in respect of the activities for which the policy has been taken out). I certainly wouldn't expect my PLI to be dependant on somebody else taking out insurance over which I have no control. A client could produce a certificate of insurance and then cancel the policy, or produce a cert for a policy that has already been cancelled.
 
I think what they're saying is YOU aren't covered if the boat owner at the time isn't covered but if the owner's insurance doesn't pay out YOUR insurance will cover you against any claims against YOU. Fair enough if you think about it or your insurance would be astronomic.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If there are any legal or insurance 'experts', could they advise if the following, taken from a Delivery Skippers Liability Insurance Proposal Form, indicates whether there is or isn't cover -

“This policy provides coverage for you as an individual in your occupation as a Yacht Delivery Skipper in the event that the Hull and Liability insurance policy maintained by the owner in respect of the contracted Vessel(s) does not respond to any liability claim for which you may be responsible.

It is a pre-requisite to cover being provided hereunder that you ensure that any vessel you are operating has both Hull and Liability insurance coverage extended to include its Delivery by you. This policy is invalidated if there is no such coverage in place.”

If, the owner’s policy refuses to pay out, then to be pedantic, “there is no such coverage in place”.
Therefore it follows from the above, that “This policy is invalidated if there is no such policy in place”.

(1) you must be fully covered by the owners insurance for the Skippers Liability to kick in
(2) If you ARE covered, why would you want a second policy?
(3) Would this policy actually provide ANY cover if the owners insurance was withdrawn - technically leaving any skipper not covered, which allows the liability insurance exclusion to also refuse cover.

What do the experts think?
Or is this view, that of a paranoid? /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Bit like the ... your Ins only covers anothers car if that other person already has his ins. on the car etc.

The wording is Jinglese ..... designed to confuse ... and I bet never submitted to the "Plain English Society" .......

Personally - I would request plain words written clarification.

Didn't this exact same thing come up ages ago before ???
 
Get your broker to confirm this for you, but basically what it means is that whilst the owener of the vessel must have a level of cover in lace, this cover will not be expected to cover all eventualities.

The most obvious example of this may be that f your policy has a £500 excess and the owners has a £1500 excess your policy will kick in for £1k.

[ QUOTE ]
If, the owner’s policy refuses to pay out, then to be pedantic, “there is no such coverage in place”.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, it reads that there must be hull & liability cover in place, but there is no requirement that that policy is warranted to reinstate from the first penny in every circumstance that the skippers policy will cover from. (It does suggest, however, that a breach of warraty on the owners policy might invalidate the skippers policy although I have concerns about the attitude the regulator would take of this, provided neither the owner nor skipper were turning over £1million p/a out of this activity).

I fear that some peoples irrational distaste for insurers is clouding their reading here.

What I can not stress enough is that you really did ought to e taking this advice from a broker rather than an internet scuttlebutt, but then I am sure you will do that too. If the broker smiles and tells you nothing can go wrong, then go elsewhere where they will explain the limits of cover properly.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I fear that some peoples irrational distaste for insurers is clouding their reading here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like insurers! Insurers are my friend! Seriously. I really mean that, honest!

A good insurance policy is a great comfort when things go t*ts up. My car insurers dealth promptly and swiftly with the problem when some twit ran up the back of me at a roondyboot. Everything sorted promptly and efficiently at my end. Hire car turned up swiftly. No grief for me at all. (Top marks to Admiral).

My liability cover and equipment insurance, although I've never had to use it, is an excellent policy specifically designed for the needs of peeps like me. However, if my liability policy was dependant on my clients being insured (as seems to be the case with this skippers policy) it would be virtually worthless. The whole point of having the policy is to cover my derrier in case a venue or event doesn't have adequate cover! If I could, I would rely on the venue insurance rather than shell out a significant chunk of hard earned every year having my own cover.
 
"Get your broker to confirm this for you, but basically what it means is that whilst the owener of the vessel must have a level of cover in lace, this cover will not be expected to cover all eventualities."

But that's exactly what the owner is insuring against!
"all eventualities."

Unless there are swingeing exclusions, what other risks are likely to exist? The owners insurance is not worth a light unless they are likely to pay out on a claim!
What is being suggestd here, is that the owners insurance will probably decide not to pay out on something, even though they have agreed to extend the policy to cover the delivery skipper.

What circumstances would require a second policy, if there is cover already on the first?

With regard to asking the Broker, this surely is a bit like asking Sweeny Todd to discuss contents of his pies.
Since he will be selling this policy, he's hardly likely to be definite about when it won't pay out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top