the pain of boat insurance

[Resolution]

Avocet
Isn't it more a question of getting your priorities in the right order? Surely you change your seacocks because you have concerns and want to avoid sinking at sea, not because you want to make sure that the insurance company pays out? Similarly with your cradle, first priority should be that it is NOT rusty, and is built strong enough to cope with all usual weather. Claiming on insurance should be for genuine accidents or truly exceptional bad weather, not just a long-stop maintenance refund.

PS I am not trying to infer that you yourself have been aiming to shaft the insurance company, it was a general comment.

 

[Avocet]

No, I think I may not have been clear in my post. Of course I don't want my cradle to fall to bits - particularly now when I'm on 3rd-party insurance (well, plus "removal of wrek" should the unthinkable happen)! In fact, nothing sharpens the mind when it comes to maintenance more than the possibility of losing your boat!

The point I'm trying to make is what is "all usual weather"? I wouldn't call an F10 "usual". For the purposes of this argument I could just as easily say "F12". I've never made a claim on my insurance (even when I was "fully comp"). Many years ago, the boat was in Conwy marina over the winter and we had some very extreme weather. I went to inspect the boat and found it to be OK other than the masthead light lens had blown off, but three or four other boats in the marina had been blown out of their cradles, causing extensive damage. These were proprietary cradles too - some of which belonged to the marina. I have no idea what happened with those insurance claims though, as I wasn't affected (and didn't claim for my masthead light)!

This is all just about me trying to find out how insurers typically handle risks like the one in this example. It must happen all the time. Lots of people maintain their own boats, be it gas installations, electrical installations or even structural repairs and modifications. It's all very well saying these should be "not rusty and strong enough to cope with all usual weather" but if I'm going to end up paying for insurance, I want to know where the boundaries are. I want to know what is considered "reasonable". I don't want to find out (the hard way) that if my cradle ever breaks, I'm not just going to get the "oh, well you should have built it stronger then - goodbye", response.

 

[GrahamM376]

I've always found talking to insurers (by email so there's a copy) is best with any grey areas. Take my mooring for example, policy says "professionally laid mooring" but doesn't comment on maintenance. I own the mooring so if it fails, there's no-one to sue. I dived and renewed the chain, swivel and riser, emailed insurers telling them the spec and that I had attached it all to the "professionally laid" concrete block. Email from them a couple of days later stating they accepted what I'd done.

 

[Seajet]

I don't see anything unusual about Force 10 conditions - I've been on the mooring in winds like that.

I laid my mooring with the idea and hope it would take a Force 12 or anything like the October 1987 Hurricane, or indeed the winds on Mars !

 

[Avocet]

We all do try to anticipate and design for the worst. The point is, if that strategy were always successful, we wouldn't need insurers!