the pain of boat insurance

[Osmosis]

It is good that we have open forum debate especially involving incidents such as this.
Whilst on the facts we have read it does appear HKJ have a sound case although nobody has questioned JFM relationship with HKJ.
JFM has in postings openly advising he had written HKJ clauses within the policy the Insurer being Amlin.
The declinature is clear in my humble opinion . JFM has spent considerable time to review which all must appreciate.
My question what is the link between JFM and Amlin and perhaps in the future we on the forum should not expect to ask a question of him when it appears a link into Amlin
Just an observation

 

[TheOrs]

the trouble I went to for you involved dealing with >50Mb of email attachments. Actually 50Mb sounds a lot but relates to the fact you scanned it at a resolution of 3Mb++ per page - thanks for that. And you scanned every page as a separate pdf with illogical file names so I had to piece it together like a jigsaw, and you scanned everything upside down just to give me the added little job of rotating everything - thanks again. Despite all that failure on your part to make it even slightly convenient for me, I didn't complain and I read through every page to look for a solution.

And presumably at no cost to the OP.
I wonder how much this level of professional advice would cost were one to pay for it? (not asking; just musing)

 

[CLB]

Having followed jfm's previous insurance dealings on this forum I would like to thank him once again for taking time out to help others. I hope I never need his advice, but if I do, I sincerely hope he won't be put off by this experience. Thanks jfm, you are a star.

 

[Avocet]

My comprehensive policy for my not expensive boat is only 40% more expensive than the Basic Boat Coy third party. So for c.£50 extra it was a no-brainer.. (never claimed, no idea if it has any value!)

Yes the premiums aren't too different but when you add the cost of the survey, and then cost of complying with the survey recommendations, it gets a bit steeper. I very much doubt (with my 40-odd year old mast) that my rig would be covered, for example. Then there's this thing about replacing standing rigging every 10 years or so. That would mean new standing rigging because it's older than that, yet I know that until 2 seasons ago, it was coiled up in my loft for 8 years. The last survey I had must have been over 15 years ago before the boat was laid-up. At the time, the surveyor wanted a second bilge pump fitting. Quite why that would be required then, given the number of years it had managed fine with one bilge pump, one portable stirrup pump and a hoofing great bucket, I'm not sure. Another thing I worry about (somewhat) would be the lack of traceability on work carried out. I do all my own work, so where does that leave me if in the event of a claim, the insurer decides that something or other that I'd done was inadequate? If I've built my own cradle, would they cover me if it fell out of its cradle in a winter gale or the cradle failed?

Lastly, it's in a yard that has a policy of not allowing any work to be done, so I'd have a real problem complying with a surveyors recommendations without moving it (itself a very costly operation). I don't hate comprehensive insurance on principle, I just don't see it as being worth the trouble and expense for me in my curent situation. Yes, that might well come back to bite me, but that's a risk I've decided to take for now.

 

[PhillM]

Having followed jfm's previous insurance dealings on this forum I would like to thank him once again for taking time out to help others. I hope I never need his advice, but if I do, I sincerely hope he won't be put off by this experience. Thanks jfm, you are a star.

+1 jfm does the forum credit.

I've posted stuff here and been told I'm right, wrong, a genius and and idiot. I confess to most except genius.

Jfm is a gentleman and gives his time and expertise freely. Op you might not agree with him. But please respect his expertise and generousitity.

 

[NealB]

Whatever the rights and wrongs are, I do feel the OP has an important point, in that ' Private Messages ' should remain just that; private.

I'd agree with you, Andy, if anything private had been disclosed.

It seems to me, however, that Jfm has only confirmed what the OP himself had already told us all.

Earlier in the thread, others had offered their opinions in public.

I see no reason at all why Jfm should not do exactly the same.

The OP is entirely free to ignore it.

 

[sailorman]

It is good that we have open forum debate especially involving incidents such as this.
Whilst on the facts we have read it does appear HKJ have a sound case although nobody has questioned JFM relationship with HKJ.
JFM has in postings openly advising he had written HKJ clauses within the policy the Insurer being Amlin.
The declinature is clear in my humble opinion . JFM has spent considerable time to review which all must appreciate.
My question what is the link between JFM and Amlin and perhaps in the future we on the forum should not expect to ask a question of him when it appears a link into Amlin
Just an observation

Welcome to the forum jfm has helped a few forumites out of desperate situations & totally foc. He is a true Gent
i suggest you spend some time using the search facility & explore insurance, you will find all the info you seek

 

[Biggles Wader]

Welcome to the forum jfm has helped a few forumites out of desperate situations & totally foc. He is a true Gent
i suggest you spend some time using the search facility & explore insurance, you will find all the info you seek

Interesting subject matter for a first post too.

 

[jfm]

Whatever the rights and wrongs are, I do feel the OP has an important point, in that ' Private Messages ' should remain just that; private.

Absolutely correct. But I did not reveal anything private. I said only (i) that imho HKJ are right and OP is wrong, which I'm free to say as it is my view, (ii) a comment about "keel" being used in the singular which is something OP has discussed here at length; and finally (iii) that I think HKJ behaved well, which is entirely appropriate comment in the context of this thread. So I don't think I have revealed anything private. I'm happy to hear the contrary view on that if I'm being dense

 

[jfm]

And presumably at no cost to the OP.

Yes of course! There is a community spirit thing on here and it's a 2-way street: I've received plenty of free help on here

 

[Stork_III]

It is good that we have open forum debate especially involving incidents such as this.
Whilst on the facts we have read it does appear HKJ have a sound case although nobody has questioned JFM relationship with HKJ.
JFM has in postings openly advising he had written HKJ clauses within the policy the Insurer being Amlin.
The declinature is clear in my humble opinion . JFM has spent considerable time to review which all must appreciate.
My question what is the link between JFM and Amlin and perhaps in the future we on the forum should not expect to ask a question of him when it appears a link into Amlin
Just an observation

For a person in his first posting on YBW, you appear to know a lot about jfm's previous posts. Bot you don't know jfm. You are a troll and I claim my £5.

ps Who did you post as before?

 

[jfm]

It is good that we have open forum debate especially involving incidents such as this.
Whilst on the facts we have read it does appear HKJ have a sound case although nobody has questioned JFM relationship with HKJ.
JFM has in postings openly advising he had written HKJ clauses within the policy the Insurer being Amlin.
The declinature is clear in my humble opinion . JFM has spent considerable time to review which all must appreciate.
My question what is the link between JFM and Amlin and perhaps in the future we on the forum should not expect to ask a question of him when it appears a link into Amlin
Just an observation

Fair enough question at this juncture. I'm happy to try to clear this up:
1. I happen, in my day job, to work sometimes in adversarial areas of commercial law and am no stranger to disagreements, contracts, litigation, in big M+A deals
2. A few year ago I handled 3 insurance disputes in quick succession - my house burnt down (nobody hurt!) and the insurers refused to pay £1.5m rebuild; poster Seahope's boat sank and insurers refused to pay, and another couple who post on scuttlebutt but want to be anonymous had a 25-50k boat crash claim rejected. I won all three cases outright (done in community spirit - no charge made to the posters on here)
3. I ranted on here at length about how bad some marine insurance policies were. HKJ posted back and we had a good argument with their MD, who was fighting a losing battle because his policy really did have shortcomings
4. HKJ/Y/Amlin contacted me privately and asked to meet. We did. They were/are good folks and agreed my complaints about bad clauses in their policies. They agreed to re-write their polices, gave me their lawyer's draft in Word, let me change it, and mostly agreed to my changes. I did all that for free, not counting three cups of tea at their offices in the City
5. For completeness, I did the same with Pantaenius when they re-wrote their policy last year (for the worse, imho) and they agreed to all but one of the 10 or so changes I said were needed, but they didn't agree the last one and so I ceased insuring my boat with them and ceased recommending them on here.

That's it. I'm not employed/hired by HKJ/Y/Pantaenius/Amlin. I found them all to be gentlemen trying to produce a decent policy and I was impressed that they listened properly to a customer and made some changes. The above seems like a bit of a mission when I spell it out like that - it isn't really because there is 2-way street community spirit on here. Also you need to reduce this to what it means in daily life: Seahope had an expensive motor boat that was totally lost and the day after the insurers refused to pay his marine mortgage lender rang and demanded immediate loan repayment - cash he didn't just have lying around especially because the boat was lost. That would be pretty life changing stuff potentially, if his insurers had been correct, so it is important to spot it when the insurers are wrong.

 

[Osmosis]

Well Stork 111 it was my first post and no I am not a Troll. The question I raised was valid in the context of the debate.
jfm has answered the various posts with an open and clear clarity that we must all accept with the spirit in which it has been written. Certainly we need those on the forums who can and do give spare time to help others in such manner
Whilst the claimant with HKJ will be disappointed jfm view sound and I do not mean that in a patronising manner.
The point on Pantaenius interesting through jfm and some others I read that the Pantaenius Yachting24 policy was not protected by UK FOS and some German numpties would rule.
I shudder to think what response our keel or keels man would have got out of a darkened office in Hamburg!
On forum information and having not really looked at the policy and not wishing to use German Insurance( a historical reason) .
I moved on after cutting my losses.

 

[Avocet]

Fair enough question at this juncture. I'm happy to try to clear this up:
1. I happen, in my day job, to work sometimes in adversarial areas of commercial law and am no stranger to disagreements, contracts, litigation, in big M+A deals
2. A few year ago I handled 3 insurance disputes in quick succession - my house burnt down (nobody hurt!) and the insurers refused to pay £1.5m rebuild; poster Seahope's boat sank and insurers refused to pay, and another couple who post on scuttlebutt but want to be anonymous had a 25-50k boat crash claim rejected. I won all three cases outright (done in community spirit - no charge made to the posters on here)
3. I ranted on here at length about how bad some marine insurance policies were. HKJ posted back and we had a good argument with their MD, who was fighting a losing battle because his policy really did have shortcomings
4. HKJ/Y/Amlin contacted me privately and asked to meet. We did. They were/are good folks and agreed my complaints about bad clauses in their policies. They agreed to re-write their polices, gave me their lawyer's draft in Word, let me change it, and mostly agreed to my changes. I did all that for free, not counting three cups of tea at their offices in the City
5. For completeness, I did the same with Pantaenius when they re-wrote their policy last year (for the worse, imho) and they agreed to all but one of the 10 or so changes I said were needed, but they didn't agree the last one and so I ceased insuring my boat with them and ceased recommending them on here.

That's it. I'm not employed/hired by HKJ/Y/Pantaenius/Amlin. I found them all to be gentlemen trying to produce a decent policy and I was impressed that they listened properly to a customer and made some changes. The above seems like a bit of a mission when I spell it out like that - it isn't really because there is 2-way street community spirit on here. Also you need to reduce this to what it means in daily life: Seahope had an expensive motor boat that was totally lost and the day after the insurers refused to pay his marine mortgage lender rang and demanded immediate loan repayment - cash he didn't just have lying around especially because the boat was lost. That would be pretty life changing stuff potentially, if his insurers had been correct, so it is important to spot it when the insurers are wrong.

Sorry for the slight thread hijack, JFM, but could I ask your opinion on where I would stand (assuming I was comprehensively insured) if a part of my boat that I had made or repaired (or indeed a cradle / trolley that I had designed and built myself) were to fail, resulting in damage to my boat (or someone else's)? I realise this might vary from one insurer to the next, but is there a general principle used where this sort of thing occurs, to determine how an insurer might handle such a claim?

 

[jfm]

Sorry for the slight thread hijack, JFM, but could I ask your opinion on where I would stand (assuming I was comprehensively insured) if a part of my boat that I had made or repaired (or indeed a cradle / trolley that I had designed and built myself) were to fail, resulting in damage to my boat (or someone else's)? I realise this might vary from one insurer to the next, but is there a general principle used where this sort of thing occurs, to determine how an insurer might handle such a claim?

Everything, absolutely everything, depends on the wording of the contract but in general there isn't an escape clause for the insurer just because something is home made/diy. There is however sometimes an escape clause for latent defects, whether those defects are attributable to the boat builder or a diy boat owner. Some policies limit the payout, some insure the loss but with exclusion for the part of the boat with the latent defect and some (Y comes to mind, but there will be others) do not exclude insurer's payout for latent defect at all

Of course a latent defect is usually defined as latent, ie hidden in some way and not known about, and not attributable to neglect of maintenance. A 20 year old failed brass seacock for example isn't latent. So if you build a cradle and bolted together your 3x3 angle iron with brass M4 set screws and it fell apart, that isn't latent defect and you risk no pay out because the cause of the loss was a defect you should have been aware of. At the borderlines, you can see that there can be arguments on points like this.

But generally there is no "ban on diy activity" in marine insurance, so long as you use M12 bolts as it were I've installed (bronze!) seacocks in my 7-figure boat with my own hands and if they fail and she sinks I'll be asking Mr Y for a large cheque .

 

[Resolution]

I can understand your frustration, but that has got to be one the most ungracious posts I've ever seen on here.

+1

 

[Pye_End]

Yes the premiums aren't too different but when you add the cost of the survey, and then cost of complying with the survey recommendations, it gets a bit steeper. I very much doubt (with my 40-odd year old mast) that my rig would be covered, for example. Then there's this thing about replacing standing rigging every 10 years or so. That would mean new standing rigging because it's older than that, yet I know that until 2 seasons ago, it was coiled up in my loft for 8 years. The last survey I had must have been over 15 years ago before the boat was laid-up.

Complying with a recent survey could have saved the OP his boat. The assumption that we all know our boats better than a surveyor is not always true - it is the old 'unknown unknowns' problem. My 'neighbour' for example had gone all through his craft pre-survey pretty carefully, and the surveyor found a small patch of rot half way up his mast. That is not to say that the surveyor will also come up with a list of things that are perhaps more 'debatable' as necessary.

As for rig, you may be surprised. There must be an awful lot of old masts around that are insured. regarding the '10 year limit' of standing rigging - my insurance company does not require an automatic change, 'only' that it is kept in good condition. It is an often quoted remark, but I have no idea if any insurance companies actually do require it, and if any do then which ones.

 

[ex-Gladys]

As for rig, you may be surprised. There must be an awful lot of old masts around that are insured. regarding the '10 year limit' of standing rigging - my insurance company does not require an automatic change, 'only' that it is kept in good condition. It is an often quoted remark, but I have no idea if any insurance companies actually do require it, and if any do then which ones.

I had an interesting circumstance at my last insurance survey. The surveyor found a patch of corrosion where the gooseneck fitting had been moved, and we had a discussion. The thing for me was not the mast itself, but having just lashed out £3k on a new suit of sails, he pointed out that if the mast bust and damaged the sails, I probably wouldn't be covered for consequential damage to them...

 

[jfm]

jfm has answered ... that we must all accept ...

Hey there is no "must". I write what I write, like everyone else, and you can agree or disagree. If you agree anything that's because you've chosen to

... through jfm and some others I read that the Pantaenius Yachting24 policy was not protected by UK FOS and some German numpties would rule.
I shudder to think what response our keel or keels man would have got out of a darkened office in Hamburg!

Yes there is a distinction between plain vanilla Pantaenius run from Plymouth and Yachting 24 which is part of Pantaenius group. I have in the past recommended the former (and bought it myself for >10 years, till recently) but I have never liked or recommended Yachting 24 for a UK boat owner and don't expect I ever will

 

[Avocet]

Everything, absolutely everything, depends on the wording of the contract but in general there isn't an escape clause for the insurer just because something is home made/diy. There is however sometimes an escape clause for latent defects, whether those defects are attributable to the boat builder or a diy boat owner. Some policies limit the payout, some insure the loss but with exclusion for the part of the boat with the latent defect and some (Y comes to mind, but there will be others) do not exclude insurer's payout for latent defect at all

Of course a latent defect is usually defined as latent, ie hidden in some way and not known about, and not attributable to neglect of maintenance. A 20 year old failed brass seacock for example isn't latent. So if you build a cradle and bolted together your 3x3 angle iron with brass M4 set screws and it fell apart, that isn't latent defect and you risk no pay out because the cause of the loss was a defect you should have been aware of. At the borderlines, you can see that there can be arguments on points like this.

But generally there is no "ban on diy activity" in marine insurance, so long as you use M12 bolts as it were I've installed (bronze!) seacocks in my 7-figure boat with my own hands and if they fail and she sinks I'll be asking Mr Y for a large cheque .

OK, thanks for that. I just don't know what to think really. I take your seacocks example, but I suppose a more similar one would be if a seacock that you had designed and built yourself had failed. Your DIY risk in this case would be limited to fastener selection, and maybe backing pad? I have to stress that I'm speaking hypothetically here. I did design and build my own cradle and the boat spent many winters in it with no mishap (even when it was insured "fully-comp"). If it failed, I could turn to the insurers and say "but it has been fine for "x" years (which I'd have no way of proving!), so it can't be a "latent defect" and then we'd get into the nitty gritty of whether it was poor maintenance (which I'd probably have to concede if the failure was at a visibly very rusty and much-weakened bit) or it could be that I'd designed it to cope with the boat being stood in it in (say) a "Force 10" and we had a "Force 12" that night. If that happened, I'd still have no confidence that they wouldn't just turn round and say the initial design was inadequate. Surely most failures are "preventable", one way or another? I guess what I'm scared of (with it being an old boat of modest value) is getting on to that treadmill of having to pay a yard with some sort of corporate liability insurance to replace everything on it every so many years just in case I don't get paid out in the event of a claim.