Topsail Renewal

petem said:
The Pants website is broken so I couldn't link to the policy. They emailed me a copy today. The policy that you quoted is for hull insurance.
Click to expand...
Well in your own time Pete . :unsure:
Not wanting to chivie you along but Just now from the uk website…..

9BB4520F-D29C-4C9E-96B5-FFB644D2B1ED.jpeg
Does not contradict what I linked in post # 41.

Aside the unattended @ anchor does seem silent , leaving them to drop the un “seamanship “card .Oh well the policy holder could retort with the “ all risks ” card .Which card trumps which ? Might take a court to decide yes ?

Pity nought was ever written up , put in writing in the policy either way about leaving the boat “ unattended @ anchor “,

Oh hang on the N + G defines the terms of cover of “ unattended @ anchor “ …in black and white .
 
Portofino said:
Well in your own time Pete . :unsure:
Not wanting to chivie you along but Just now from the uk website…..

View attachment 131936
Does not contradict what I linked in post # 41.

Aside the unattended @ anchor does seem silent , leaving them to drop the un “seamanship “card .Oh well the policy holder could retort with the “ all risks ” card .Which card trumps which ? Might take a court to decide yes ?

Pity nought was ever written up , put in writing in the policy either way about leaving the boat “ unattended @ anchor “,

Oh hang on the N + G defines the terms of cover of “ unattended @ anchor “ …in black and white .
Click to expand...
Porto , pants offer two different policies , you're quoting from the cover plus policy which does cover damage resulting from corrosion, but their standard cover policy is as per Petem wording.

So you're both correct?

Obviously the cover plus policy is more expensive than the standard cover policy.
 
Last edited:
julians said:
I think a lot of insurance policies

Porto , pants offer two different policies , you're quoting from the cover plus policy which does cover damage resulting from corrosion, but their standard cover policy is as per Petem wording.

So you're both correct?

Obviously the cover plus policy is more expensive than the standard cover policy.
Click to expand...
I believe that Porto is quoting the "Motor Yacht Insurance" as opposed to the "Motor Boat Insurance". I'm not sure when a motor boat becomes a motor yacht for their purposes.

In any case, it's what's in the policy T and C's that count, not some high level website stuff.
 
I moved to Curtis based on the thread from @Hurricane. 25 pc cheaper than I was quoted by renewal broker. Amlin policy via Haven KJ which in my view has best overall wording. The debate on wording is endless and in my view pointless. If you have a claim, and I doubt many here have had a claim as big as the one I had, it boils down to one thing and one thing only - the loss adjuster and your ability to work with him/her to discover the “truth”. My loss adjuster said that up to 80 pc of claims were fictitious and that is what most insurers are after ie the false claims. I do not believe that any insurer is relying on interpretation to screw you out of a claim unless the wording is absolutely specific. If you have a claim everything will be negotiated, I guarantee.
 
Portofino said:
Well in your own time Pete . :unsure:
Not wanting to chivie you along but Just now from the uk website…..

View attachment 131936
Does not contradict what I linked in post # 41.

Aside the unattended @ anchor does seem silent , leaving them to drop the un “seamanship “card .Oh well the policy holder could retort with the “ all risks ” card .Which card trumps which ? Might take a court to decide yes ?

Pity nought was ever written up , put in writing in the policy either way about leaving the boat “ unattended @ anchor “,

Oh hang on the N + G defines the terms of cover of “ unattended @ anchor “ …in black and white .
Click to expand...
All Risks means ALL RISKS unless it's excluded by an exclusion. The clauses that you've been going on about for years only serve to restrict cover.
 
Hooligan said:
I moved to Curtis based on the thread from @Hurricane. 25 pc cheaper than I was quoted by renewal broker. Amlin policy via Haven KJ which in my view has best overall wording. The debate on wording is endless and in my view pointless. If you have a claim, and I doubt many here have had a claim as big as the one I had, it boils down to one thing and one thing only - the loss adjuster and your ability to work with him/her to discover the “truth”. My loss adjuster said that up to 80 pc of claims were fictitious and that is what most insurers are after ie the false claims. I do not believe that any insurer is relying on interpretation to screw you out of a claim unless the wording is absolutely specific. If you have a claim everything will be negotiated, I guarantee.
Click to expand...
Well we've had a forumite here whose insurer refused to pay out on a total loss that was caused by the failure of a skin fitting (due to electrolysis). Another forumite fought his case for him and won the case. It was due to the policy wording that they were able to do so.

Personally, I'd rather pay a bit extra for a policy that provided full cover than one that has unacceptable exclusions.
 
I take pictures of the plotter / chart / I pad anchorage on my phone etc when we go ashore together and leave the boat unattended.This shows the “ marked on a chart bit “

I am all cocked and loaded ready .Just in case there’s no boat when we return .
Policy wording says we are covered no ambiguity it’s “absolutely specific “ to quote Hooligan ^^ .
 
petem said:
Well we've had a forumite here whose insurer refused to pay out on a total loss that was caused by the failure of a skin fitting (due to electrolysis). Another forumite fought his case for him and won the case. It was due to the policy wording that they were able to do so.

Personally, I'd rather pay a bit extra for a policy that provided full cover than one that has unacceptable exclusions.
Click to expand...
What about looking for acceptable INCLUSION S as well as unacceptable exclusions ?
 
petem said:
I believe that Porto is quoting the "Motor Yacht Insurance" as opposed to the "Motor Boat Insurance". I'm not sure when a motor boat becomes a motor yacht for their purposes.

In any case, it's what's in the policy T and C's that count, not some high level website stuff.
Click to expand...
Post #41 was the t+c that I found .I posted that first before the “ high level web site stuff “

Anyhow if you had posted your link to back up what you say like I have been doing then that would have helped gain clarity .
Agree with you it doesn’t help researching when the target ( pants ) has multiple policy’s , products.
And a poster blurts out “ pants was more “ ……..which pants policy ?Kinda muddies the price / product comparison analysis.

Thx for Julian’s
 
petem said:
All Risks means ALL RISKS unless it's excluded by an exclusion. The clauses that you've been going on about for years only serve to restrict cover.
Click to expand...
This is where I disagree .
Thats what I thought until i via Coleman’s investigated further the Amlins policy .
You know the responses etc so I won’t repeat .Look further up ^^^ .

I agree with Hooligan it’s all about negotiations with the loss adjuster with a huge claim say a sinking swamping or it drags it’s anchor while left unattended and either sank or was wrecked ashore .

As I said rather than assume “ all risks “ covers everything ( ex exclusions ) what’s included written in is important as what’s silent , if not more important.
Take a valuable item say a watch .
Don‘t assume your Patek Phillpe watch is under the “ all risks “.You know where you stand if your policy states valuable items up to the amount of [ insert £ ]. Nice to know that up front if it’s covered or not .If not seek cover with appropriate premiums adjustment.


All I did folks one season snorkelling round the boat as Med boaters do found 3 wrecked newish boats sank .We anchored almost on top of three on three separate anchorages .
One between the Lerin islands .One off Corsica ,one off Theuole sur Mer .
No they weren’t Pearls with the P brackets punched through 5 mm hull skin Btw :)

One had weeded up .But i new it was this season as I new the anchorage. So it had been down there a few months .

All three about 50;-60 ftrs mobos .

My renewal came up as they do in August actually while I was on the then Sunsseker .
Scanned the Coleman’s Amlins based policy and noticed the “ all risks “ along with wreck recovery bit .Silent over anchorage cover.

Got me thinking ! Why hasn’t the ins cos recovered the wrecks ?,
Two of them the Lerins / Theuole one are in so called scientific area marina locations …..pollution and all that etc etc .

So either not insured .But marinas in the SoF and wider Med require ins .Or 3 P only , but even those policies have wreck removal in case the thing sinks on its berth so the marina office are covered to clean up the mess .
Or they were covered fully comp and the ins Co are refuting the claim to clean up the wrecks ?

But why if “ ALL RISK s” ?

So I just popped the Q to Amlins via Coleman’s….opened up this can of worms of cover while at anchor .Thought “ all risks “was sufficient. If so why is no one recovering these boats ? What’s the cock off ?

The rest you know about .The cover if only in line of sight and 1/2 hr return etc etc .
Ps Pete I am just messenger boy here not judge and jury .

As you know moved cover to a policy thats less ambiguous and writes in the cover specifically re unattended @ anchor .
I do not see it as “ restricting cover “
I see it as clarification of cover .

No Axe to grind , not looking for a fight etc etc .
 
Last edited:
petem said:
Well we've had a forumite here whose insurer refused to pay out on a total loss that was caused by the failure of a skin fitting (due to electrolysis). Another forumite fought his case for him and won the case. It was due to the policy wording that they were able to do so.

Personally, I'd rather pay a bit extra for a policy that provided full cover than one that has unacceptable exclusions.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on specific exclusions. I should have clarified that what I meant is where wording is open for interpretation or indeed where the subject is not specifically covered.
 
petem said:
Well we've had a forumite here whose insurer refused to pay out on a total loss that was caused by the failure of a skin fitting (due to electrolysis). Another forumite fought his case for him and won the case. It was due to the policy wording that they were able to do so.
Click to expand...
But isn't that what @Hooligan is saying - on a big legitimate claim it will be down to negotiation. He also points out that he is happy with the wording of his policy.
 
Portofino said:
This is the problem of not putting a link in Pete .So was left to search myself and came up with this .
I used this Google link .Page 4 number 4 .
Wether it s current or not is another issue ,
https://www.pantaenius.com/pantaenius-text/textsystem/renderbrief.do?mt_brief_nr=200.11954&prodversion=true&resultname=All Risks Clauses Booklet
Click to expand...
As I said before, the website link to the Policy Terms and Conditions is broken. If you don't believe me, go here...

Conditions & clauses | Pantaenius UK and click on the post 8/10/20 "MOTOR BOAT - TERMS & CONDITIONS" link.

Quoting out of date policies or ones for other insurance types doesn't help.
 
Hooligan said:
I agree with you on specific exclusions. I should have clarified that what I meant is where wording is open for interpretation or indeed where the subject is not specifically covered.
Click to expand...
Think of it as a concentric circle where the content of the circle is what's covered. The outer circle means ALL risks to the vessel. Anything listed in the exclusions is ultimately reducing the size of the circle.

Inclusions are only helpful if they are listing additional risks that are covered (e.g. hotel accommodation or pet cover).
 
Portofino said:
What about looking for acceptable INCLUSION S as well as unacceptable exclusions ?
Click to expand...
That's a good question and I asked a successful lawyer why. His reply was that he'd wondered that all his career but some people, even intelligent ones, like to see some things listed as a comfort blanket.

In fact, the Pants policy is very simple . It simply says...

SECTION A: HULL AND PROPERTY INSURANCE
§1. Insured Property
1. The Motor Boat;
2. Equipment which has been leased by you under a contract specifically for use onboard the Motor Boat, and which is of a
nature as would normally be found on the Motor Boat. Such equipment is included within the Motor Boat’s Agreed Fixed
Value specified in the Schedule.

§2. Cover
1. The Motor Boat is insured against all risks of physical loss or damage that occur during the Policy Period, subject to the exclusions
and conditions in this Section and in Section C.
2. Parts of the Motor Boat are also insured while they are temporarily stored in a securely locked building ashore.

And that's it.
 
Hurricane said:
But isn't that what @Hooligan is saying - on a big legitimate claim it will be down to negotiation. He also points out that he is happy with the wording of his policy.
Click to expand...
No, in a total loss, where you end up in court because the insurer is refusing to pay the claim at all, the policy terms and conditions are the only thing that count. Of course you can negotiate all you want before you get to that point but if your terms and conditions are on your side you'll be in a much stronger position.
 
petem said:
No, in a total loss, where you end up in court because the insurer is refusing to pay the claim at all, the policy terms and conditions are the only thing that count. Of course you can negotiate all you want before you get to that point but if your terms and conditions are on your side you'll be in a much stronger position.
Click to expand...
Agree my point , the stuff of most interest to you is written up in black + white .Extracted out of all risks and defined .
Boundaries are clear and you are not open to the whims of interpretation .

Hopefully it never ends up in court .
 
petem said:
No, in a total loss, where you end up in court because the insurer is refusing to pay the claim at all, the policy terms and conditions are the only thing that count. Of course you can negotiate all you want before you get to that point but if your terms and conditions are on your side you'll be in a much stronger position.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what was said.
"On a big legitimate claim it will be down to negotiation" - whatever the wording says.
Yes, get the wording correct but in a big case @Hooligan said there will always be a negotiation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top