Topsail Renewal

petem said:
Legally, there is no difference. JFM posted many times explaining this and eventially gave up. For some reason, people here like to see some anchoring exclusions / restrictions as some kind of comfort blanket. They don't understand what an all risks accidental damage policy covers you for.

Quite bizarre but hey ho.
Click to expand...
They are inclusions and definitions .Better than silence .I don’t think Solent sailor realised when he posted this “You went to a policy where Colemans did say unattended at anchor was fine, provided you acted in a seamanlike manner.”

Colemans found a definite easily do able cover namely you can “leave it unattended on marked anchorages / buoys “

This is different to simply acting in a good seaman like manor .

Amlins wrote to me detailing what cover unattended at anchor you had with there “ all risks “
I merely passed it on with then Colemans permission.Thought it would be useful to know then .
Dont shoot the messenger!


You have cut out the then circa 2015/6 Amlin s written letter to me and Coleman’s who acted for me …..the bit whereby
1- they wanted line of sight and return in 1/2 hr .Other than that they would refute on the bad seaman ship line .
They would argue you were irresponsible.It’s up to you then to take them to court / fight / risk ££££ on top of the boat loss to prove other wise .JFM maybe would have relished the fight .Ave sod on here I doubt it .Hence my quip of putting your house in hoc if they forced you to take them to a judicial review .
So you have lost the boat , your savings , your house all because you ate at a restaurant one street in .They played the line of sight card = calling you irresponsible / bad seaman etc etc . They would have argued for a 2 hr back street lunch you should have left a competent person on board .Good luck arguing against that .

2- They can’t write up every exclusion so the list is not exhaustive.fair enough.
3- all risk is not sloppy bad seamanship in there view deliberate acts of negligence……which there yardstick then was line of sight / 1/2 hr return .You we’re covered Pete but only along theses narrow and in my view of Med boating restrictions to unattended anchoring . You are covered sitting in a shore side restaurant with a table view of the boat and no more than 1/2 tender trip back .

Far better to get the better anchorage specs written which Coleman’s via N+G did .
The N+G wording included cover leaving unattended on marked anchorage/ buoys etc .No time period .No line of sight malarkey .
This is where I am today and many leisure boaters . So we can shop / eat etc out of line of sight .Even get outside return of 1/2 hr .Say go for a walk inland a forested island or what ever .Amlins said despite all risks that’s irresponsible and open a refute .
Advised me to stay in line of sight / 1/2 hr return .There words Pete .That was there then cut off from paying out to refute leaving it unattended @ anchor .

Yes the negligence/ shoddy / un seamanship card is always in every ins co hand ,even N+G s I assume ( not asked ) even with said “ all risks “ As I say good luck fighting them .
As i illustrated in post #15 ^^ .
 
Portofino said:
They are inclusions and definitions .Better than silence .I don’t think Solent sailor realised when he posted this “You went to a policy where Colemans did say unattended at anchor was fine, provided you acted in a seamanlike manner.”

Colemans found a definite easily do able cover namely you can “leave it unattended on marked anchorages / buoys “

This is different to simply acting in a good seaman like manor .

Amlins wrote to me detailing what cover unattended at anchor you had with there “ all risks “
I merely passed it on with then Colemans permission.Thought it would be useful to know then .
Dont shoot the messenger!


You have cut out the then circa 2015/6 Amlin s written letter to me and Coleman’s who acted for me …..the bit whereby
1- they wanted line of sight and return in 1/2 hr .Other than that they would refute on the bad seaman ship line .
They would argue you were irresponsible.It’s up to you then to take them to court / fight / risk ££££ on top of the boat loss to prove other wise .JFM maybe would have relished the fight .Ave sod on here I doubt it .Hence my quip of putting your house in hoc if they forced you to take them to a judicial review .
So you have lost the boat , your savings , your house all because you ate at a restaurant one street in .They played the line of sight card = calling you irresponsible / bad seaman etc etc . They would have argued for a 2 hr back street lunch you should have left a competent person on board .Good luck arguing against that .

2- They can’t write up every exclusion so the list is not exhaustive.fair enough.
3- all risk is not sloppy bad seamanship in there view deliberate acts of negligence……which there yardstick then was line of sight / 1/2 hr return .You we’re covered Pete but only along theses narrow and in my view of Med boating restrictions to unattended anchoring . You are covered sitting in a shore side restaurant with a table view of the boat and no more than 1/2 tender trip back .

Far better to get the better anchorage specs written which Coleman’s via N+G did .
The N+G wording included cover leaving unattended on marked anchorage/ buoys etc .No time period .No line of sight malarkey .
This is where I am today and many leisure boaters . So we can shop / eat etc out of line of sight .Even get outside return of 1/2 hr .Say go for a walk inland a forested island or what ever .Amlins said despite all risks that’s irresponsible and open a refute .
Advised me to stay in line of sight / 1/2 hr return .There words Pete .That was there then cut off from paying out to refute leaving it unattended @ anchor .

Yes the negligence/ shoddy / un seamanship card is always in every ins co hand ,even N+G s I assume ( not asked ) even with said “ all risks “ As I say good luck fighting them .
As i illustrated in post #15 ^^ .
Click to expand...

find one example of someone who has fallen foul of the anchoring clause you keep banging on about.
 
Elessar said:
find one example of someone who has fallen foul of the anchoring clause you keep banging on about.
Click to expand...
.
Reminds me of “ failed to plan , planned to fail “ just fwd thinking what if ?
As mentioned by others ^^^ are theses ins threads all about price , or better policy details ?



Why do they Zurich the ins Co write this in ? Indeed every word is carefully selected .It’s not up to me to justify these words to you .
I merely reported Amlins stance on the issue the silence in there policies , and where there then refute boundary was .
Do with the info what you will .

I sleep tight at night with this written in .
Definitions N+G ( Zurich ) current policy wording .
8F5E3D12-EEB0-43FD-ADB9-EC98D450AF6D.jpeg

From the exclusion list
ECA5C350-F9D7-4ECD-9935-DDC1773B2BF7.jpeg

Nice to know about number 9 when planning a shore run ….no ?
You have this too anyhow .
 
Portofino said:
.
Reminds me of “ failed to plan , planned to fail “ just fwd thinking what if ?
As mentioned by others ^^^ are theses ins threads all about price , or better policy details ?



Why do they Zurich the ins Co write this in ? Indeed every word is carefully selected .It’s not up to me to justify these words to you .
I merely reported Amlins stance on the issue the silence in there policies , and where there then refute boundary was .
Do with the info what you will .

I sleep tight at night with this written in .
Definitions N+G ( Zurich ) current policy wording .
View attachment 131858

From the exclusion list
View attachment 131859

Nice to know about number 9 when planning a shore run ….no ?
You have this too anyhow .
Click to expand...
That’s “no” then?
 
Elessar said:
That’s “no” then?
Click to expand...
I can’t give you any examples of burglaries to property or car theft either .They are a “no “too .Add them to your list (s) next time your house / car needs insurance .
Little dickie bird tells me from reading house / car insurance polices ……words like “ forced entry “ on property and “ secure garage / alarms on car policies etc I have concluded there must be an issues or series of issues surround ing theses wordings .Sorry no personal experience of car theft or house burglary, or seen boats ins refute claims any claims .Never claimed on a boat policy in 30 yrs .Are you inferring only claimants needs respond to insurance threads ?

Bit like anchor threads you actually needs a boat and anchor to chip in a thread on anchors ?

Whats your point ?

I suspect even though I do not know personally of house burglaries or car thefts they still go on , just from on looking @ policy wording alone .As I said why write it in ……anchoring pay out terms for loss / swamping etc .If it’s so inconsequential?

All iam highlighting is while price is one thing with the plethora of insurance threads on here , one might want to review the policies to see if the mostly fit your needs .That’s all .Instead of racing to the bottom £.
 
Last edited:
All insurances require to take reasonable care .
How ''reasonable care'' is interpreted is another matter.
 
Elessar said:
you can get an instant online quote from craftinsure so you’ve nothing to lose by trying that.
I’ve used them for years. Variations to standard policy accommodated and 3 claims dealt with fairly and efficiently.

JFMs beef with it is they have a clause that says they can at their discretion provide a similar craft rather than cash in case of a total loss. i Can live with that but can see why he wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
Tried to get a quote online with craftinsure, they only quote up to 50ft online ,
 
Turning away from the art of policy wording construction to premium increases I wonder if the Topsail action is due to an increased commission as opposed to any actual above market increase in the net rate . I have seen cases where some brokers such as Saga massively hiked up on renewal their commission with a marginal increase in net rate . If you have a broker with a vc funder it’s no doubt under pressure to ramp up gross rates particularly if it paid out to acquire a book which is now deserting it. Speculation of course but seen elsewhere. Self perpetuating downward spiral . I’m with N&G and generally prefer to deal with a direct main line insurer like Zurich but clearly many with more complex profile find Pants meets their needs etc. so in summary it’s very much down to the underwriters attitude to a particular broker and loss ratio. If Topsal has a panel and has ended relationship with one or more of its panel members it might just have less ability to offer cover at good rates.
 
ashtead said:
I wonder if the Topsail action is due to an increased commission as opposed to any actual above market increase in the net rate . I have seen cases where some brokers such as Saga massively hiked up on renewal their commission with a marginal increase in net rate . If you have a broker with a vc funder it’s no doubt under pressure to ramp up gross rates particularly if it paid out to acquire a book which is now deserting it. Speculation of course but seen elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I think there was likely a long term exit plan in place for the former owner, which involved building a business which was easily saleable - loyal customer base and perhaps fortunate in not having to pay out too many big claims. The timing of when they started to become difficult on claims (as reported to me by several people first hand) tied in with the 12/18 months prior to sale when it was being packaged up and the deal negotiated.

The new buyer perhaps thought that loyalty would result in an ability to increase premiums, which perhaps works to a point (they're still trading!) and reflects trends in retail insurance generally (hence having to shop around each year or be shafted by your current provider at renewal). If they lose a few more active customers on the way, they probably don't care so much.
 
Solent Sailor said:
…
Don't you think its fun trying to pay as little as possible for as much as possible? Providing, of course, one is not spending undue amounts of time on it when one could be making more money (or spending it!) in a more satisfactory way.
Click to expand...

Maybe the divine marquis would have spent more time on price comparison sites had the internet only been invented.
 
Interesting comments.
Had anyone noticed from this thread.

The insurer in question behind the agents named appears to be Navigators and General.


If as intimated Navigators and General have been hit by claims and heavily upping premiums then shop around .

Did try Vizzy cover or something out of Allianz Germany.
Poor wording imo ,surveys at 8 years!
Claims settlements based upon bottom value of market value.

Pass.
 
I wonder if it is Zurich underwriting for Topsail and it’s a solus deal as opposed to a panel that underwriters have tighten up up criteria for this business. Losing 35% or more to a broker on business with a poor loss ratio rather leads insurers to back away from a broker particularly if you gain the feeling the broker have piled all sorts of rubbish to boost commission income pre sale.
 
I tried Coleman’s, they were 4 x more expensive than only yacht, Pantenaeus were competitive but couldn’t leave the boat on anchor.
 
Portofino said:
.
Reminds me of “ failed to plan , planned to fail “ just fwd thinking what if ?
As mentioned by others ^^^ are theses ins threads all about price , or better policy details ?



Why do they Zurich the ins Co write this in ? Indeed every word is carefully selected .It’s not up to me to justify these words to you .
I merely reported Amlins stance on the issue the silence in there policies , and where there then refute boundary was .
Do with the info what you will .

I sleep tight at night with this written in .
Definitions N+G ( Zurich ) current policy wording .
View attachment 131858

From the exclusion list
View attachment 131859

Nice to know about number 9 when planning a shore run ….no ?
You have this too anyhow .
Click to expand...
Chris H said:
I tried Coleman’s, they were 4 x more expensive than only yacht, Pantenaeus were competitive but couldn’t leave the boat on anchor.
Click to expand...
Chris, I can't see any Anchoring exclusions in the Pants policy. Can you elaborate?

Saying that, the policy has bigger issues that make it unfit.
 
Tradewinds said:
Can you expand on that pls? - currently looking at a quote from Pantaenius (sailing boat)
Click to expand...
I've only skim read the Motorboat Policy but this exclusion would be a showstopper for me...

“loss or damage resulting from normal wear and tear, gradual deterioration, corrosion of any kind (including electrolytic, galvanic, oxidation and rusting), rot, unseaworthiness or lack of maintenance;”

Boats can and do sink due to corroded seacocks. Regular checking and periodic replacement helps but at the end of the day, seacocks are one of the few bits of the boat that stops it from sinking. The Topsail policy is much better on this point.
 
The whole clause is here

4. the cost of repairing or replacing a part that is subject to normal wear and tear or that is damaged by corrosion of any kind (including electrolytic, galvanic, oxidation and rusting) or rot and that has caused the physical loss of or damage to the yacht (but the physical loss or damage that occurs to the property insured under this insurance as a direct result thereof is not excluded);

So I read this as if a seacock goes = floods a compartment .
They won’t pay for the thing itself as it’s corroded but will for the damage it caused .

But they might question the gen cop out gotcha all insurance policies have = “ seaworthiness/ maintenance.”
Slap that card on the table in the courtroom :)
 
Portofino said:
The whole clause is here

4. the cost of repairing or replacing a part that is subject to normal wear and tear or that is damaged by corrosion of any kind (including electrolytic, galvanic, oxidation and rusting) or rot and that has caused the physical loss of or damage to the yacht (but the physical loss or damage that occurs to the property insured under this insurance as a direct result thereof is not excluded);

So I read this as if a seacock goes = floods a compartment .
They won’t pay for the thing itself as it’s corroded but will for the damage it caused .

But they might question the gen cop out gotcha all insurance policies have = “ seaworthiness/ maintenance.”
Slap that card on the table in the courtroom :)
Click to expand...
Are you taking about Pantaenius? If you are, that's wording isn't in the latest policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top