Topsail - Unattended afloat clarified

[ChrisP1]

I doubt the policy says anything similar to the situation you describe. I expect he'd be covered if all practical steps were taken to make his vessel safe and secure. Unexpected weather or medical emergency might make it impossible to return to an anchored boat and I imagine the policy would cover that situation.

It is exactly as I describe. The original poster has been told this

The policy is structured on the basis that it provides cover for an accident or incident unless a specific exclusion applies to the incident that occurs

Apparently there is no exclusion in the policy requiring the owner of an anchored boat to take any steps to ensure the vessel is safe or secure or indeed to keep a watch on the boat. I just find that highly unusual

 

[ChrisP1]

Topsail pay out for accidental damage. I would call damage to a boat left unattended in a bay for 6 months inevitable, not accidental. Note that 'accidental' isn't a defined term so the plain-language meaning would be applicable.

Thats not apparently what DavidJ has been told

The policy is structured on the basis that it provides cover for an accident or incident unless a specific exclusion applies to the incident that occurs

The words accident or incident seems to cover every eventuality unless these words are described in detail in the policy somewhere else

 

[Hooligan]

I'd need to check my policy but do remember asking specifically about anchoring and being told up to 24 hours unattended was covered. I would have had that in writing as I'm very careful wrt insurance. I'll see if I can find it.

I was mainly pointing out that a comment stating that a specific exclusion for one thing did not automatically mean that the policy would cover another situation.

I went through the Y just before they were sold. I specifically enquired about anchoring unattended overnight or leaving the boat for walks etc. The response from the underwriter which in my case is N&G was ““That is correct, there is no restrictions around overnight mooring. The restriction is only a time one” and went on to say that if the boat is left on anchor unattended for more than 24 hours then it must be in a marina. Have to say that is not unreasonable to me as i cannot imagine leaving the boat on anchor unattended even for 24 hours tbh although obviously emergencies etc may change that.

 

[Portofino]

It is exactly as I describe. The original poster has been told this



Apparently there is no exclusion in the policy requiring the owner of an anchored boat to take any steps to ensure the vessel is safe or secure or indeed to keep a watch on the boat. I just find that highly unusual

Me too for too ambitious Imho .
A few years back I went to Amlins direct with the 2015 - 2018 policy seeking clarification.
They came back with I had to keep line of sight and be no more time wise than 1/2 hr to return .None of this appears in there policy .I did do a thread on here and it shook a few trees , pissed off a few on here , the “Y worshippers “. At the time “Y “ peddled the Amlins policy .
Not wanting to end up battling a refute I asked my broker ( Colemans ) to search the market for a policy that includes, or actually writes ups the unattended @ anchor thing .You know black and white boundaries.
Zurich say s words to the effect “ recognised anchorages and moorings on a chart “
That works for me in the Med .There is no time limit *or “ line of sight nonsense “

* I did dig deeper with the broker about the time , I was thinking a day hiring bikes etc , not just foraging food shops ashore or restaurants.What came back was a reasonable few days as long as the weather was good ( not a storm forecast ) and a justifiable reason eg you are hospitalised etc .Also mentioned stuff like good seamanship practice , so that rules out disappearing off like PeteMs power cat loss ^^^ .
For our use , beach in full view , shopping for food in back streets , restaurants etc all in “ recognised anchorages on charts “ that works .

@Holligan I think the Zurich and N+G are the same wording ?? Or where ?

 

[petem]

Thats not apparently what DavidJ has been told

Without wishing to be rude, what David has been told is irrelevant for other Y policy holders like me.

It's up to the courts to interpret what the contract says and the contract makes no mention of a 24 hour limit. All you do by getting clarifications from the insurer (particularly ones that you don't get endorsements for) is muddy the waters (excuse the pun) at best and potentially limit your cover (at no reduction in premium)!

 

[Portofino]

Without wishing to be rude, what David has been told is irrelevant for other Y policy holders like me.

It's up to the courts to interpret what the contract says and the contract makes no mention of a 24 hour limit. All you do by getting clarifications from the insurer (particularly ones that you don't get endorsements for) is muddy the waters (excuse the pun) at best and potentially limit your cover (at no reduction in premium)!

That’s the points Pete , Two !
1- a ordinary guy can stomach the “ up to the courts “ financial risks .*
2- “ muddy the waters “ .......turn that around for defined my black and white definition of cover re the specific cover for this ....unattended @ anchor.

* depends on your access and expertise on the legal s .JFM ( sadly missed ) of this parish will have completely a different view / approach ( diametrically in opposition ) to fighting in court if necessary , than ave bod on here ?

Who wants to blow £1 00 k +++ on an ambiguous policy wording , because while in a supermarket away from line of sight , perhaps after a few beers ( boys trips) some one did a hit and run and sunk there boat off some Med island?


Imho the more is written down somewhere in the policy about “ unattended @ anchor “ the better because you can behave within the policy pay out criteria.......if you are aware of it .

 

[Portofino]

Amlins will not be drawn on this because if it’s in writing it’s a weapon that could be fired back “ in court “ .
They are deliberately vague to keep the refute door as wide open as possible for the “unattended @ anchor .”

Chapeau to Chris P to have inadvertently stumbled into this .

 

[petem]

Amlins will not be drawn on this because if it’s in writing it’s a weapon that could be fired back “ in court “ .
They are deliberately vague to keep the refute door as wide open as possible for the “unattended @ anchor .”

Chapeau to Chris P to have inadvertently stumbled into this .

Just because an insurer says that I can leave my boat at anchor for 24 hours and still be covered, doesn't mean I will do that.

But, as we have have discussed before, I might have a heart attack whilst ashore for lunch and I could be fighting for my life. As a result, moving the boat within 24 hours might be the last thing on my wife's mind. By making his enquiry, David has given his insurer's an argument for refusing the claim, whereas I reckon I'd have a pretty good chance of claiming that my loss was accidental.

 

[Portofino]

Just because an insurer says that I can leave my boat at anchor for 24 hours and still be covered, doesn't mean I will do that.

But, as we have have discussed before, I might have a heart attack whilst ashore for lunch and I could be fighting for my life. As a result, moving the boat within 24 hours might be the last thing on my wife's mind. By making his enquiry, David has given his insurer's an argument for refusing the claim, whereas I reckon I'd have a pretty good chance of claiming that my loss was accidental.

Theres no “ 24 hr rule “ I am aware of written into my Zurich ( 2020-2021 ) policy . Not sure where that’ crept in ? Perhaps you could say ?

But and it’s a big but .....as said what is written in is we are happy with . Within normal seamanship my wife has some breathing space to move the boat by hiring local help .But if it was sunk within say for example 3 hrs before the said cardiac arrest , then because it complies with the pay out of the policy being in a charted anchorage my wife would not have the court battle and all that, that comes with that battle with .
Yours would. ,
Turning the quote David J post #1 by the broker ( merely quoting the policy and in imho weaselling out ) around

.....” The policy is structured on the basis that it provides cover for an accident or incident unless a specific exclusion applies to the incident that occurs. Taking extracts from Section A gives the cover under the following:”:

And further enquiries with Amlin direct .........this leaves open a very wide door potentially line of refute .
Clever I agree but only clever if you sit on the payout side , ie the under writer or broker .Not so clever if you are the claimant, the punter .?...Unless you happen to be a $hit hot lawyer Hungary for a breakfast snack amongst your day job.

 

[wonkywinch]

This old thread prompted me to double check my Zurich policy which says it doesn't cover ..

the vessel being stranded, sunk, swamped or breaking adrift whilst unattended except on a recognised mooring

Will check with the insurer tomorrow as I often anchor up and dinghy across to a pub lunch and renewal is imminent.

Maybe Rocna owners are exempt

 

[wonkywinch]

Ah, no need to call, digging deeper into the document it states:

Recognised mooring: a professionally laid and maintained yacht mooring or sheltered anchorage which appears in a marine publication such as a chart, almanac or area/pilotage guide.