Andrew38
Well-Known Member
Had a very competitive quote from them and they have been very helpful and informative in answering all my questions but it would really help if anyone has experience of dealing with them.
Traffords Insurance - anyone dealing with them?
- Thread starter Andrew38
- Start date
jfm
Well-Known Member
I would just urge you to read the policy carefully Andrew. Following Haven Knox-Johnson's winning the Garmin custmer service award last week I filled in their online request for a quote for my new boat. Their communication by email was exceptionally good and the premium was competitive, which is no doubt why they won the award. The terms of their cover however were truly awful imho. I have never seen so many finely worded exclusions allowing the insurer to escape liability in the event of a significant loss. I'd urge anyone to get a policy other than Haven Knox Johnson's and in my opinion their winning this award is an unfortunate occurence. It's a shame the judges didn't look at their standard policy before awarding the prize
Anyway, I have no idea about Traffords. I'm just making a general point that you really should check the terms of the cover carefully as there are some awful policies out there imho. The premium isn't that important frankly. I'm sticking with Pantaenius
Anyway, I have no idea about Traffords. I'm just making a general point that you really should check the terms of the cover carefully as there are some awful policies out there imho. The premium isn't that important frankly. I'm sticking with Pantaenius
[2068]
...
Which bits in particular were you unhappy with?
The clause that struck me was about "Unseaworthiness of the Vessel" - what on earth does that mean?
http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/assets/pleasurecraft_policy.pdf
The clause that struck me was about "Unseaworthiness of the Vessel" - what on earth does that mean?
http://www.boatinsure.co.uk/assets/pleasurecraft_policy.pdf
jfm
Well-Known Member
All the following is my own reading of the policy. I'm happy to be corrected if shown to be wrong.
That was one of the very unsatisfactory clauses FP, imho. If you suffer a loss due to unseaworthiness of the vessel you have no cover. Unseaworthiness is a defined term: the policy seems to operates in a way where the vessel is "unseaworthy" if any fault exists at start of voyage that renders the vessel unfit to undertake that voyage. There is no reference to whether you know about the fault or ought to know about it.
If a fault exists at the start of the voyage and causes the boat to sink, the insurer's surveyor merely needs to establish that the fault existed when you left port, which might be easy for him to do depending on the exact circs. Then you get no payout. Let's say the fault is a very unusual matter so that as boat owner you didn't know about it nor ought to know about it, perfectly reasonably. You are still not covered and get no payout under the policy
Another exclusion is all losses flowing directly or indirectly from mechanical breakdown. Say your engine fails and boat is lost on rocks - you're not covered. It makes no difference that the engine is quite new and has been well cared for and serviced in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. If it fails even out of the blue, you are still not covered.
I could give more examples but there is no point: the policy is very poor imho based just on the above two. Anyone who insures with these guys please consider your position very carefully.
Sorry Andrew for slight thread drift from Traffords
That was one of the very unsatisfactory clauses FP, imho. If you suffer a loss due to unseaworthiness of the vessel you have no cover. Unseaworthiness is a defined term: the policy seems to operates in a way where the vessel is "unseaworthy" if any fault exists at start of voyage that renders the vessel unfit to undertake that voyage. There is no reference to whether you know about the fault or ought to know about it.
If a fault exists at the start of the voyage and causes the boat to sink, the insurer's surveyor merely needs to establish that the fault existed when you left port, which might be easy for him to do depending on the exact circs. Then you get no payout. Let's say the fault is a very unusual matter so that as boat owner you didn't know about it nor ought to know about it, perfectly reasonably. You are still not covered and get no payout under the policy
Another exclusion is all losses flowing directly or indirectly from mechanical breakdown. Say your engine fails and boat is lost on rocks - you're not covered. It makes no difference that the engine is quite new and has been well cared for and serviced in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. If it fails even out of the blue, you are still not covered.
I could give more examples but there is no point: the policy is very poor imho based just on the above two. Anyone who insures with these guys please consider your position very carefully.
Sorry Andrew for slight thread drift from Traffords
Andrew38
Well-Known Member
Don't apologise this is extremely pertinent!
It all turns on how phrases are interpreted and by whom!
"1. Seaworthiness
It is a condition of this insurance that the Insured will take all reasonable precautions in keeping and maintaining
the Craft in a proper state of repair and at all times exercise due care and diligence in both the protection, use and manning of the craft"
This is a direct quote from one policy document but the other policy document has nothing similar and that probably means that it's implied anyway?
oncewaswafu
Well-Known Member
I and a friend both use Traffords. However, the proof of the pudding etc: neither of us has made a claim so unable to comment on that side of it. They are very prompt and efficient to deal with though, answer all queries promptly etc. Can't say more, really.
Good luck!
jfm
Well-Known Member
Andrew the clause you quote above is perfectly acceptable to the customer, imho. It is a million miles away from the completely unacceptable (imho) Haven Knox Johnson clause discussed above
Also in a policy where there is no clause like that, I'd agree with you that it is probably implied anyway. That would be perfectly reasonable imho. I think a boat owner would do well to assume it is implied
Last edited:
jfm
Well-Known Member
I think some of the proof of the pudding is indeed in their behaviour on a claim, but quite a lot of pudding proof is also in the policy wording
Just to be clear, I am not saying anything at all negative about Traffords. If Andrew's quote above is from their policy then that's a tick for them in my book. The only policy that I'm specifically warning people to think very carefully about is Haven Knox Johnson's
neale
Well-Known Member
I am an avid reader of marine insurance policy small print and although no expert, I am currently insured with Traffords.
With regards to the quote above I need to say this:
There were no judges. The whole point of this particular award is that it is voted for by the readers of MBM and MBY as well as participants on YBW. The company witthe most votes wins, it's as simple as that.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Two thoughts on that Neale:
1. Are you happy about it? Happy that you can award a prize to a company that gives clearly excellent customer service in terms of fast/nice communications etc, but under that shiny surface the policy wording is materially worse than the others?
2. Are you sure about your last sentence? When invited to vote we are asked to name the company and give reasons. That's what I did and probably others did. Are you saying that if someone emails just the name of the company, with no further expanation, the vote still counts?
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Many here (raggies) have moved from HKJ since Pheonix of Hamble pointed this out. most have gone to Y Yacht Ins
neale
Well-Known Member
1. Like I said, we don't choose, you do. It is, after all, a customer service award and the quality of the product does not always reflect customer service levels. The best product in the world could be supplied by a company with terrible customer service and vice versa. Just accept the award for what it is, evidence of good customer service, and do your own research into the product.
2. No I'm not sure as I had absolutely nothing to do with it, but I suspect amount of votes is equally, if not more, important than quality of reasons. I don't know how votes without reasons are dealt with but that is not relevant as it would be the same for all companies.
RogerRat
Well-Known Member
Yep, I have been insured with Traffords for the last 5 years and do recommend them happily!
Good service and advice all the way down the line.
I had a problem with a bump a few years ago against a moored vessel. I reported this as my fault as I was skipper in charge. Error was mine but due to fast ebbing tide and current in a river. Damage was only cosmetic only but still not a nice experience.
The claim and procedures were handled by Traffords promptly in a most professional manner. No claim was paid in the end even though the owner of the other boat tried to claim for everything imaginable! Traffords stayed on the case at my request and handled everything, no loss of 'no claims' either. I have been very pleased with Traffords and have just renewed this week through them for this year.
capsco
Well-Known Member
So you admitted liability, but your Insurance company refused to pay out, so if the other party was posting here he would no doubt be slagging off Trafford Ins as a company that does not pay out??
jfm
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.
1 - You're avoiding my question (!) which was "Are you happy about all this?"
2 - this is pretty unsatisfactory. If I can vote without typing a reason then I'd like to know. The poll suggests to voters that a reason must be given, ánd the reader therefore assumes his 5 minutes of reason typing isn't in vain. If in fact it is just a simple vote count and the reasons don't influence the outcome it would be nice if you told us that. I really don't mind how you run this vote but I think you should tell us how you've chosen to run it.
neale
Well-Known Member
1. Yes I am perfectly happy that the award is for 'customer service' with nothing else implied.
2. I don't run anything. As i said before I have nothing to do with this particular award, apart from working for the company, and I don't know how that votes are counted/used etc etc. All i was trying to say is that I would find it odd for a company with fewer votes to win the award. After all, all of the comments are going to be about how the company deliver good service, so how would you add weight to a particular comment over and above another comment. Having said that a comment is a useful tool to back up the vote.
RogerRat
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I see your point. I reported the incident as it was my responsibility to do so as the owner wasn't on board. There was no damage, the mark on mine rubbed off with a thumb nail as my fenders protected both boats. The was no forward motion as the boat was in neutral, we came together due the current pushing me sideways.
The reason they did not pay out was because there was no damage. Well if there was I couldn't find any and I spent half an hour looking for some.
Traffords communicated promptly with all parties concerned.
superheat6k
Well-Known Member
Been with Traffords before and with them again now as they were 1/3 the price of Zurichs Nav & Gen.
I asked the same question and he response from those who have had to claim was very positive.
However I nearly went for GJW as they offer a dearer but no fuss indeed no survey needed policy still a lot less than N&G.
I asked the same question and he response from those who have had to claim was very positive.
However I nearly went for GJW as they offer a dearer but no fuss indeed no survey needed policy still a lot less than N&G.
gandacle
New Member
First rate analysis from JFM as ever on both fronts. On the subject of the awards some of my pub buddies who are very involved in the marine game have long raised an eye-brow or two about the winners. To be fair the awards business in general chucks up some strange winners across the piece so not really a marine-centric problem!
I got a quote from Traffords a few years ago. They were indeed very cheap and the policy terms weren't particularly onerous but I got concerned when I asked them to name the security for the policy and they refused on the basis of commercial sensitivity. IIRC they hid behind a Lloyds reference number of something but none of the other main companies do this - indeed many are only too keen to tell you who the policy is backed by (I guess since one or two are owned by their ultimate underwriters).
I'm not keen on opacity with straight forward stuff like this and so insured elsewhere. As said, no experience either way but just something that stuck in my mind.
I got a quote from Traffords a few years ago. They were indeed very cheap and the policy terms weren't particularly onerous but I got concerned when I asked them to name the security for the policy and they refused on the basis of commercial sensitivity. IIRC they hid behind a Lloyds reference number of something but none of the other main companies do this - indeed many are only too keen to tell you who the policy is backed by (I guess since one or two are owned by their ultimate underwriters).
I'm not keen on opacity with straight forward stuff like this and so insured elsewhere. As said, no experience either way but just something that stuck in my mind.
DavidJ
Well-Known Member
Been with Traffords for 5 years although no claims. I had a query with the small print on the positioning of fire extinguishers and they agreed that the manufacturers locations were ok and built in an endorsement "Underwriters agree to accept the fire extinguishers as fitted". All done professionally and at no cost.
I like 'em
I like 'em