Who is insured with Haven Knox Johnston?

[jfm]

Well the Pantaenius quote came back, just over twice what the renewal is with HJK ! However the proof of the pudding etc etc so once I get the rug-rats to bed, the rest of the evening will be spent reading I think.

That's interesting. I think BB reported 2x earlier today. Can you say what the premium is as % of boat value?

This pricing is very hard to understand - for example in 2011 GJW quoted me about 1.4x Pantaenius on my then boat, and HKJ earlier this year quoted me about 1.15x Pantaenius for my current boat

 

[Galia]

That's interesting. I think BB reported 2x earlier today. Can you say what the premium is as % of boat value?

This pricing is very hard to understand - for example in 2011 GJW quoted me about 1.4x Pantaenius on my then boat, and HKJ earlier this year quoted me about 1.15x Pantaenius for my current boat

Its only littl'un ( but we love it). HJK's renewal was 1.9% of hull value as opposed to 2.5% for Pantaenius. I have no doubt the cover is better. However, I think a lot of the problems being discussed would not affect a day cruiser , eg we have no shaft to lose, or if o/b was torn off taking transom with it - the hull breach part of the policy would still kick in (I hope).

The main problems in my simple mind were the fact that the boat was not insured when left unattended over 3 hours for example on Waterways Ireland jetties when we stay overnight at adjacent hotels, or indeed at the rented holiday cottage with its own jetty.

The bottom line is our boat is paid for , we really enjoy it and if anything catastrophic happened it our disposable income could not replace it therefore £330 is a good deal.And its still cheaper than what we pay for the X-trail that tows it !

Thanks for the heads up. This has been a real learning curve - as are most of the threads on here.
George

 

[Firefly625]

You're still exposed imho unfortunately to total non insurance in the event a small part fails due to wear/corrosion/electrolysis and causes the whole boat to sink. Your call, but I wouldn't be happy with that

this does make me nervous, thanks for the heads up jfm

 

[SC500]

this does make me nervous, thanks for the heads up jfm

Am insured with HNJ myself and have been following this with interest. Will certainly read my police over weekend to gain an overview of what I am covered or not covered for. Had a discussion with a friend last week who is considering buying a Jenneau with pod drives and mentioned this foraum had made me aware of an accident that occured in Finland whereby the skipper deviated from his planned route and the vessels pods hit a submerged rock, the hull did not strike the rock. The pods did not break away as designed due to pod design issues and inherent hull weakness originating from base design. The impact of the pods caused the rear section of the hull to split open and the boat to sink. With this scenario would the owner be insured with HNJ? Made me think I dont want pods anytime soon.

 

[sailorman]

Am insured with HNJ myself and have been following this with interest. Will certainly read my police over weekend to gain an overview of what I am covered or not covered for. Had a discussion with a friend last week who is considering buying a Jenneau with pod drives and mentioned this foraum had made me aware of an accident that occured in Finland whereby the skipper deviated from his planned route and the vessels pods hit a submerged rock, the hull did not strike the rock. The pods did not break away as designed due to pod design issues and inherent hull weakness originating from base design. The impact of the pods caused the rear section of the hull to split open and the boat to sink. With this scenario would the owner be insured with HNJ? Made me think I dont want pods anytime soon.

Going on from pods, what about those Volvo back to front drives, they look suspect to damage

 

[Talulah]

RSA Policy Yacht Alliance Policy
First listed exclusion is "the failure to maintain the Vessel in a Seaworthy condition"
And seaworthy is defined as:
"Fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas, rivers, lakes or other
navigable waters, properly crewed, equipped, fuelled, provisioned and
with all equipment in proper working order. Seaworthiness applies not
only to the physical conditions of the hull but to all its parts, equipment
and gear"

So if my Radar isn't working and plays no part in the incident I could get a zero pay out.
I could argue the boat was seaworthy. Radar not being needed on that particular day but I would loose on the "all equipment in proper working order." This clause of "all equipment in proper working order" is such a general statement I could see it being a get out of anything clause by the insurer.
Has anyone any experience of a claim with RSA?

I also fail to see how "Maintained in a seaworthy condition" is correct when seaworthy defines provisioning, manning levels etc. These items are not maintainable and so ipso facto cannot be part of requiring the vessel be maintained in a seaworthy condition.

 

[sailorman]

RSA Policy Yacht Alliance Policy
First listed exclusion is "the failure to maintain the Vessel in a Seaworthy condition"
And seaworthy is defined as:
"Fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas, rivers, lakes or other
navigable waters, properly crewed, equipped, fuelled, provisioned and
with all equipment in proper working order. Seaworthiness applies not
only to the physical conditions of the hull but to all its parts, equipment
and gear"

So if my Radar isn't working and plays no part in the incident I could get a zero pay out.
I could argue the boat was seaworthy. Radar not being needed on that particular day but I would loose on the "all equipment in proper working order." This clause of "all equipment in proper working order" is such a general statement I could see it being a get out of anything clause by the insurer.
Has anyone any experience of a claim with RSA?

I also fail to see how "Maintained in a seaworthy condition" is correct when seaworthy defines provisioning, manning levels etc. These items are not maintainable and so ipso facto cannot be part of requiring the vessel be maintained in a seaworthy condition.

What does this represent, how many is properly crewed

Clarkson was driving a 78 ft MoBo all by himself at some speed too was this vessel properly crewed

 

[Talulah]

What does this represent, how many is properly crewed

It's pants isn't it. It's not in the list of definitions. On the face of it is sounds like another worthless policy. I occasionally go single handed. Who defines adequately crewed?
So I go ashore and for some unknown reason the boat is cast adrift. i.e. Other boat owner crew accidently casts off wrong lines. Zero crew on board my boat. WNS.

 

[Stork_III]

What does this represent, how many is properly crewed

Clarkson was driving a 78 ft MoBo all by himself at some speed too was this vessel properly crewed

Apart from jfm? and 52 people production crew.

 

[jfm]

RSA Policy Yacht Alliance Policy
First listed exclusion is "the failure to maintain the Vessel in a Seaworthy condition"
And seaworthy is defined as:
"Fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas, rivers, lakes or other
navigable waters, properly crewed, equipped, fuelled, provisioned and
with all equipment in proper working order. Seaworthiness applies not
only to the physical conditions of the hull but to all its parts, equipment
and gear"

So if my Radar isn't working and plays no part in the incident I could get a zero pay out.
I could argue the boat was seaworthy. Radar not being needed on that particular day but I would loose on the "all equipment in proper working order." This clause of "all equipment in proper working order" is such a general statement I could see it being a get out of anything clause by the insurer.
Has anyone any experience of a claim with RSA?

I also fail to see how "Maintained in a seaworthy condition" is correct when seaworthy defines provisioning, manning levels etc. These items are not maintainable and so ipso facto cannot be part of requiring the vessel be maintained in a seaworthy condition.

Talulah, I don't like that lcause at all and would run a mile. In addition to the things above including eg the radar point, another big point here, as I've banged on about before, is that contains an absolute standard of seaworthiness. So, if there is a fault on your boat rendering it unseaworthy, but that fault is so obscure you don't know about it and cannot be expected to, you are still not covered by the letter of the policy. That part is unacceptable, in my book. It would be much better if the policy required you to take reasonable care in maintaining the vessel in a seaworthy condition, or if it defined seaworthy as the absence of any fault rendering the boat unseaworthy that the Insured knew about or should have known about. My reply to Firefly on the very good clause on this point in the GJW policy says the same thing

In huge commercial contracts around the world, warranties that are qualified by reference to the warrantor's knowledge, or to things the warrantor should have known about, are very widely used. Therefore, what I'm saying you should have here isn't something I just made up - it is very normal commercial practice

 

[Talulah]

Talulah, I don't like that lcause at all and would run a mile. In addition to the things above including eg the radar point, another big point here, as I've banged on about before, is that contains an absolute standard of seaworthiness. So, if there is a fault on your boat rendering it unseaworthy, but that fault is so obscure you don't know about it and cannot be expected to, you are still not covered by the letter of the policy. That part is unacceptable, in my book. It would be much better if the policy required you to take reasonable care in maintaining the vessel in a seaworthy condition, or if it defined seaworthy as the absence of any fault rendering the boat unseaworthy that the Insured knew about or should have known about. My reply to Firefly on the very good clause on this point in the GJW policy says the same thing

In huge commercial contracts around the world, warranties that are qualified by reference to the warrantor's knowledge, or to things the warrantor should have known about, are very widely used. Therefore, what I'm saying you should have here isn't something I just made up - it is very normal commercial practice

Your contribution to this thread should win an award for the most "Eye opening, jaw dropping" thread ever on YBW.
I'm sure I speak for many when I say a load of us are checking our policies and would like to offer our sincere thanks for your input.

 

[jfm]

Apart from jfm? and 52 people production crew.

Haha! He drove for some of it but there was a full bench of Fairline factory, EssexBoatyards, me, my boat-qualified son, et al, at the lower helm monitoring everything and hotswapping control back to lower helm when we didn't approve of the control inputs at the flybridge

 

[sailorman]

Apart from jfm? and 52 people production crew.

 

[Stork_III]

Haha! He drove for some of it but there was a full bench of Fairline factory, EssexBoatyards, me, my boat-qualified son, et al, at the lower helm monitoring everything and hotswapping control back to lower helm when we didn't approve of the control inputs at the flybridge

Thought so. I wouldn't let him helm my lowly HR alone, never mined your glorious gin palace.

 

[Talulah]

Incidently. One thing I'm a little bit uncomfortable with is the role of the insurance broker in all this.
In our instance the insurance is sold to us via a broker. The renewal quote comes through and the broker utters "Check the policy. Make sure you're happy with it and if so send the paperwork and payment." The broker is a specialist marine broker. Not just a High Street broker.
Now how as a lay person am I suppose to know the ins and outs of the insurance pitfalls as described by JFM? I take it all in good faith.
I would expect a broker to advise on the ins and outs of a policy but clearly they don't expand.

 

[jfm]

Your contribution to this thread should win an award for the most "Eye opening, jaw dropping" thread ever on YBW.
I'm sure I speak for many when I say a load of us are checking our policies and would like to offer our sincere thanks for your input.

Thanks for the kind words Talulah. I should emphasise that I'm not on some kind of rant about theoretical things. These concerns are real:

1. In the Seahope case, around £60k, where his boat sank following an electrolysed seacock, towergate very firmly refused to pay anything, as opposed to merely not paying for the seacock that fizzed away.
2. In another case I have on my desk, around £25k, the insurer is using some very fine analysis to say a metallurgical effect that most people have never heard of is "corrosion" and then is denying the whole claim rather than just the cost of the corroded part.
3. In yet another case I'm looking at, around £15k, the insurer is very firmly saying that because the hull was not broken, the insured is not covered for the machinery damage after flooding of their engine room.

And so on. So please don't anyone think insurers "play nicely" by dishing out loads of goodwill, when the claim is say north of £10k. Sure they do when the claim is £750 or whatever, but not when it's a big claim.

And yet, if we're honest about it, big claims are all that matters. Sure, if the boat is scraped and the insurers pay £1,000 gelcoat repair that's nice, but it aint life changing. Whereas if you look at a mainstream boater with say a £300k boat and £175k finance or whatever, and the thing sinks due to a fizzed seacock a la Seahope, and there is no insurance cover as per my 1&2 above, the owner family is anywhere from financially wiped out to set back many many years.

I'm sure Seahope won't mind me saying this as a warning to others, cos it is all water under the bridge now and his insurers ultimately paid, but in the middle of proceedings when his boat was sunk and Towergate had got their metallurgist report and had written to say "we are not paying", cc the finance company afaik, , he got a call or letter from Lombard saying he needs to pay back the outstanding finance immediately. That was a pretty frightening few days.

Now I know everyone's circs are different and some wont have finance and some will have a few hundred grand or a few million in their current account, but for the mainstream "average" boater this is serious stuff, and in my opinion you have to have insurance that has the minimum number of exclusions. Seahope got lucky because we dug really deep and found a proximate cause as to why his seacock fizzed away, but not every seacock-fizzer-owner will be that lucky

 

[Thepipdoc]

Seahope got lucky because we dug really deep and found a proximate cause as to why his seacock fizzed away, but not every seacock-fizzer-owner will be that lucky

Seahope didn't get lucky ..... he had you on the case JFM.

 

[volvopaul]

All this now " new awareness" relating to what your insurer will or won't pay out for has jogged my memory so many times over the last 24 hours , I have advised many customers about green looking below waterline fittings and valves for them to decline having the work done, some saying ill leave it till next year. Next time I visit here boats there a nice new shiny plotter at the helm. Money well spent eh?

 

[DAKA]

All this now " new awareness" relating to what your insurer will or won't pay out for has jogged my memory so many times over the last 24 hours , I have advised many customers about green looking below waterline fittings and valves for them to decline having the work done, some saying ill leave it till next year. Next time I visit here boats there a nice new shiny plotter at the helm. Money well spent eh?

Good advice Paul.

I've been away and managed to miss this thread, not read it all............... its huge.

I am Insured with HKJ, I had a claim several years ago when one of my outdrives (fairline cornich) got damaged.
There was no visible signs of impact however HKJ accepted my explanation and instructed a marine surveyor the day of the damage and later paid for full repairs (£5k ish), they authorised within a day of receiving an estimate, so no complaints there !

I am disappointed jfm has managed to find so many gaps in cover and further disappointed that no Insurers have joined the thread to explain their cover (more to the point, their exclusions).

I first warned the forum about uninsured engine swamping back in 2006 and there was a brief article about it in either MBM or MB&Y but that doesnt really help so I have started a thread regarding engine swamping and hope that Volvopaul, laterstarter and the other forum marine engineers will be able to advice us how best to mitigate our losses.

I have swamped a seagul and a jetski, filled the pots with oil from the spark plug , drained the carb and float chamber and been away the same day (jet ski took a week) so swamping an engine (as long as you dont try to start it) doesnt have to write it off but I have no idea how to salvage a diesel engine.

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?378958-Engine-swamping-What-next-skipper


Engine swamping-what to do

 

[Latestarter1]

All this now " new awareness" relating to what your insurer will or won't pay out for has jogged my memory so many times over the last 24 hours , I have advised many customers about green looking below waterline fittings and valves for them to decline having the work done, some saying ill leave it till next year. Next time I visit here boats there a nice new shiny plotter at the helm. Money well spent eh?

About 24 hours after reading your post had a call from owner of very nice classic boat who spent $$ on new engines 10 years ago. 'I have been having problems starboard engine emits torrent of rusty water on start up, can you take a look at it, no rush.......Boat is currently ashore under cover having a very expensive paint job and will be back in the water in a few weeks time, no money left in the pot to fix due to paint job, would just like your opinion'...................