volvopaul
Well-Known Member
Ha ha, show him this thread about insurers and paying out or the lack of it, I'm sure he will change his mind.
Who is insured with Haven Knox Johnston?
- Thread starter crazy4557
- Start date
Ha ha, show him this thread about insurers and paying out or the lack of it, I'm sure he will change his mind.
Jegs
Well-Known Member
I sent a query regarding HKJ policy wording to "Asktheexperts" @ MBM about 10 days ago: no response so far.
John G
John G
CLB
Well-Known Member
U4
Well-Known Member
Having read this thread with interest I have been reviewing the various different policy T&C's as my current insurance is due to expire in december and clearly I want to buy the best policy for my needs.
YYacht Insure policy looks pretty good and along with a competitive premium is currenly my prefered option. Having said that, I notice that within the policy booklet they are underwritten by Amlin (AKA - Haven Knox Johnston). I am assuming that it doesnt really matter as the contract is held with YYacht Insure and therefore its their policy that is important and not the underwriter's?
Is the forums view that I am correct in this assumption?
YYacht Insure policy looks pretty good and along with a competitive premium is currenly my prefered option. Having said that, I notice that within the policy booklet they are underwritten by Amlin (AKA - Haven Knox Johnston). I am assuming that it doesnt really matter as the contract is held with YYacht Insure and therefore its their policy that is important and not the underwriter's?
Is the forums view that I am correct in this assumption?
volvopaul
Well-Known Member
Another one for jfm I'd say Dan.
jfm
Well-Known Member
The assumption technically mixes things up. You might have a contract with Y or you might have a contract with Amlin with Y acting as agent or broker. But that's neither here nor there
In answer to your concern, there's no need to worry. There is no cross contamination
If you buy a Y yachts insurance policy underwritten by Amlin then the policy wording that applies is the Y policy wording ( which might exist as a contract with Amlin but don't worry about that)
The policies sold by HKJ, even if also underwritten by Amlin, have no relevance at all to a Y insurance policy
U4
Well-Known Member
Great, thanks for the information JFM, most appreciated...
nimbusgb
Well-Known Member
petem
Well-Known Member
JFM, I have slightly different take on this. My understanding is as follows....
When setting up a yacht insurance agency, an agent (e.g. YYacht or HKJ) will decide what their USP will be (be it price, service, extent of cover, etc), they will then draw up a policy document that they will provide to the underwriter (e.g. Amlin). The underwriter will then provide the agent with their rates (i.e. the cost of cover bearing in mind a number of factors - boat type, age of boat, age of owner, etc). The agent will then add on their margin / commission to arrive at the premium that is charged to the policyholder. The wording of the policy will be really important to the underwriter as it defines his level of risk, if the policy has loads of exclusions then the premium that the underwriter will be charging may be lower. If the agent needs to alter the policy document he'll need to get this agreed with the underwriter. In some cases an agent's policies may be written by numerous underwriters.
When it comes to claims the policyholder will contact the agent in the first instance to register his claim. I suspect that the underwriter will have given the agent some delegated authority to settle claims for less than £xxx. The agent will need to ensure that these are valid claims so that he doesn't lose the trust of the underwriter and more importantly have the underwriter increase his rates due to adverse claims history. However, larger claims will need to be authorised by the underwriters themselves (due to their vested interest). Now what I don't know is how much consistency there is in the level of aggression that different underwriters employ to avoid paying claims. Are Amlin any worse or any better than Pants, I don't know? Of course JFM will tell us that this is unimportant as ultimately you have a legally enforceable contract but in my opinion, it would be preferable to have a policy underwritten by a sympathetic company rather than one which will use every ambiguous term to avoid paying.
So to summarise, IMHO, all things being equal, a Yachting24 policy underwritten by Pants would be better than an HKJ policy underwritten by Amlin. But you should base 90% of your decision on the policy wording itself.
Pete
Last edited:
petem
Well-Known Member
Policy documents are to hand on the yachting 24 site in you personal folder
Some info on Yachting 24 here....
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?378927-Yachting24
Pete
Jegs
Well-Known Member
That should be interesting. One of the panel is an insurance expert form a rival company
Good afternoon,
MBM expert reply to my query: "However, where a mechanical breakdown has led to an accident - such as drifting on the rocks - any damage to your boat is likely to be covered. An exception may be where a mechanical breakdown has happened because of a lack of maintenance." [MBM Jan. 2014].
John G
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Not "IS" then
Jegs
Well-Known Member
Just received a reply from HNJ altering the offending clause satisfactorily.
Safe Boating,
John G
Safe Boating,
John G
petem
Well-Known Member
Sounds promising.
In what form was this (a letter , email , endorsement) and what were the revised words?
Jegs
Well-Known Member
Hi,
Twas an email with attachment containing a cert of insce, underwriting info & additional conds - which laid out the revised clause.
Exclusions:
Claims for:
Lack of reasonable maintenance
Wear & tear
Gradual deterioration, weathering or damp
Corrosion or electrolysis
Damage caused by insects or marine life of any description whatsoever
Mechanical breakdown
ATB
John G
Twas an email with attachment containing a cert of insce, underwriting info & additional conds - which laid out the revised clause.
Exclusions:
Claims for:
Lack of reasonable maintenance
Wear & tear
Gradual deterioration, weathering or damp
Corrosion or electrolysis
Damage caused by insects or marine life of any description whatsoever
Mechanical breakdown
ATB
John G
Pinnacle
Well-Known Member
So, if the boat sinks because a seacock has fizzed away due to electrolysis, there is no cover.
1) Is my understanding correct, and
2) If so, how has the "offending clause" been "satisfactorily" amended?
jfm
Well-Known Member
Maybe there is more to it in the full correspondence but I cannot see how the words above cover the "consequential losses" point which is one of the things at the heart of this debate. If a seacock dissolves by electrolysis, and the boat sinks, in an ideal world you would not be covered for the £50 seacock but you would be covered for the rest of your loss ie the boat. Are you saying that HKJ has in writing offered you that? I don't see it in the words above. Am I missing something?
EDIT - Pinnacle and I are asking the same thing (but he types faster!)
Pinnacle
Well-Known Member
stillwaters
Well-Known Member
And in a similar vein, I enclose the response received from Bluefin/Bishop Skinner on the same subject.
Yeah, zilch! And this was following not just a friendly phone chat with their principal but also an email request followed by a further copy of the email as he couldn't remember what he'd done with the first one. Consequently, a new insurer takes over tomorrow and Bluefin have managed to lose a long-standing customer whilst, coincidentally, two other brokers have just been leaping through all kinds of hoops to get some of our property insurance that is now up for renewal.
Yeah, zilch! And this was following not just a friendly phone chat with their principal but also an email request followed by a further copy of the email as he couldn't remember what he'd done with the first one. Consequently, a new insurer takes over tomorrow and Bluefin have managed to lose a long-standing customer whilst, coincidentally, two other brokers have just been leaping through all kinds of hoops to get some of our property insurance that is now up for renewal.
Last edited:
Jegs
Well-Known Member
My apologies for failing to make matters clear. Original heading for the clause: ' any loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly arising from.' The new heading 'claims for.' Seems to be a considerable improvement to me.
ATB,
John G
ATB,
John G