Who is insured with Haven Knox Johnston?

towzer said:
To answer your question without looking at the policy I would expect all the costs to be met in full,less my excess sum.
Click to expand...
I bet you would.
Without being an HKJ policy holder, I can't imagine why anyone who thinks to be uncovered in the event jfm described should pay an insurance premium at all!
On this basis, it's pretty easy to guess that nobody in his right mind should give a different answer.
Otoh, the fact that jfm is asking leads to think that there must be a catch instead, and I for one would be interested to jump in conclusion and hear what it is.

Apologies if I'm spoiling the market research, but having worked in a position where, among other things, I had to evaluate the insurances for a Company who paid for them megabucks each year, I'm curious about it.
 
I'm with HKJ. A week ago I would have expected them to pay the lot.....

Having now seen recent posts and had a think I would imagine they would only pay the £2K.
 
MapisM said:
I bet you would.
Without being an HKJ policy holder, I can't imagine why anyone who thinks to be uncovered in the event jfm described should pay an insurance premium at all!
On this basis, it's pretty easy to guess that nobody in his right mind should give a different answer.
Otoh, the fact that jfm is asking leads to think that there must be a catch instead, and I for one would be interested to jump in conclusion and hear what it is.

Apologies if I'm spoiling the market research, but having worked in a position where, among other things, I had to evaluate the insurances for a Company who paid for them megabucks each year, I'm curious about it.
Click to expand...

I won't spoil the fun by answering the question but if you read the related threads the answer is there.
 
rafiki_ said:
JFM, have you directed this Q to HKJ themselves? While I am no longer an HKJ policy holder (uncompetitive quote was the reason for moving), I don't think I could have given a sensible answer when I was.
Click to expand...
Rafiki, keep up at the back mate :D. I'm hardly going to ask HKJ am I?. I know what HKJ will say because I have here in front of me several letters from them to a policyholder (whom I'm trying to help) saying they wont pay. The purpose of my question is to find out what policyholders think. Why do I want to know that? I'm trying to find a few legal arguments to help the poor policyholder here, and it aint easy

Towzer many thanks for your reply.

MapisM, yes indeed. I can see that you 200% grasp the issue here: given that the function of a boat is to keep water out, then you'd want to be insured against the risk of water getting in. Pretty basic stuff, obviously

The answer to my question is that they would pay the £2k and the £8k, and possibly the cost of the new shaft, but not the rest of the £40k. HKJ's clause 3.15.4 EXCLUDES cover for damage to machinery/wiring/electrics/engines/gearboxes caused by water ingress, UNLESS the ingress is from damage to the hull or severe and rare weather. So, if any of the other ways water can enter the hull (shaft ripped out, shaft seal failure, broken seacock or hose, Condor Ferry wake, Daka's wake, a storm that is not rare, etc) applies, you have no cover for the machinery. You do have cover for other things like interior furnishing. AFAIK every other mainstream boat insurer would provide cover here for machinery I think (but feel free to correct me on that if you know better) but not HKJ

Before anyone chips in and says "ooh HKJ are gentlemen and wouldn't do that", I have letters in front of me from them to a policy holder saying they are invoking this clause 3.15.4 as a ground for not paying.

If any HKJ policyholders read this, don't worry that I've now answered the Q. I'm still interested to hear from you please whether this surprises and concerns you, or whether you knew already and are not concerned by it
 
Last edited:
jfm said:
If any HKJ policyholders read this, don't worry that I've now answered the Q. I'm still interested to hear from you please whether this surprises and concerns you, or whether you knew already and are not concerned by it
Click to expand...

I am an HKJ policyholder and this does surprise and concern me. I'm off to thoroughly read my policy which I should have previously done.
 
jfm said:
The answer to my question is that they would pay the £2k and the £8k, and possibly the cost of the new shaft, but not the rest of the £40k. HKJ's clause 3.15.4 EXCLUDES cover for damage to machinery/wiring/electrics/engines/gearboxes caused by water ingress
Click to expand...

Ha, you'll be lucky, IRO the upholstery and soft furnishings; clause 5.2 allows the insurer to...

"reduce the amount of the claim proportionately if repairing or replacing would restore the Vessel to a better condition than it was prior to the loss or damage"

Then of course for "VESSELS WITH A MAXIMUM DESIGNED SPEED OF 30 KNOTS (35 M.P.H.) OR MORE ONLY" you may fall foul of a doubled excess if claiming for the new shaft.

So if your upholstery was knackered, taking into account ant excesses you may not end up with a penny!
 
jfm said:
Ah, another HKJ customer. Please would you be so kind as to answer my question above Sunquest: which out of the £40k, £8k and £2k do you think will HKJ pay? It can be all of them or any combination. It's genuine research, I promise!

In fact, I'd ask and invite any HKJ policyholders to answer the question please. Many thanks
Click to expand...
Yes as a layman I would expect HKJ to pay out in full, but having just read the T's and C's, I have niggling doubts. I'm familiar with Finance lease agreements which had to comply with the Clear English guidelines. There should be no ambiguity with this or others policies since we do not have a JFM available as a matter of course. Good luck with your pursuit of your clients claim. Geoff
 
petem said:
Ha, you'll be lucky, IRO the upholstery and soft furnishings; clause 5.2 allows the insurer to...

"reduce the amount of the claim proportionately if repairing or replacing would restore the Vessel to a better condition than it was prior to the loss or damage"

Then of course for "VESSELS WITH A MAXIMUM DESIGNED SPEED OF 30 KNOTS (35 M.P.H.) OR MORE ONLY" you may fall foul of a doubled excess if claiming for the new shaft.

So if your upholstery was knackered, taking into account ant excesses you may not end up with a penny!
Click to expand...
yup all agreed pete. I was trying to stay on just list the water ingress point, but you are indeed correct that once you get over a hurdle in the hkj policy there is anther trap waiting for you around the corner... All imho of course

Your double excess point reminded me of the discussion with hkj when I asked them to propose for insuring Match. They wanted a £10k general excess and a £20k excess for shaft damage. I pointed out to them that a new shaft is probably a bit less than £20k fitted, and they weren't insuring water damage to the e/room anyway. There wasn't really much point in buying the insurance if all the risk remains with the policyholder
 
sunquest said:
Yes as a layman I would expect HKJ to pay out in full, but having just read the T's and C's, I have niggling doubts. I'm familiar with Finance lease agreements which had to comply with the Clear English guidelines. There should be no ambiguity with this or others policies since we do not have a JFM available as a matter of course. Good luck with your pursuit of your clients claim. Geoff
Click to expand...

Geoff if you read 3.15.4 there isn't any doubt about it I'm afraid. You are not covered. Going by the case I'm looking at (it's not a "client"), if you make a claim in these types of circumstances, they will point to 3.15.4 and tell you they aren't going to pay. It beggars belief but that's how it is.
 
Although my boat is at the other end of the scale from the "big guys", I have to say I was surprised and a little disappointed when I did dig out the T&Cs. In the link they sent me with my recent reminder it talks about no claim allowed in respect of loss or damage engine/gearbox etc etc resulting from water, unless by a sudden accidental " incursion into the vessel." Whereas with the link provided by Sailorman it is - 3.15.4 water, unless resulting from accidental damage to the hull or rare and extreme weather conditions;etc

Either way, its not what I would have expected, although I have only experience with car insurance, they don't appear to wriggle as much (and no I didn't / hadn't read my car policy wording either) :o

Anyway I have requested a quote from Pantaenius to see how they stack up against HJKs £152 not covering much policy.
Thanks to all for bringing this to my attention.

George
 
George/Galia
I'm intrigued. All the policies currently on HKJ's website use the same 3.15.4 clause. Yet you have a different clause, based on "sudden incursion". I'd really like to get to the bottom of that discrepancy, to help out the forumite who is in dispute with them. You mentioned a link - please could you copy the link here (or send it by PM if you prefer) so I can read what might be an alternative form of policy wording. Many thanks
 
jfm said:
MapisM, yes indeed. I can see that you 200% grasp the issue here: given that the function of a boat is to keep water out, then you'd want to be insured against the risk of water getting in. Pretty basic stuff, obviously

The answer to my question is that they would pay the £2k and the £8k, and possibly the cost of the new shaft, but not the rest of the £40k. HKJ's clause 3.15.4 EXCLUDES cover for damage to machinery/wiring/electrics/engines/gearboxes caused by water ingress, UNLESS the ingress is from damage to the hull or severe and rare weather. So, if any of the other ways water can enter the hull (shaft ripped out, shaft seal failure, broken seacock or hose, Condor Ferry wake, Daka's wake, a storm that is not rare, etc) applies, you have no cover for the machinery. You do have cover for other things like interior furnishing. AFAIK every other mainstream boat insurer would provide cover here for machinery I think (but feel free to correct me on that if you know better) but not HKJ
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm afraid I don't know better.
Oddly, I know more about the coverage of hazardous chemicals production sites, whose complexity (and cost) as you can imagine is a multiple, but when I looked at boat insurances already many years ago, all considered I decided to subscribe only a third parties coverage.
Also because that is mandatory for IT-registered boats, and it costs peanuts anyway, so worth having.

Anyway, what I can say re. that 3.15.4 thing is that it's a typical clause strictly meant to restrict as much as possible the range of cases where the insurer has to refund damages, without giving the impression (at first sight) of not covering something.
I mean, some clauses are understandable, because including (or not) some events can make a big difference in terms of actual risk covered.
For instance, requiring that whoever in command of a boat is not drunk does make sense.
And it's acceptable that whoever is interested in being covered also when drunk, if nothing else is asked a higher premium.
This clause is different, because (even without having read the literal wording), it's easy to guess that many folks would never think that by specifying damage "to the hull" they were actually restricting (a lot, and in a sort of surreptitious way) the coverage.
And it doesn't make sense anyway, other than for limiting the INSURER risk.
Fwiw, when I came through policies with such wording in my former job, it wasn't the policy that I ruled out, it was the insurer altogether.

Maybe you might try to argue that in a finished boat there isn't such thing as a "hull" alone, as it comes out of the mould, and that all the u/w gear is structurally integrated with the plastic shell. Hence any boater would actually associate at their "hull" wording not only the shell, but also any structural component below the w/l.
Just a thought, apologising in advance if it sounds like an egg-sucking lesson...
 
Hi JFM,
No probs, although mine (as stated) is a much smaller boat and the Small Craft plan Wording. The link on my email takes you to my account / renewal , log-in & password etc. I tried to copy & paste, but it must be too big cos I got thrown out ! Anyway I have a pdf which I will PM to you. Hope it is of some help and feel free to share on here if you can.
Regards
George
 
petem said:
JFM, housekeeping on the inbox front required!
Click to expand...

Yeah, Wot he said ! This is my fourth attempt to copy&paste, each time when I try the full document I get kicked out of the forum. Anyway I have highlighted the relevant bit JFM, and will PM you later. Hope this helps. I'm also curious about why you can't leave a day cruiser (Galia 530) which can do in excess of 17Kts near the shore unattended. What has speed got to do with where you moor/anchor :confused:

5. EXCLUSIONS
This clause is paramount and no claim shall be allowed in respect of:
(a) loss, damage, liability or expense intentionally caused or incurred by, or
with the consent of, any Insured, or arising from unseaworthiness
resulting from any act or omission of any Insured.
(b) the cost of making good any defect resulting from any repair, alteration
or maintenance work carried out on the Vessel.
(c) any loss or expenditure incurred in remedying a fault or error in design
or construction or any cost or expense incurred by reason of betterment
or alteration in design or construction.
(d) wear and tear, gradual deterioration, lack of reasonable maintenance,
mechanical breakdown, corrosion, electrolysis, weathering or damage
caused by insect, vermin, damp and marine life.
(e) (i) theft of insured gear and equipment, unless following violent
forcible
(a) entry into the Vessel or place of storage, or
(b) removal of fixed gear or equipment from the exterior of
the Vessel.
(ii) theft of insured personal effects, unless following violent forcible
entry into the Vessel or vehicle while in transit.
(iii) theft of the outboard motor unless secured to the Vessel by an
appropriate anti-theft device in addition to its normal method of
attachment, or following violent forcible entry into the Vessel or
place of storage.
(iv) theft or loss of boat(s) not permanently marked with the name of
the parent Vessel.
(v) theft of trailer and Vessel (when on trailer) unless the trailer is
fitted with an appropriate wheelclamp when not actually being
towed
(f) loss of or damage to sails while in use, if split by the wind or blown
away.
(g) loss, damage, expense or liability directly or indirectly arising from
capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, war, terrorism, civil
war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection, civil conflict or commotion.
(h) loss, damage, liability or expense directly or indirectly caused by or
contributed to by or arising from
(i) ionising radiations from or contamination by radioactivity from
any nuclear fuel or from any nuclear waste or from the
combustion of nuclear fuel
(ii) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous or
contaminating properties of any nuclear installation, reactor or
other nuclear assembly or nuclear component thereof
(iii) any weapon or device employing atomic or nuclear fission and/or
fusion or other like reaction or radioactive force or matter
(iv) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous or
contaminating properties of any radioactive matter. The
exclusion in this sub-clause does not extend to radioactive
isotopes, other than nuclear fuel, when such isotopes are being
prepared, carried, stored, or used for commercial, agricultural,
medical, scientific or similar peaceful purposes.
(i) unrepaired damage in addition to a subsequent total loss sustained
during the period covered by this insurance.
(j) loss or damage to engine(s), gearbox(es), electrical machinery,
electrical equipment, batteries and connections resulting from
(i) negligence of any person
(ii) latent defect
(iii) frost, unless all reasonable precautions have been taken

(iv) water, unless by sudden accidental incursion into the Vessel.

(k) loss, damage, liability or expense arising while such Vessel or boat(s) is
underway unless the Insured or other competent person authorised by
the Insured is on board and in control of such Vessel or boat.
IN ADDITION WHERE THE MAXIMUM DESIGNED SPEED OF THE VESSEL OR HER
BOAT(S) EXCEEDS 17 KNOTS (20 M.P.H.)
no claim shall be allowed in respect of:
(l) loss, damage, liability or expense arising from such Vessel or boat(s)
being left unattended off an exposed beach or shore.
(m) loss, damage, liability or expense arising while such Vessel or boat(s) is
racing or on speed tests or trials.
(n) loss, damage, liability or expense caused by or arising through fire or
explosion on such Vessel or boat if equipped with inboard machinery,
unless such Vessel or boat is equipped in the galley with adequate fire
 
Thanks Galia. I'm baffled as to why you have policy wording different from that on HKJ's website. Your 15(j) is clearly the clause that corresponds to 3.15.4 in the policy on their website, but it is worded differently. Can you just confirm the name/brand name of the policy from the first page please?
In box is cleared out!
 
jfm said:
Thanks Galia. I'm baffled as to why you have policy wording different from that on HKJ's website. Your 15(j) is clearly the clause that corresponds to 3.15.4 in the policy on their website, but it is worded differently. Can you just confirm the name/brand name of the policy from the first page please?
In box is cleared out!
Click to expand...

Sure, its Insure My Boat, which I believe is CETA, and its Haven Knox Johnson Full Cover.
George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top