Who to insure with?

[burgundyben]

Hang on Ben. Aren't you getting bothered here by too-esoterical stuff? I wouldn't dream of asking my insurer that simply because I know for sure I will never while conscious and at a functioning helm sail under a ship's bow like that. My personal view (apols if comes across as arrogant!) is that the Atalanta thing wasn't something that " could have happened to anyone". If you or I or many others had been helming Atalanta, it would never have happened

So each to their own but I wouldn't choose my insurer based on whether or not they cover that cost. FWIW, I think Pantaenius and insurers generally would not cover that. I think you should make the choice on the basics - cover for fire, theft, storm, water ingress from any of the typical things that can happen on a boat, and that sort of thing. And cover for liability to third parties. All without exclusions for any of the typical risks that a boat owner is exposed to

I've done many stupid things in my time, not least of all 'that' explosion...but I'm fairly sure I won't ever achieve stupidity in the league of the Atalanta skipper. Hmmmm. My point is about being insured to cover litigation against me, boat sinks in river and 100 gallons of diesel kills 500 mullet and Defra come after me....

The point is I'm not clear at all if I have ever had cover in place to protect me against legal action. On the Pantaenius quote I've ticked the box for legal cover although not read what it includes.

This is a first for me, in all previous house/car/motorcycle/boat insurance purchases I've gone for the cheapest option and never really examined the cover. Typical of my lacksidaisical (sp?) approach to most things.

 

[Pennpromo]

Ben,
I have always insured through Colemans brokers in Poole. They run the Sunseeker Shield policy but it is open for other boats too. I have always found them to be fair and well priced. Tony Pauffley, a well known local to Poole ex-broker, is their marine man.
I had a claim where I had an engine stolen from my Hunton, whilst out of the boat, they settled it on my behalf with Towergate without any apparent issues.
I proved the loss, got a price for the replacement, they paid within a week.
I have to agree though that I don't read the small print of the policy.
As you say bedtime reading !

 

[sailorman]

Ben,
I have always insured through Colemans brokers in Poole. They run the Sunseeker Shield policy but it is open for other boats too. I have always found them to be fair and well priced. Tony Pauffley, a well known local to Poole ex-broker, is their marine man.
I had a claim where I had an engine stolen from my Hunton, whilst out of the boat, they settled it on my behalf with Towergate without any apparent issues.
I proved the loss, got a price for the replacement, they paid within a week.
I have to agree though that I don't read the small print of the policy.
As you say bedtime reading !

It is about certain clauses, your boat did not suffer water ingress via a shaft log after the shaft went awol

 

[rafiki_]

Ben,
I have always insured through Colemans brokers in Poole. They run the Sunseeker Shield policy but it is open for other boats too. I have always found them to be fair and well priced. Tony Pauffley, a well known local to Poole ex-broker, is their marine man.
I had a claim where I had an engine stolen from my Hunton, whilst out of the boat, they settled it on my behalf with Towergate without any apparent issues.
I proved the loss, got a price for the replacement, they paid within a week.
I have to agree though that I don't read the small print of the policy.
As you say bedtime reading !

I too am now insured through Tony at Colemans, with an Amlin underwritten policy. JFM has prompted me to check some of the small print with Tony, which I will do so. Good to hear that you have positive feedback from your dealings.

 

[jfm]

I too am now insured through Tony at Colemans, with an Amlin underwritten policy. JFM has prompted me to check some of the small print with Tony, which I will do so. Good to hear that you have positive feedback from your dealings.

Do check the small print Paul. IF they use the same form of wording as the Amlin policy sold by Haven Knox Johnson, then you need to think carefully, I suggest, about the following things in particular

1. Their exclusion if there is inadequate maintenance, even if you didn't know the thing in question needed maintenance. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius
2. Their zero cover for water in your engine room and damage to machinery/electrics unless the hull is damaged or freak weather. If a pipe failed, shaft pulled out, rudder or shaft seal failed, etc, you're not covered even if you maintained it well and can prove that. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius and at least several others
3. They seem to have plenty of protection for them with mark downs of furnishing and other repairs due to betterment
4. Double excess for underwater gear. In my case this meant no insurance, basically. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius and at least several others
5. Their limited 3P cover. This was the dealbreaker for me as I have warranty guys and boat fixers on my boat all the time, including today for that matter, and if any of them is injured I'd potentially on the hook with no insurance. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius and at least several others
6. Their definition of Seaworthy, which is a really scary definition. Despite a protest to contrary by Macauley on scuttbutt which would be useful if you were in a courtroom on this one, the language makes no allowance for faults that you didn't know about and didn't ought to know about at start of voyage. This is a real deal breaker clause in my book. If anyone doesn't see the gravity of this clause shout up and we can discuss it further

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Like Nautibusiness I'm also insured with Denovo. Prompted by this thread I asked them for a copy of their current yacht policy wording, and reading it with a beadier eye, these clauses looked worthy of discussion (the bolding is mine):

This Policy does not cover:
2.2. any loss, damage or liability caused or contributed to by recklessness or wilful misconduct including, but not limited to, conduct when under the influence of alcohol or drugs, of the Assured or the Assured’s failure to exercise due diligence in the handling, sailing or managing the Vessel properly or to maintain it in a seaworthy condition;
2.6. theft of any part of the Vessel unless at the time of the theft the part is either:
2.6.2 inside a locked compartment on board the Vessel(s) or in a locked building ashore and there is evidence of forcible and violent entry or exit;

We do not cover any claim for loss or damage to any Speedboat or any liability to any third party:
3.3 if the Vessel is fitted with inboard machinery and the loss is caused by or arises through fire or explosion unless the Vessel is equipped in the engine room or engine space with an automatic fire extinguishing system or one that has controls at the steering position;
3.3.1 if the galley or galley area is not equipped with a manual fire extinguisher and a fire blanket which are both installed and in an accessible position;
3.4 in respect of rudder, strut, shaft, electrical equipment and batteries or propeller:
3.4.1 unless caused by contact with another Vessel, pier or jetty;
3.4.2 unless the Speedboat has been sunk or immersed including as a result of heavy weather;
3.4.3 unless the Speedboat is stranded, sunk, burnt, on fire or in collision or contact with another Vessel, pier or jetty;
3.4.4 unless caused by theft of the entire Vessel or by theft following forcible and violent entry into the Vessel or place of storage or repair;
3.4.5 unless caused by theft of the outboard motor provided it is securely locked to the Vessel or boat by an Anti Theft Device in addition to its normal method of attachment;
3.4.6 unless caused by fire in the place of storage or repair ashore;
3.4.7 unless caused by malicious acts;
3.4.8 caused whilst being removed or placed in the Vessel;

I also noticed on my certificate of insurance that I have a 'gas use endorsement', even though I've told them I've completely removed the gas installation from the boat. I'd better tell them again. Also in the certificate of insurance, but not in the policy wording, it says 'it is a condition precedent that such fire extinguishing system/s shall be properly installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations'.

So here come my questions:
1. there's no definition of seaworthy; so does clause 2.2 create wiggle room to deny a claim?
2. 2.6.2 suggests that theft from a compartment that isn't lockable isn't covered. On my boat the tender garage isn't lockable; so if someone helps themselves to stuff in the garage, this makes it look like I'm not covered
3. 3.3.1 suggests that if I have an engine fire, but I haven't got a fire blanket in the galley, then I'm not covered - am I reading that correctly?
4. 3.4 suggests that if I hit an underwater rock or other obstruction with my outdrives, but I don't sink the boat, then my rudder, strut, shaft etc wouldn't be covered - is that right?
5. how do you service your fire extinguishers?

Cheers
Jimmy

 

[Nick_H]

5. how do you service your fire extinguishers?

For manual powder extinguishers widely used in boat interiors - Once a year, check they're in date, check for corrosion, check the gauge is in the green, write the date on the extinguisher, and intial it. My coding surveyor accepts this, though I have the auto extinguishers in the engine bay and lazarette professionaly "serviced" each year, though i'm not sure they do much more than the above. The service co. wanted 30 euros each to check the manual extinguishers, that cost £8 to buy!

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

For manual powder extinguishers widely used in boat interiors - Once a year, check they're in date, check for corrosion, check the gauge is in the green, write the date on the extinguisher, and intial it. My coding surveyor accepts this, though I have the auto extinguishers in the engine bay and lazarette professionaly "serviced" each year, though i'm not sure they do much more than the above. The service co. wanted 30 euros each to check the manual extinguishers, that cost £8 to buy!

Thanks Nick. That sounds like a good enough excuse to whizz down to France for a couple of days...

Cheers
Jimmy

 

[Portofino]

I have been with these since we bought it ( was 2 y old from Sunseeker )
Never claimed ,but seems to cover most bases ,especially if new or newish - look carefully at the 120% replacement value -Match 2? And the 5 y engine cover
jimmys moped too
.Was reccomended by SS -I think a family conection - interbreeding Brathwiates and Colemans ? -
http://www.sunseekershield.com/assets/Uploads/21857ColemanSSProductBro.pdf

 

[jfm]

Jimmy I wrote a reply but have immediately deleted it because I just noticed that you've misquoted the policy by mistake. Clause 2 is what you should have quoted as it applies to your boat. Clause 3 that you quoted, if it applies at all and the default is that it doesn't apply, could only apply to your tender

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I'm calling Pantaenius in the morning.

Cheers
Jimmy

PS I want to call them Pants r us because it's so much easier to spell than pantaenius (which I have to copy/paste from jfm's post) ... but I can't, because they very patently aren't pants.

 

[rafiki_]

Do check the small print Paul. IF they use the same form of wording as the Amlin policy sold by Haven Knox Johnson, then you need to think carefully, I suggest, about the following things in particular

1. Their exclusion if there is inadequate maintenance, even if you didn't know the thing in question needed maintenance. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius
2. Their zero cover for water in your engine room and damage to machinery/electrics unless the hull is damaged or freak weather. If a pipe failed, shaft pulled out, rudder or shaft seal failed, etc, you're not covered even if you maintained it well and can prove that. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius and at least several others
3. They seem to have plenty of protection for them with mark downs of furnishing and other repairs due to betterment
4. Double excess for underwater gear. In my case this meant no insurance, basically. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius and at least several others
5. Their limited 3P cover. This was the dealbreaker for me as I have warranty guys and boat fixers on my boat all the time, including today for that matter, and if any of them is injured I'd potentially on the hook with no insurance. This exclusion doesn't exist with Pantaenius and at least several others
6. Their definition of Seaworthy, which is a really scary definition. Despite a protest to contrary by Macauley on scuttbutt which would be useful if you were in a courtroom on this one, the language makes no allowance for faults that you didn't know about and didn't ought to know about at start of voyage. This is a real deal breaker clause in my book. If anyone doesn't see the gravity of this clause shout up and we can discuss it further

John, many thanks for this. I will call them tomorrow and try to get a better understanding. Iirc the wording is not the same as my old HJK policy. This is turning into a very useful thread.

 

[burgundyben]

John, many thanks for this. I will call them tomorrow and try to get a better understanding. Iirc the wording is not the same as my old HJK policy. This is turning into a very useful thread.

That's a first for me!

 

[Talulah]

For manual powder extinguishers widely used in boat interiors - Once a year, check they're in date, check for corrosion, check the gauge is in the green, write the date on the extinguisher, and intial it. My coding surveyor accepts this, though I have the auto extinguishers in the engine bay and lazarette professionaly "serviced" each year, though i'm not sure they do much more than the above. The service co. wanted 30 euros each to check the manual extinguishers, that cost £8 to buy!

I've watched our extinguishers be serviced. There is another check to the gauge. A small self adhesive disc hides a tiny hole on the front of the gauge. Remove the self adhesive disc. (Usually clear on new extinguishers but colour coded to indicate year off servicing.) Apply an air pressure to the hole to check the needle moves and isn't stuck. New sticker once the test is done. The other thing is the pin gets greased. I pay £2.50 per extinguisher plus £15 for a site visit. 5 extinguishers on board.

 

[jfm]

Like Nautibusiness I'm also insured with Denovo. Prompted by this thread I asked them for a copy of their current yacht policy wording, and reading it with a beadier eye, these clauses looked worthy of discussion (the bolding is mine):

This Policy does not cover:

...snip...

So here come my questions:
1. there's no definition of seaworthy; so does clause 2.2 create wiggle room to deny a claim?
2. 2.6.2 suggests that theft from a compartment that isn't lockable isn't covered. On my boat the tender garage isn't lockable; so if someone helps themselves to stuff in the garage, this makes it look like I'm not covered
3. 3.3.1 suggests that if I have an engine fire, but I haven't got a fire blanket in the galley, then I'm not covered - am I reading that correctly?
4. 3.4 suggests that if I hit an underwater rock or other obstruction with my outdrives, but I don't sink the boat, then my rudder, strut, shaft etc wouldn't be covered - is that right?
5. how do you service your fire extinguishers?

Cheers
Jimmy

Jimmy you’ve quoted the wrong section. You’ve quoted section 3, which doesn’t apply to your boat because it doesn't meet the definition of "Speedboat". Section 2 is the relevant section, assuming your policy is this one http://www.insure-my-boat.com/PDF/20130601YachtPolicyWording.pdf. Overall it isn’t as awful as HKJ in my opinion, but it is still pretty poor and I suggest change quickly. I’ve made comments below, and 1 and 2 do answer your questions 1 and 2 because the same language appears in both section 2 and 3 of the policy, but my #3 onwards are not answers to your questions . 1,3,4,5,7 are dealbreakers in my book

1. Seaworthy and clause 2.2: the problem is that the exclusion is NOT expressly limited by what you know or should know. The words used are "exercise due diligence" and I'd much prefer "exercise reasonable diligence" because the courts know what “reasonable” is but "due" could be much harsher and there courts have little precedent. Thus, if you suffer a total loss, and the surveyor finds that at the start of the voyage there was a hidden fault that caused the loss, you're on the back foot at best, and potentially stuffed. The fact the fault was so obscure and unlikely that you weren't unreasonable in not knowing about it, doesn't help you if the diligence implicit in repairing it was "due", which, er, it was by definition cos the boat sank, if you get my drift. This clause is a total dealbreaker in my book but perfectly ok if they write "reasonable" iso “due”. There is no comparable "seaworthy" exclusion with Pantaenius

2. Yup. All your outside gear (nav screens and so on) are not covered. Mine are, with Pantaenius. Though most losses from outside the boat are gonna be lower than the excess so no need to worry really

3. Section 1. They say nicely that if you lose your boat they’ll pay you the insured value and they’ll pay the salvage and environmental clean up etc, etc, but then at the end they seem to me to say the total pay out is limited to the hull value. WTF? So are you NOT insured for the salvage then? What a nasty little trick.

4. I hate 2.11. So long as they can find wear and tear or electrolysis as the proximate cause, you aren’t covered. If a seacock fails due to electrolysis Pantaenius pay for the boat minus the £30 for the seacock. Denovo pay nothing. Change insurer Jimmy now, imho!

5. Clause 2.12.5 means no cover for your engines if engine bay floods due to seal or bellow failure, even if you have full main dealer service history. Jeeze.

6. Clause 2.12.5.d is comedy. Read it! They meant to say “unless” but they wrote “providing”, which is the perfect opposite. So you must make sure NOT to have any antifreeze, then you ARE covered for freezing. How many underwriters and lawyers have read this, and yet it takes blimmin ybw forums to see the mistake. FFS, we’re dealing with proper 2/10 ers here.

7. Your call, but 2.17 is a dealbreaker here for me. If you didn’t have your radar turned on, on a sunny day, that’s technically against the law (it’s a breach of ColRegs, and they are imported into English law, and your boat is red ensigned) so you aren’t covered. I just would never agree 2.17

All this has made me realise even more than before just how good pantaenius is. Some examples: If a seacock busts due to electrolysis say, or your lack of maintenance, you lose the value of the seacock but pantaenius pay for the loss of the boat. If the boat suffers gradual ingress of water you are covered for flooding damage in all circumstances and the only pantaenius exclusion is if the boat sinks (as opposed to merely floods) AND you left it unattended for 28 days (which would never happen to us in Antibes). I could go on…

There is a whole stack of mainstream risks you are exposed to as boat owner and you just aren't covered with Denovo. And as you know, my real life experience (personally and thru others on here that I've helped) is that, sure, insurers pay £750 bla bla claims no quibble but as soon as you get a big loss they will use every exclusion in the policy no matter how deeply buried. That Denovo thing you have is imho a POS Jimmy.

 

[jfm]

John, many thanks for this. I will call them tomorrow and try to get a better understanding. Iirc the wording is not the same as my old HJK policy. This is turning into a very useful thread.

Ok but do yourself a favour and remember the world's best lawyers don't work on customer helplines

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Jimmy you’ve quoted the wrong section. You’ve quoted section 3, which doesn’t apply to your boat because it doesn't meet the definition of "Speedboat". Section 2 is the relevant section, assuming your policy is this one http://www.insure-my-boat.com/PDF/20130601YachtPolicyWording.pdf. Overall it isn’t as awful as HKJ in my opinion, but it is still pretty poor and I suggest change quickly. I’ve made comments below, and 1 and 2 do answer your questions 1 and 2 because the same language appears in both section 2 and 3 of the policy, but my #3 onwards are not answers to your questions . 1,3,4,5,7 are dealbreakers in my book

1. Seaworthy and clause 2.2: the problem is that the exclusion is NOT expressly limited by what you know or should know. The words used are "exercise due diligence" and I'd much prefer "exercise reasonable diligence" because the courts know what “reasonable” is but "due" could be much harsher and there courts have little precedent. Thus, if you suffer a total loss, and the surveyor finds that at the start of the voyage there was a hidden fault that caused the loss, you're on the back foot at best, and potentially stuffed. The fact the fault was so obscure and unlikely that you weren't unreasonable in not knowing about it, doesn't help you if the diligence implicit in repairing it was "due", which, er, it was by definition cos the boat sank, if you get my drift. This clause is a total dealbreaker in my book but perfectly ok if they write "reasonable" iso “due”. There is no comparable "seaworthy" exclusion with Pantaenius

2. Yup. All your outside gear (nav screens and so on) are not covered. Mine are, with Pantaenius. Though most losses from outside the boat are gonna be lower than the excess so no need to worry really

3. Section 1. They say nicely that if you lose your boat they’ll pay you the insured value and they’ll pay the salvage and environmental clean up etc, etc, but then at the end they seem to me to say the total pay out is limited to the hull value. WTF? So are you NOT insured for the salvage then? What a nasty little trick.

4. I hate 2.11. So long as they can find wear and tear or electrolysis as the proximate cause, you aren’t covered. If a seacock fails due to electrolysis Pantaenius pay for the boat minus the £30 for the seacock. Denovo pay nothing. Change insurer Jimmy now, imho!

5. Clause 2.12.5 means no cover for your engines if engine bay floods due to seal or bellow failure, even if you have full main dealer service history. Jeeze.

6. Clause 2.12.5.d is comedy. Read it! They meant to say “unless” but they wrote “providing”, which is the perfect opposite. So you must make sure NOT to have any antifreeze, then you ARE covered for freezing. How many underwriters and lawyers have read this, and yet it takes blimmin ybw forums to see the mistake. FFS, we’re dealing with proper 2/10 ers here.

7. Your call, but 2.17 is a dealbreaker here for me. If you didn’t have your radar turned on, on a sunny day, that’s technically against the law (it’s a breach of ColRegs, and they are imported into English law, and your boat is red ensigned) so you aren’t covered. I just would never agree 2.17

All this has made me realise even more than before just how good pantaenius is. Some examples: If a seacock busts due to electrolysis say, or your lack of maintenance, you lose the value of the seacock but pantaenius pay for the loss of the boat. If the boat suffers gradual ingress of water you are covered for flooding damage in all circumstances and the only pantaenius exclusion is if the boat sinks (as opposed to merely floods) AND you left it unattended for 28 days (which would never happen to us in Antibes). I could go on…

There is a whole stack of mainstream risks you are exposed to as boat owner and you just aren't covered with Denovo. And as you know, my real life experience (personally and thru others on here that I've helped) is that, sure, insurers pay £750 bla bla claims no quibble but as soon as you get a big loss they will use every exclusion in the policy no matter how deeply buried. That Denovo thing you have is imho a POS Jimmy.

Hi jfm

Thanks for all this advice; I've deleted my prev reply because it wasn't quite right because of my innocent misquote. You've explained to me why the speedboat clause (section 3) in the policy doesn't apply to my - but in my own defence, I quoted what I thought were the relevant sections from my (lay) reading of the policy - and my insurance certificate does very definitely include under endorsements the wording 'section 3 speedboats (exception 2.1 is hereby deleted)' and then goes on to list all the 3.x clauses. However, what I didn't appreciate (and you have now explained) is that despite this apparently explicit inclusion in the certificate of insurance, because the policy wording includes the definition of a speedboat as (amongst other things) being less than 26ft, the speedboat clause cannot apply to the main boat.

It all feels like a dogs dinner to me. I've got no specific axe to grind ie I'm not staring down the barrel of a disputed claim or anything - but this thread is delivering a good public service (well done OP) and making us do a better job of checking these things.

If they were brave enough, this could make a good piece for the magazine - let's find 10 common claim scenarios (from anchor-drag grounding, failed bellows, dezinced seacock, shaft loss al a Haydn etc) and then test each of the big policies to see who covers what.

Cheers
Jimmy

 

[jfm]

despite this apparently explicit inclusion in the certificate of insurance, because the policy wording includes the definition of a speedboat as (amongst other things) being less than 26ft, the speedboat clause cannot apply to the main boat.

It all feels like a dogs dinner to me.

Yup, having now seen your certificate (by email) it is quite clear that folks dealing with your policy haven't got a clue what they're doing. They have completely misunderstood how the Speedboat clauses operate. I haven't qualified that by "imho" because it can never be slander; it's unequivocally correct from a reading of the certificate. See also my point 6 in post #36 above for another illustration of their cluelessness

If they were brave enough, this could make a good piece for the magazine - let's find 10 common claim scenarios (from anchor-drag grounding, failed bellows, dezinced seacock, shaft loss al a Haydn etc) and then test each of the big policies to see who covers what.

That would be an excellent article. 10 scenarios, and then a table saying who pays and who doesn't. With each insurer being allowed to check his own scoresheet, but under cross examination, before publication. Hugo?

 

[Harpsden]

This is a really helpful thread. I've had a look at the Pantaenius website but can't find any specimen policy wording, just the key facts document. Can anybody point me in the right direction so that I can compare my current policy with the 'Pants' one.

Thanks