rafiki_
Well-Known Member
Agreed, but it does leave me somewhat perplexed. Anyway, I'm struggling to think of realistic cases where one might be proven negligent?
Who to insure with?
- Thread starter burgundyben
- Start date
Agreed, but it does leave me somewhat perplexed. Anyway, I'm struggling to think of realistic cases where one might be proven negligent?
MapisM
Well-Known Member
So do I, but as I understand most folks want (or just assume they should have) full coverage - hence my question.
burgundyben
Well-Known Member
I paid £450 for ten years via Coleman Marine for a N&G policy, I moved last year to GJW and paid £250. Now I look at the £500 P'nius quote, with the help of some man maths, its actually only £50 more than I am accustomed to paying. Sunday lunch in my favourite restaurant with a half decent bottle of red is £120. Boat insurance is cheap.
I'll give you 500 tokens, you might need to give me 40,000 back....seems ok to me...
Actually, also, one more thing, which I don't think anyone has mentioned thus far, is the peace of mind that should lots of water that should be outside the boat, end up inside the boat, I'm not looking down the barrel of a long and protracted David and Goliath style battle to get my beer tokens for the next boat.
I'll give you 500 tokens, you might need to give me 40,000 back....seems ok to me...
Actually, also, one more thing, which I don't think anyone has mentioned thus far, is the peace of mind that should lots of water that should be outside the boat, end up inside the boat, I'm not looking down the barrel of a long and protracted David and Goliath style battle to get my beer tokens for the next boat.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
I consider my 0.47% of insured value premium well worth while
jfm
Well-Known Member
Pete, I've just looked up Seahope's case on my PC . The policy clause said insurers "will not pay for loss caused by corrosion". It is undisputed that the seacock fizzed away by electrolysis. Towergate, who were the claims handler representing the insurer, were arguing fully (prior to when I came along and punched them in the lights) that the sinking of the boat was caused by corrosion, hence not covered. They were not at all accepting that the clause meant they were only off the hook for the £30 seacock, as opposed to the £60k boat.
So you can "believe" what you want Pete! Not picking a fight Pete, just saying what I saw and have right here on my PC, and Towergate are the counterparty for many readers on this forum I bet
By the way, Towergate behaved very well when we presented them with the correct reason why they had to pay. They conceded immediately upon receipt of the knock-out blow. So I'm not sure whether to hate them or love them. No matter.
Car insurance is totally different. There is a bunch of laws and quasi legislation that stops car insurers getting of the hook. It's totally meaningless to make any comparison with car insurance.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Then as MapisM says, you have no need for insurance
jfm
Well-Known Member
I think i'm on about the same Sailorman - 0.5% . Pantaenius and Y cover is broadly similar high quality, so you'd expect same % I suppose
petem
Well-Known Member
I'm not making myself very clear. My belief is that some good insurers' original intention was that corrosion exclusions should not extend beyond the actual corroded item itself. But I absolutely agree that some insurers will try their luck using whatever badly worded exclusions they have to avoid settling claims.
I will also concede that some bad insurers find it very convenient (profitable) to include a corrosion exclusion. One wonders whether HKJ decided in the end to leave exclusion 3.5 in to save themselves a few quid.
Pete
Stork_III
Well-Known Member
Yep mine was double HJK, including £70 for Third Party, and a tenner for legal cover. Any idea how to get an actual policy doc as opposed to the summary. My quote says to check the policy document but I have been unable to locate it on the Pantaenius website. (Not that I have any reason to doubt JFM's recommendation !!)
George
When I got a quote from Pantaenius, the email with quote also included the Policy Terms, all in a zip file. Sure they didn't send you the same?
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Mmm... 5 per thousand is well below what I was asked by the couple of insurer I got in touch with (Generali and Allianz), back in the days.
Can't remember exactly, but they were both in the 20 to 25 region!
Then again, that was more than 15 years ago... Maybe time to reconsider...
Out of curiosity, did you long time insured lot experience some premium reductions in the last decade, or has it always been so inexpensive?
jimmy_the_builder
Well-Known Member
Mine's got steadily cheaper over the past four years because of no claims discount. I'm in the same neck of the woods as Sailorman and Jfm.
Cheers
Jimmy
Stork_III
Well-Known Member
Pantaenius Yacht insurance (hull) is 0.7% standard with no claim bonus applied, 40% offered in my case 10 years continuous insurance with others, with fixed sums for 3rd party £60, legal expenses cover £20, and personel accident £45. Their quote total 0.55% of insured value. Y Yacht premium worked out 0.39% insured value. Not sure of base % for mobo.
jfm
Well-Known Member
All agreed Petem. As ever, there is probably a mix of good and bad guys out there. Lawd knows how to tell the difference without actually stumbling across a real life large claim (my view is that the small payouts count for nothing as an indicator of how they'll behave with a large claim). I just prefer that the policy firmly defines when they will and won't be liable, without any uncertainties that give them discretion over the payout or the chance to wriggle. There isn't any wriggle room in the bit where we have to pay them the premium money
Going back to your "homework"
D) where you set out a good argument why the insurance exclusion is limited to the £30 for the seacock, and not the whole boat that just sunk, here's an interesting observation. HKJ and probably others are, I believe, reading this. Last time I said on ybw that HKJ's policy wording didn't cover something, their manager John Macauley, who is (or was, at least) a registered poster on here, made a post jumping to their defence. Yet he hasn't made a post this time saying they will pay for the boat and exclude only the £30 seacock. Funny that eh? If he were to make such a post that would be nice progress and I would be delighted to eat my words
jfm
Well-Known Member
I have been paying about 0.5% for the last 10 years or so, from when I got the Sq58 in 2005. At that point I already had quite a few years claim-free, and have never made a claim since. I cannot remember any earlier than that. I think if the going rate were 25 per thousand, which is more than my fuel bill, I'd "do a MapisM" and self insure
Piers
Well-Known Member
Hi jfm,
As well as radar being on, horns must meet the COLEGs for any boat/vessel if over 12m loa.
Before I fitted Kahlenbergs to Play d'eau, she had Buell air horns. I queried with Towergate if these were OK, and received the reply from a 'senior technical underwriter' that "Yes his horn does need to be to IMO regs".
That's what started me looking for IMO approved horns and the rest is history.
Galia
Well-Known Member
Thanks Sailorman, I got those with my quote, however they are summarys and because of the recent threads I've gone from cheapest'll do rightly to "total small print pedant"
Its on Pantaenius site map under clauses, I was looking for "policy doc" - Thanks JFM.
petem
Well-Known Member
JFM, I found the following link last night...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/marine-insurance.html
Not sure if you were aware of it previously but it does provide some guidance around the terms 'sinking', 'seaworthiness', and 'reasonable care'.
What might be useful in the 'Medway Lady' case is the expectations on owners and what they are expected to know (for example newbies can't be expected to be experts on boat maintenance). In particular whether owners' actions could be described as reckless.
The article also highlights the importance of maintaining your boat and the basic checks required each time you go to sea.
Pete
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/marine-insurance.html
Not sure if you were aware of it previously but it does provide some guidance around the terms 'sinking', 'seaworthiness', and 'reasonable care'.
What might be useful in the 'Medway Lady' case is the expectations on owners and what they are expected to know (for example newbies can't be expected to be experts on boat maintenance). In particular whether owners' actions could be described as reckless.
The article also highlights the importance of maintaining your boat and the basic checks required each time you go to sea.
Pete
rafiki_
Well-Known Member
Thanks Pete, a really helpful link.
rhino_mac
Well-Known Member
OK, I thought I would query my policy with Dean Shaw from Denovo Insurance. He responded very quickly as follows (this is a continuation of a quick email he sent me from his mobile in the evening)
"Anyway, as said yesterday the limit on salvage relates to where a salvor is involved in saving the boat in open water. The reality in the UK is that you are likely to get towed by a fellow leisure boater, RNLI, coastguard etc who make no charge (save perhaps a bottle of something / donation!) but we also insure some vessels on long distance cruises where such an issue could arise. As said, in this situation insurers limit the amount payable to the salvor to the value of the vessel.
Where an incident like the recent tragic events in Cowes occurs then the lift and any environmental clean up is met out of the third party liability section since the costs have been incurred relating to an incident covered by the policy (fire) and arise out of your interest in the vessel. In your case the limit here is £3m.
Should you have a water ingress claim relating to a sea-cock failure then you would be fully covered (save your excess) – the policy defines latent defect so the sea-cock itself wouldn’t be covered but the consequential losses (damage to the boat etc) would be. As you have the vessel professionally serviced then claims relating to failure of the bellows are similarly fully covered – you have discharged your responsibility to maintain the boat in a seaworthy fashion (having it serviced) so failure is a fortuity.
Having never declined a claim (in something like 10,000 policy years!) we have either been lucky in only having received straight forward claims (not the case!) or such brilliant Underwriters that we’ve never had a claim (very much not the case as the fact I’m not retired testifies!)
The reality is that a policy not responding to the sort of claims you mention wouldn’t gain traction in the market and the firm would have to evolve or disappear. As we operate solely via referrals from the marine trade this is self-fulfilling as boat dealers wouldn’t want to be associated with a product which doesn’t protect their own clients".
So on this basis, I'm pretty happy with the policy I have. This is certainly reassuring - as I am a bit of a fusspot over maintenance and don't do any of it myself I have enough receipts to prove that I'm diligent in making sure it's seaworthy. Denovos definition of seaworthy seems reasonable so I think I'll stay put.
What I particularly liked, was that I got a comprehensive answer via email from someone senior in no time at all. Bodes well for communication in the future, although I'd rather any future communication is limited to renewal quotes!
"Anyway, as said yesterday the limit on salvage relates to where a salvor is involved in saving the boat in open water. The reality in the UK is that you are likely to get towed by a fellow leisure boater, RNLI, coastguard etc who make no charge (save perhaps a bottle of something / donation!) but we also insure some vessels on long distance cruises where such an issue could arise. As said, in this situation insurers limit the amount payable to the salvor to the value of the vessel.
Where an incident like the recent tragic events in Cowes occurs then the lift and any environmental clean up is met out of the third party liability section since the costs have been incurred relating to an incident covered by the policy (fire) and arise out of your interest in the vessel. In your case the limit here is £3m.
Should you have a water ingress claim relating to a sea-cock failure then you would be fully covered (save your excess) – the policy defines latent defect so the sea-cock itself wouldn’t be covered but the consequential losses (damage to the boat etc) would be. As you have the vessel professionally serviced then claims relating to failure of the bellows are similarly fully covered – you have discharged your responsibility to maintain the boat in a seaworthy fashion (having it serviced) so failure is a fortuity.
Having never declined a claim (in something like 10,000 policy years!) we have either been lucky in only having received straight forward claims (not the case!) or such brilliant Underwriters that we’ve never had a claim (very much not the case as the fact I’m not retired testifies!)
The reality is that a policy not responding to the sort of claims you mention wouldn’t gain traction in the market and the firm would have to evolve or disappear. As we operate solely via referrals from the marine trade this is self-fulfilling as boat dealers wouldn’t want to be associated with a product which doesn’t protect their own clients".
So on this basis, I'm pretty happy with the policy I have. This is certainly reassuring - as I am a bit of a fusspot over maintenance and don't do any of it myself I have enough receipts to prove that I'm diligent in making sure it's seaworthy. Denovos definition of seaworthy seems reasonable so I think I'll stay put.
What I particularly liked, was that I got a comprehensive answer via email from someone senior in no time at all. Bodes well for communication in the future, although I'd rather any future communication is limited to renewal quotes!
petem
Well-Known Member
Very interesting. To save JFM having to find the Denovo exclusion here it is....
2.11 loss of or damage to the Vessel caused by wear, tear or
depreciation or the ordinary action of the wind and waves,
insects, marine borers, barnacles or marine growth, corrosion,
rust, mildew, osmosis, dampness or weathering
Pete
