Who to insure with?

[rhino_mac]

I guess that comes under maintenance though. If you haven't checked your seacock for years and it's fizzed away then you've been negligent. If however, it fails (but hadn't fizzed away) you would be covered. I seem to remember another thread on here about a seal causing water ingress and an insurance claim that a few people commented on. Inspecting a seacock (which is just a posh seal with moving parts) seems just as important to me as inspecting/servicing a shaft seal.

In my instance, I inspect my boat pretty thoroughly (although it's on dry stack so it's easier) and I have an engineer service it annually and I ensure he does a general look round to check everything looks good. For the £20 labour to test all the systems it's money well spent and I get documentation proving I have requested regular inspections. So for me, the risk is minimal.

 

[oGaryo]

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

Similar exclusions in GJW's wording with the exception of wind and waves:

(ii) wear, tear or depreciation;
(iii) insects, marine borers, barnacles, marine growth, vermin, fungi or
molluscs;
(iv) corrosion, rot, rust, mildew, dampness or weathering;
(v) electrolysis;
(vi) osmosis;

 

[sunquest]

A big thanks to JFM just renewed my insurance with Gkw. Against Y Yacht and Pantaenius they were the cheapest probably because of their association with MDL Marinas which offer additional discount and benefits whilst moored in their marinas.
Thanks also to all the contributors to this thread which has certainly been an eye opener.

 

[jfm]

So on this basis, I'm pretty happy with the policy I have. This is certainly reassuring

I am just staggered by how easily satisfied folks can be with this sort of email from a broker. A large element of what Dean has written, no doubt in perfectly good faith, is directly contrary to the facts, the experience of other claimants based on identical wording, the way the law works, and the facts. The bit about environmental clean up just beggars belief. But I'm keyboard weary and busy, so am not going to explain it all. I wish you well Rhino Mac.

 

[rhino_mac]

The bit about environmental clean up just beggars belief. But I'm keyboard weary and busy, so am not going to explain it all. I wish you well Rhino Mac.

But you see, I'm not a lawyer. I have to accept, to a degree, what I am told by the insurer. I don't have the legal expertise to be able to investigate each nuance of language in relation to the interpretation likely to be made in a court of law. I am a layman in every aspect of the word.

My concern specifically was the cost of clean up if my boat sank as my boat is bought and paid for (my loss if it sinks, I can cover that), but if it polluted an entire harbour, having to pay for a clean up would bankrupt me if it wasn't covered by my insurance. My insurer has told me my cover is £3m and I am covered in this event.

I don't really have any other option but to be satisfied with that and I think that would count for the 99% of people who own boats that aren't lawyers but ask questions of their brokers.

 

[benjenbav]

I am just staggered by how easily satisfied folks can be with this sort of email from a broker. A large element of what Dean has written, no doubt in perfectly good faith, is directly contrary to the facts, the experience of other claimants based on identical wording, the way the law works, and the facts. The bit about environmental clean up just beggars belief. But I'm keyboard weary and busy, so am not going to explain it all. I wish you well Rhino Mac.

J - this quote's not relevant just tagging. But looking at the Pantaneous (sp) policy, I do like it:

Exclusions
...
Electrolysis, Wear and Tear, Faulty Materials, Faulty Design and Construction, Latent Defect

The cost of repairing or replacing any part which is defective by reason of electrolysis, wear and tear, faulty material, design, construction or latent defect.
Consequential damage to any other part of the Insured Property caused by the failure of any part due to any defect named in this paragraph is covered provided an Insured Peril has also occurred.

Sinking and flooding are each an Insured Peril so there's absolutely no wriggle room about direct or indirect causation.

Have to say I may well change to Pantaneous just on the strength of that. It's really nice to read something that doesn't make you think they are trying to tie you up in legal jargon (and I'm a lawyer ffs - Not good enough to be on a telephone hotline tho')

 

[sailorman]

J - this quote's not relevant just tagging. But looking at the Pantaneous (sp) policy, I do like it:

Exclusions
...
Electrolysis, Wear and Tear, Faulty Materials, Faulty Design and Construction, Latent Defect

The cost of repairing or replacing any part which is defective by reason of electrolysis, wear and tear, faulty material, design, construction or latent defect.
Consequential damage to any other part of the Insured Property caused by the failure of any part due to any defect named in this paragraph is covered provided an Insured Peril has also occurred.

Sinking and flooding are each an Insured Peril so there's absolutely no wriggle room about direct or indirect causation.

Have to say I may well change to Pantaneous just on the strength of that. It's really nice to read something that doesn't make you think they are trying to tie you up in legal jargon (and I'm a lawyer ffs - Not good enough to be on a telephone hotline tho')

Its akin to shopping in tesco, you know as soon as you set foot in the shop they are trying to trip you up on wording & pricing

 

[jfm]

Exclusions
...
Electrolysis, Wear and Tear, Faulty Materials, Faulty Design and Construction, Latent Defect

The cost of repairing or replacing any part which is defective by reason of electrolysis, wear and tear, faulty material, design, construction or latent defect.
Consequential damage to any other part of the Insured Property caused by the failure of any part due to any defect named in this paragraph is covered provided an Insured Peril has also occurred.

Sinking and flooding are each an Insured Peril so there's absolutely no wriggle room about direct or indirect causation.

Have to say I may well change to Pantaneous just on the strength of that. It's really nice to read something that doesn't make you think they are trying to tie you up in legal jargon (and I'm a lawyer ffs - Not good enough to be on a telephone hotline tho')

Exactly BJB. This clause in the pantaenius policy is first class and is a reason in itself to buy the policy as you say. Crystal clear, no room for wriggling. And it delivers exactly the insurance protection that people think they have but often don't. And it delivers the cover that Rhino Mac now thinks he has because his broker has blackberried him to say so, but which experience on other cases indicates he still doesn't have, if he would but believe that or see it. And this is the very point that would have crucified Seahope.

 

[jfm]

But you see, I'm not a lawyer. I have to accept, to a degree, what I am told by the insurer.

No you don't. You are being told by vastly more experienced and qualified people on here, with no axe to grind, that your policy doesn't cover such and such. And you're being told by your broker who has an axe but far fewer qualifications/knowledge/experience, that your policy does cover it. "Go figure" as they say.

My concern specifically was the cost of clean up if my boat sank ...if it polluted an entire harbour, having to pay for a clean up would bankrupt me if it wasn't covered by my insurance. My insurer has told me ...I am covered in this event.

It's my concern too, which is why I raised the issue. In my view, Dean is wrong. I'm not at all saying he is lying or anything; I'm saying he doesn't understand environmental clean up laws. For gawd's sake do not rely on that email from Dean because he is well meaning but just wrong.

I don't really have any other option but to be satisfied with that...

Really? Ferrchrissakes!

Out of all the policies I have looked at historically and in this bit of internetting recently, and of course that isn't all policies, the Denovo one stands out as being the most worrying to me in terns of environmental clean up coverage. I very much hope the owner of Kahu is insured with anyone other than Denovo.

 

[Thepipdoc]

I've followed this thread from the beginning - very interesting (and worrying) . I have to say there are some benefits of not owning a boat, and the fact that I no longer have to worry about getting the right insurance is is one of them.
I too was insured with Denovo and JFM's comments would be good enough for me to jump ship (pun intended) and find another company.