Would you or wouldnt you...Admiral Insurance

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
The "facts and fiction" post by Sailfree applies to this one as far as I'm concerned. We obviously do not know all the facts that caused them not to pay out. But add to this case what other people have said about them on this thread and the answer would be definitely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

We dont know all of the facts but, given a similar event, most of us would hope that our insurance company would pay out.

If Admiral imposed extra conditions on this particular risk, which they are claiming were breached, why arent they telling us what the conditions are. Alternatively, if the insured has breached his policy, why would they not declare their reasons. This would surely go some way to exonerating their refusal to pay up, and perhaps avoid the loss of potential business which they will experience.

Without further information, I am wondering if they are playing their cards close to their chest, in order to avoid their customers becoming aware of a sneaky get out clause in the policy.

Something isnt right, and we will naturally err against big business rather than consumer, (even if he is rich enough to lose a half million quid boat, and buy another one immediately).

 

[sighmoon]

[ QUOTE ]
why arent they telling us what the conditions are. Alternatively, if the insured has breached his policy, why would they not declare their reasons. This would surely go some way to exonerating their refusal to pay up, and perhaps avoid the loss of potential business which they will experience.

Without further information, I am wondering if they are playing their cards close to their chest, in order to avoid their customers becoming aware of a sneaky get out clause in the policy.

Something isnt right, and we will naturally err against big business rather than consumer, (even if he is rich enough to lose a half million quid boat, and buy another one immediately).

[/ QUOTE ]

I would presume Admiral have some duty of confidentiality to their customers. I wouldn't specifically preclude Admiral in the future, but would certainly read the small print on any policy

 

[doris]

Sneaky small print.

There is much less small print than there used to be and it is all readable nowadays. It would appear that hardly anyone on the site reads their policy document. All insurance contracts contain all sorts of conditions together with certain legal obligations such as uberrimae fidie.

I have read my policy again after all this hoo hah and will quite happily insure with the company that gives the best cover at the best price. Any company that pays out in contravention of a policy is in breach of it's duty of care to it's shareholders (usually your pension funds). Read the policy has to be the watchword. It is a pre-requisite to any insurance policy that the insured has to behave as if they are uninsured, protecting the asset to the best of their ability.

If Admiral’s conditions and terms were the best I would have no problem with them, but I would have read the policy. See rb_stretch’s post.

 

[duncan]

right now I would have concerns

whilst they (Admiral) might be able to cover off those concerns either verbally or in writing I would rather wait and see how this (rocks/girl etc) case pans out.

overall I feel I am judging them for what others are suggesting are the reasons for 'non-payment' rather than their reasons - which seems a little unfair.

 

[Aja]

Sorry must disagree.

I would be very unhappy - nay incandescant if my insurer divulged my policy details (a contract) to any other third party.

Admiral are very much within their rights.

Before I would get a quote from the, however, I would await the outcome of this sorry tale.

Therefore....wait and see but not condemn

Donald

 

[rwoofer]

I believe the conditions were around needing to have a specifically qualified individual/skipper accompanying on every trip for a set period until experience is gained.

Apparently this is to enable people who come into money later in life to buy a big boat, despite not working up the size/experience scales that most of us do. Without this kind of condition, these people would never get any insurance.

Normal practice is for these wealthy individuals to have a full time skipper.

 

[Guest]

As I just posted in another thread, from what we know of the facts they're most likely refusing to pay because they believe the guy was grossly negligent. Gross negligence is a standard exclusion in insurance policies, and from what I've read of what happened I wouldn't expect the insurance to cough up.

Reading the news report it sounds like his Dad didn't expect them to pay up either.

Insurance is there to protect you against the unforeseen, but it's not designed to pay out if you've been really dumb. The gross negligence exception is the insurance companies' way of making us take a little care in what we do. It's a bit like a home insurance policy that won't pay out if you don't lock the doors when you leave the house on holiday.

See also the recent case of the delivery skippers delivering a MoBo from France travelling at high speed at night, and hit a buoy. The insurance company didn't pay out then either, I believe. I have no idea what company it was.

p.s. I insure with pantaenius, have nothing for or against Admiral.

 

[duncan]

[ QUOTE ]
As I just posted in another thread, from what we know of the facts they're most likely refusing to pay because they believe the guy was grossly negligent

[/ QUOTE ] sorry Simon but tthat's exactly the sort of comment that I was refering to in my post above.

whilst a discussion on what constitutes 'gross negligence' and differentiates it from 'your negligence' would be interesting (although of course it's covered in recent case law so it' snot that much of a discussion) it's relevance to this 'case' has been put into doubt..........but hey; don't let that stop you posting it everywhere. [edit] looking at your others posts I completely agree the first but continue to be perturbed about your second which seems to have been written without any regard at all for the other material posted........[/edit]

 

[doris]

I think you will find that the insurance co. paid out to the owner then sued the skipper for damages and won. It was from Chicester to Weymouth I believe and the buoy they hit was in the Needle's Channel.

 

[bobgoode]

happy with service at GJW and would not even consider Admiral now.

 

[jonathankent]

I insured with GJW based on rec's from the forum and a good policy/price. I wouldn't say I would never insure with Admiral, but would make sure to read all the small print in detail - I did with GJW anyhow.