Y Insurance Query

petem said:
The difference is that I was alerted to the issue by Y and upon inspection realised that the Policy could be read in such a way that 3rd party cover for a skipper could be excluded. As a result, they have added the skipper to the policy and he is now covered. In other words, my cover has been increased.

You contacted Amlin, unprompted, because you had preconceived belief in what the policy excluded (anchoring out of site) despite the policy making no mention of this. As a result, Amlin confirmed your belief, and you have effectively reduced your cover.
Click to expand...

It’s irrelevant where you thought where you were and we’re you end up - up or down cover wise after seeking clarification with the underwriter.
What matters most is arming yourself with the information to ensure a claim ( should it happen ) is least likely to be refuted .Then adjusting your behaviour / activity if you wish to keep in the written clarity of cover the underwriter has provided.
Tidying up grey areas .
That’s what we both have done and shared the info here .
What’s not to like ?
 
Last edited:
petem said:
The difference is that I was alerted to the issue by Y and upon inspection realised that the Policy could be read in such a way that 3rd party cover for a skipper could be excluded. As a result, they have added the skipper to the policy and he is now covered. In other words, my cover has been increased.

You contacted Amlin, unprompted, because you had preconceived belief in what the policy excluded (anchoring out of site) despite the policy making no mention of this. As a result, Amlin confirmed your belief, and you have effectively reduced your cover.
Click to expand...

Precisely Petem. Totally non comparable situations.
This has been a useful thread imho
 
petem said:
J, the devil is in the detail.

If you let a qualified skipper take your girlfriend and mates out for a jolly then your 'Y' policy only covers you for damage to your own boat (no 3rd party liability).
Click to expand...
Pete, nice outcome for you, good going by the nice folks at Y, and useful thread.

Your description above is not quite correct however. Read precisely, the clause says that if skipper is driving boat then HIS 3rd party liabilities (which are personal to him) are not covered by your insurance. But YOUR 3rd party liabilities, which are personal to you and are what you care about, are still covered and your cover is not affected by the fact the skipper is driving that boat. So arguably the extra cover you just got from Y has helped him not you, and therefore you are being a nice guy, which is perfectly fine even tho it isn’t your job to wipe his bottom.

BUT it is conceivable in some countries that some (not all) HIS 3rd party liabilities could be asserted to attach to the boat like a mortgage, and in that stretch scenario his problem becomes yours. Note that this is an extreme stretch scenario- in most jurisdictions such a mortgage would not be created.

So what you have achieved here is (a) a tiny bit of extra cover to protect you only from this extreme mortgage scenario which is very unlikely in the first place, plus (b) you wiped the skipper’s bottom. You didn’t actually get any increase in coverage of your own 3P liability that you didn’t already have.

I’m not complaining or criticising. My view is “well done/good going”. I’m just being precise about the legal effects here because in any big claim or dispute precision is very important. As you said, the devil is in the detail :D

Generally, I still like Y, both customer service and policy terms. I renewed again with them a couple of months ago. I just realised that with my current boat only I have paid them £75,000 in premiums and not made even £1 of claims. They might owe me lunch :D :D
 
Last edited:
jfm said:
Your description above is not quite correct however. Read precisely, the clause says that if skipper is driving boat then HIS 3rd party liabilities (which are personal to him) are not covered by your insurance. But YOUR 3rd party liabilities, which are personal to you and are what you care about, are still covered and your cover is not affected by the fact the skipper is driving that boat. So arguably the extra cover you just got from Y has helped him not you, and therefore you are being a nice guy, which is perfectly fine even tho it isn’t your job to wipe his bottom.

BUT it is conceivable in some countries that some (not all) HIS 3rd party liabilities could be asserted to attach to the boat like a mortgage, and in that stretch scenario his problem becomes yours. Note that this is an extreme stretch scenario- in most jurisdictions such a mortgage would not be created.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I hadn't twigged that subtlety (doh!).

jfm said:
Pete the answer to your question depends upon the employment relationships that the skipper has. You have given us no information on that so it’s impossible to answer the question.
Click to expand...

For your info, I spoke to my guy and he is a self employed / sole trader, and therefore he is employed by me and not employed by any organisation listed or similar to the ones in 4.2 below. Does that mean that the exclusion doesn't actually apply?

----------------------------

What is not covered

4 No cover is provided in respect of:

4.1 .......

4.2 the legal liabilities of anyone operating, managing or working upon the Vessel who is employed by a ship yard, repair yard, yacht club, sales agency, delivery contractor, similar organisation or marina unless moving the vessel within the marina with the owner’s permission or unless
otherwise agreed by Us;

----------------------------
 
Last edited:
Correct - the exclusion doesn't apply.

But be careful generally Pete, when dealing with insurance policies with the phrase "employed by".. The parase causes confusion and indeed you used it in two different "legal" contexts when you said "therefore he is employed by me and not employed by any organisation", thereby unwittingly helping the insurance company side of the argument when they try to avoid liability payouts under these clauses.

This uncertainty is why, when Y kindly invited me to modify their standard policy doc some years ago, I wrote the phrase "contract of employment" in exclusion clause 4.3

4. No cover is provided in respect of:
4.3 any liability for accidents or illness to any person engaged by You in
connection with the Vessel under a contract of employment;

Previously this clause read:
4. No cover is provided in respect of:
4.3 any liability for accidents or illness to any person employed by You in
connection with the Vessel;

...which is a horrible clause and still appears (urgh) in most marine insurance policies. It is one of the many reasons I think the run-of-the-mill policies from the likes of GJW, Bishop Skinner etc are inferior to the Y premium product. Pantaenius have got this right as well as Y, by the way - Pantaenius also made a lot of changes to their policy a few years ago after they and I spent time on it together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top