Y Insurance v the others

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted User YDKXO
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted User YDKXO

Guest
There have been a number of threads on this forum comparing the clauses in various insurers policies and the accepted wisdom seems to be that Y Insurance offers the most comprehensive policy. My policy renewal comes up in the next few days and I need to make a decision between staying with my long time insurers, Nav & Gen or moving to Y. The premiums quoted by both companies are within a few quid of each other.

I have just looked through Y's policy booklet and it states the following

No cover is provided in respect of loss or damage as a result of:

4.10 Gradual Deterioration unless it could not have been identified by
routine inspection and could not have been prevented by servicing,
maintenance or replacement in accordance with the relevant manufacturer’s
instructions, or generally accepted practice and advice from a qualified
marine surveyor who is a member of their relevant professional
surveying body

As I understand it, there have been recent cases where insurers have refused to accept liability for a loss due to failure of skin fittings caused by electrolysis and there has been advice on this forum to the effect that a Y policy would have covered such losses. I'm no lawyor but it seems to me that the above clause in Y's policy could be used to refuse liability in the same way. At the very least it seems to be a catch all clause that could be used to refuse liability in a wide variety of circumstances

Any comments or advice?
 
I didn't like that clause either when I looked around last Autumn. It does look very much like a get out of jail card for them to refuse claims. I went with Pants who weren't all that much more than Y for my boat.

However HKJ's new (post Aug '14) All Risks policy looks pretty good too and was a somewhat cheaper if memory serves. I'll be taking another look at that come renewal.
 
AdeOlly said:
I didn't like that clause either when I looked around last Autumn. It does look very much like a get out of jail card for them to refuse claims. I went with Pants who weren't all that much more than Y for my boat.

However HKJ's new (post Aug '14) All Risks policy looks pretty good too and was a somewhat cheaper if memory serves. I'll be taking another look at that come renewal.
Click to expand...

I stayed with HKJ as there new "all risks" policy would appear to me to be equal to or better than the competition and they were cheapest.
 
Just off the phone with Y insurance discussing their quote and cover clauses etc and after some clarification and amendments, have decided to insure thru them. The cheapest by far (£200) and the cover is as we want it. I must say they were a pleasure to deal with and more than happy to discuss any clauses I wasn't happy with. Hopefully the same will be said in the event of a claim. I've no reason to think otherwise.
L
:)
 
lisilou said:
Just off the phone with Y insurance discussing their quote and cover clauses etc and after some clarification and amendments, have decided to insure thru them. The cheapest by far (£200) and the cover is as we want it. I must say they were a pleasure to deal with and more than happy to discuss any clauses I wasn't happy with. Hopefully the same will be said in the event of a claim. I've no reason to think otherwise.
L
:)
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Y club
 
Yup, I have spent some time on the phone to Claire of Y myself this afternoon. As you say, very friendly and efficient. I specifically mentioned the instance of a sinking caused by a failed seacock or any other skin fitting and I was told that proof of servicing could be as simple as a request to a yard to check that item at some stage in the past. This suits me fine because I submit a written list of jobs every year to the yard doing my winter maintenance and that list always includes checking skin fittings. On that basis and answers to some more general questions about their experience and how their policy conditions have been drafted, I am insuring with them this year. Lets hope I don't regret it:)

PS it seems they watch this forum (or at least some forumite tips them a wink) so be careful what you say;)
 
Deleted User said:
Yup, I have spent some time on the phone to Claire of Y myself this afternoon. As you say, very friendly and efficient. I specifically mentioned the instance of a sinking caused by a failed seacock or any other skin fitting and I was told that proof of servicing could be as simple as a request to a yard to check that item at some stage in the past. This suits me fine because I submit a written list of jobs every year to the yard doing my winter maintenance and that list always includes checking skin fittings. On that basis and answers to some more general questions about their experience and how their policy conditions have been drafted, I am insuring with them this year. Lets hope I don't regret it:)

PS it seems they watch this forum (or at least some forumite tips them a wink) so be careful what you say;)
Click to expand...

How about those of us that do their own maintenance - are they going to accept our confirmation that we looked at the skin fitting and it seemed ok?
 
Deleted User said:
PS it seems they watch this forum (or at least some forumite tips them a wink) so be careful what you say;)
Click to expand...

I mentioned this forum to them and the various discussions re policy wording etc and told them they've been getting some good press on here...Claire said they were aware and had had several enquiries because of it. Not a bad thing imo. Nice to have a company willing to at least listen to customers and potential customers' concerns. Ooh...maybe we should push for a forumite discount?! :D. ( just kidding 'Y'...if you're watching ;) )
L
:)
 
Mike, 2 things:

1. iirc, I already commented on this clause, in a reply specifically to you, on the other thread. I'm in a meeting now so cannot search for it now but hope you can find it. Provided you take the action mentioned there, in my book Y is currently the best insurance offering currently (purely in my opinion) on your class of boat. I've recently insured my boat with them on this basis (I switched from Pantaenius because I firmly dislike Pantaenius's new All Risks policy; I believe they are in the process of amending it).
2. Y are I think looking to improve this clause. Someone is helping them write it. You might want them to give you an option to flip to the new clause when/if it is issued (in maybe a few months but I don't really know) - I'd expect they would agree to that
 
SEARANGER ANCASTER said:
I stayed with HKJ as there new "all risks" policy would appear to me to be equal to or better than the competition and they were cheapest.
Click to expand...
Y and HKJ are close to each other and share a few resources and of course write business for the same underwriter (one of the Amlin syndicates). Yup it's a good policy. Actually, in my opinion some of the clauses are very expertly written indeed :D :D. They have the "get out" clause for bad maintenance and for a higher value boat you could discuss/negotiate that if it concerns you and they like you as a risk. They understandably need it in their base policy, because they seek to cover the small boat market and inevitably that gives them exposure to jalopy boats (the esteemed members of this forum being obviously excluded from that category!).
Behind the clauses, the company has a good culture in my opinion. The MD is a good guy and they are trying to do the right thing. The same comments can be made of Y and Pantaenius imho - they are all good people with integrity imho.
 
I emailed Y and got this response, just to back up what others have said:

Dear Jez,


In response to your query regarding clause 4.10, our underwriters are not in the business of trying to avoid claims and in order to avoid any ambiguity have agreed the wording of clause 4.10. If your boat sinks as a result of a skin fitting failure the claim would be paid as long as you had carried out routine maintenance, such as periodically exercising a seacock to avoid it seizing and checking your skin fittings annually when your boat was out of the water. Underwriters do not wish to pay such claims if the insured owners do not look after their boats properly as paying such claims increase the premiums for responsible owners.

We hope this puts your mind at ease and hope we can welcome you on board.

With best wishes,


Claire

Miss Claire Froggatt Cert CII
(Business Coordinator)
www.yyachtinsurance.com
Click to expand...
 
lisilou said:
Just off the phone with Y insurance discussing their quote and cover clauses etc and after some clarification and amendments, have decided to insure thru them. The cheapest by far (£200) and the cover is as we want it. I must say they were a pleasure to deal with and more than happy to discuss any clauses I wasn't happy with. Hopefully the same will be said in the event of a claim. I've no reason to think otherwise.
L
:)
Click to expand...

Likewise for me with my saily boat. Just changed to them after some small discussions about single handing and few other small points and they were very easy to deal with and had a competitive (though not the cheapest) premium.
 
jfm said:
Mike, 2 things:

1. iirc, I already commented on this clause, in a reply specifically to you, on the other thread. I'm in a meeting now so cannot search for it now but hope you can find it. Provided you take the action mentioned there, in my book Y is currently the best insurance offering currently (purely in my opinion) on your class of boat. I've recently insured my boat with them on this basis (I switched from Pantaenius because I firmly dislike Pantaenius's new All Risks policy; I believe they are in the process of amending it).
2. Y are I think looking to improve this clause. Someone is helping them write it. You might want them to give you an option to flip to the new clause when/if it is issued (in maybe a few months but I don't really know) - I'd expect they would agree to that
Click to expand...

Thanks jfm. I have tried to find that thread with the forum's wonderful search facility but for some reason it wouldn't turn it up. In any case that was a while back and I was wondering whether there was any new advice. Yes, Y told me today that they were in the process of amending that clause
 
I had my own set of questions for Y, got clear and prompt answers, and based on that and jfm's guidance in that previous thread, I moved my policy from Pants to Y at the end of May.
 
jfm said:
Mike, this thread, esp post 33. I was replying to Jimmy not you, sorry, but no matter

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...ges-questions-for-the-forum-and-hopefully-JFM
Click to expand...

Thanks jfm, I don't remember seeing that or your reply to my other post (§34) on that thread. I don't know about anyone else but the email notification process on these forums for notifying posters when replies to their posts are made has been very random for me for many years and I often miss replies to my posts.

Btw what do Y policy holders do about the 17kt clause
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top