Y Insurance v the others

[jimmy_the_builder]

Btw what do Y policy holders do about the 17kt clause

I saw three 17 knot clauses:
- engine/gearbox cover: didn't apply to me because my boat is more than 7 years old
- fire/explosion: cover is conditional on properly maintained fire extinguishing systems, which I thought was reasonable
- sinking/swamping: only applies to vessels < 17 feet

Which was the clause that caught your eye?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Which was the clause that caught your eye?

This one

2.3 loss of or damage to the Vessel’s main engine or attached gearbox caused
by the failure of any component, provided that:

(c) the Maximum Designed Speed of the Vessel under motor is under
17 knots; and

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Blimey that was quick. Y have just confirmed that they will delete clause 2.3(c) on my policy and 4.10 to be replaced by 'wear, tear and weathering'

I have to say that the response to any question I have posed to Y is lightning so far

 

[Firefly625]

Blimey that was quick. Y have just confirmed that they will delete clause 2.3(c) on my policy and 4.10 to be replaced by 'wear, tear and weathering'

I have to say that the response to any question I have posed to Y is lightning so far

same experience I had with Y. They really are on the ball.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

This one

2.3 loss of or damage to the Vessel’s main engine or attached gearbox caused
by the failure of any component, provided that:

(c) the Maximum Designed Speed of the Vessel under motor is under
17 knots; and

I appreciate you've got your answer from Y already - but when I asked them about this clause, this is what they said:

A 2.3 (a) and (c) - Clause 2.3 is a bonus cover which relates to engines under 7 years old. This relates to damage to the main engine or attached gearbox caused by the failure of any component of the engine. It can be best described as an extension of a manufacturer’s guarantee. If for example the engine seized as a result of an oil pump failure the damage would be covered providing Clauses a, b, c and d are satisfied. Should the engine failure cause further damage such as collision this is of course also covered. We assure you that consequential loss of mechanical failure is covered in any event. If your yacht was under seven years of age clause 2.3(c) (regarding max design speed) would have been noted as deleted automatically due to the type and size of your vessel.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Ah now I understand how the reply was so quick. They've obviously got standard answers to the standard questions that we idiots throw at them

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Ah now I understand how the reply was so quick. They've obviously got standard answers to the standard questions that we idiots throw at them

I think that's true of any customer-facing organisation that operates at scale. The difference with Y is the timeliness of the response - they really are very quick indeed. They are also generous with their time on the phone, if you need to call them. (Claire Froggatt is in fact a real person...! )

 

[Wavey]

Also considering a move to Y. Received my quote yesterday and will go through the paperwork over the weekend. Premium is quite a bit less than I paid my current insurers last year but that in itself isn't a reason to change.

Is it my imagination or are we all paying far more attention to the detail of the policy than we used to

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Is it my imagination or are we all paying far more attention to the detail of the policy than we used to

Yup I have recommended to my SWMBO that she starts reading boat insurance policy documents to help her with her insomnia It's certainly stultifyingly boring stuff but I guess we have to thank jfm of this parish for alerting us to the dangers within these policy documents that perhaps many of us had taken for granted in the past

 

[Wavey]

Yes, definitely have to thank jfm.

And the next thing you know we'll all be reading our car and house insurance policies too. That should sort out even the worst case of insomnia

 

[rafiki_]

Yup I have recommended to my SWMBO that she starts reading boat insurance policy documents to help her with her insomnia It's certainly stultifyingly boring stuff but I guess we have to thank jfm of this parish for alerting us to the dangers within these policy documents that perhaps many of us had taken for granted in the past

 

[jfm]

Ref engine component thing, it is not a reason to criticise Y for having a sort of "17 knot defect" in their policy. It is very clear from the wording of the clause that it sort of serves as an extension engine breakdown/warranty clause. Y would of course get your warranty rights subrogated to them so could pursue the manufacturer, but that's neither here nor there for the policyholder. To be frank, it's an academic clause in my view and it didn't influence my policy choice one way or the other: it is capped at an amount that would not cover a Deleted User-esque size engine, has an excess, and so on. IMhO, just forget about it and concentrate on the risks that really matter This 17 knot/engine clause isn't an area where Y should be criticised at all in my book.

 

[jfm]

we have to thank jfm of this parish for alerting us to the dangers within these policy documents that perhaps many of us had taken for granted in the past

Well perhaps not quite . I'm only the messenger. The thing that triggered this whole long round of discussion was the sinking of Seahope's (of this parish) boat when a seacock fizzed away on marina berth. His insurers/claims handlers (the Bluefin/Towergate/Bishop skinner ensemble) refuse to pay because of the corrosions clauses we have since discussed at length. Meanwhile the marine mortgage company wanted the entire cash repaid on the spot. Nightmare. Then another poster on Scuttlebutt had something similar - big £££ loss due to metal corrosion - insurers also refused to pay. Those brought this to the fore, and remind us that this whole discussion isn't about merely theoretical things

(For the record, in both above cases the insurers eventually paid, but did so for "fluky" non repeatable reasons, rather than under their corrosion/electrolysis clauses)

 

[MapisM]

LOL, is it appropriate to call your involvement in a legal dispute "a fluky non repeatable reason"?
I'm learning something new on English language every time I open a thread around here....

 

[jfm]

Ha ha! Well, I would be happy to help a forum member in the same position so that part is repeatable, there was definitely a lot of "unrepeatable" in the points we found that ultimately forced the insurers to concede, so it is better to have good coverage in the insurance policy rather than rely on flukes

The flukes in the above 2 cases were quite bizarre. Too complex - plus inappropriate - to explain on open internet, but next time we're sitting on a deck with a bottle of beer remind me to tell you the stories first hand

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

All the same jfm, take a bow for getting involved and helping to sort it out

 

[kcrane]

I also switched to Y a few months ago, and having read this thread have documented a request to the Volvo dealer to check all skin fittings and seacocks when Intraventure is out of the water next week. Good practise to have them checked I guess as well as covering the legals off. Shame about the 7 years old thing, the V48 has just passed that. It was 2 years old when I bought it and the years have flown by.