Y-Yacht / Topsail; Haven Knox Johnston; Curtis Marine; Pantaenius

[Piers]

Play d'eau was previously insured by Y-Yacht, now Topsail. Having read so much about insurance companies, I have been to great pains to understand the offerings from the above providers.

Interestingly, two offered N&G, but each N&G offering was different!

Some providers stated, "We may replace the Vessel or any insured item with one of similar age, type or condition even if the appearance is not the same" Really?

In comparison, by far the most comprehensive cover (prime consideration) and middle of road cost (secondary consideration), came from Andy Crick of Pantaenius who was been extremely helpful throughout the whole eye watering process.

 

[Portofino]

My understanding of the “We may replace the Vessel or any insured item with one of similar age, type or condition....../.....” is simply to deter a insurance job for cash type of claim .You know torching or sinking it for more perceived rapid financial gain than attempts to sell it in the conventional way .

In reality they do pay out genuine claims for total loss of there client’s because they are just that genuine, and it’s far easier than sourcing , haggling , attempting to satisfy a disgruntled punter who has suffered a total loss .

Obviously if you have ended up with a highly customised verging in your eyes unique irreplaceable boat , there’s a few on here I feel then we can appreciate a raised eyebrow and hesitancy buying those policies.

The sting will be some where else in the policy , buried .What you can’t see does not hurt I guess ?
There s never been such a thing as the perfect policy ( within the bounds of sensible money ) you simply back fit the least worst that fits best your particular bug bears .

I went with them because the leaving the boat unattended @ anchor is defined , the most defined of the lot .

If the Itama was lost and they offered me a Pershing , Magnum ,Otam .......well I,am happy to take that chance .

 

[Solent Sailor]

I'm going through the same process.

Porthcawl have offered the lowest cost N&G policy. Topsail the most expensive (>50% more expensive).

Pants are once again more expensive than anyone else. Quality is worth paying for, but not at 50% more than the market mid-point for me at least.

GJW have offered a sensible price in the middle of the pack and are a separate insurer, not a broker. I'm yet to study their policy but on first glance it seems as bad or good as anyone else's. Spoke to a real human being too.

I also spoke to Ceta (marketing under the name of buyboatinsurance.com). On the first occassion, they offered a good price. When I spoke to them a week later (with practically the same quote, just tweaking the distribution of values between mothership and tender etc) the cost had suddenly increased by several hundred pounds. In any case, they trouble me because whilst in the event of a claim I may be dealing with the underwriter direct, there is no guarantee that they wouldn't become involved and appear little more than a call centre.

 

[Piers]

Porthcawl have offered the lowest cost N&G policy. Topsail the most expensive (>50% more expensive).

Bear in mind that not all N&G policies are the same. The only way is to check the wording to make sure you're happy.

It's worth contacting Andy Crick at Pant to check your quote is accurate. The first I had was incorrect and Andy corrected it.

 

[Solent Sailor]

I've just read the Porthcawl policy through and I can see no major headaches in there. No replacement vessel nonsense (I find it hard to believe this would be invoked in practice as its more hassle than its probably worth), 24 hours single handed (double excess though) and the only restrictions on leaving the boat unattended apply if under 28ft or 17ft (an inherent inconsistency in the policy, but neither apply to me).

Also looked at TopSails' N&G policy: it is identical, save that there is no cover for "any loss or damage to fishing equipment, water skis, water toys, diving or sports equipment whilst in use" and they offer an excess waiver (practically an additional insurance policy with a premium to pay, and is not available if singlehanded). On balance, nothing to attract me to this policy over the Porthcawl variant.

The GJW policy contains a betterment clause with the nebulous language of "we reserve the right to deduct a reasonable amount" - as opposed to the 25% in both N&G policies). Prime grounds for disagreement at the claim stage. It is also incrementally less good (e.g. machinery only covered if under 3 years old, rather than 5 - but no issue for me, mine are much older!). Only 18 hours single-handed is permitted. On balance, I see nothing in there which tempts me toward it. It also contains the replacement vessel language.

I re-read the Pantaneous policy too - on betterment, a 30% deduction (fixed). Coverage for contaminated fuel (specifically excluded by N&G as a consumable) - but it excludes diesel bug related issues which wipes out the vast majority of claims. There are some other additional benefits over some other policies (such as being insured on someone else's boat, or a chartered boat - but that assumes that they have not insured it themselves, so practically unlikely to be used). On balance, a good policy in my view, but nothing outstanding.

Finally, I've compared the Porthcawl N&G policy to my existing Amlin policy from Y/Topsail. It is very similar to the current Porthcawl N&G policy, although some minor differences (18 hours singlehanded, 7 years age limit on machinery, 30% betterment, )

So - there you have my thoughts (I'm a solicitor, so hope I've been reasonably thorough). For anyone taking a note of these things - please bear in mind the policies offered to you by these same companies may differ. This was just my experience, this year.

Aside from the wording of the policies, there is the remaining element of perception, laziness and trust. Insurers rely on our inherent laziness/trust in us not wanting to change providers from year to year. It's widely acknowledged that they exploit existing customers as a result. Of course, you may have had good experiences in the past with an insurer, or know those who have - this has value, but ultimately, none of us really know how well any insurer will handle a claim until the chips are down - and none of us wish to find out!

 

[DavidJ]

I've just read the Porthcawl policy through and I can see no major headaches in there. No replacement vessel nonsense (I find it hard to believe this would be invoked in practice as its more hassle than its probably worth), 24 hours single handed (double excess though) and the only restrictions on leaving the boat unattended apply if under 28ft or 17ft (an inherent inconsistency in the policy, but neither apply to me).

Also looked at TopSails' N&G policy: it is identical, save that there is no cover for "any loss or damage to fishing equipment, water skis, water toys, diving or sports equipment whilst in use" and they offer an excess waiver (practically an additional insurance policy with a premium to pay, and is not available if singlehanded). On balance, nothing to attract me to this policy over the Porthcawl variant.

The GJW policy contains a betterment clause with the nebulous language of "we reserve the right to deduct a reasonable amount" - as opposed to the 25% in both N&G policies). Prime grounds for disagreement at the claim stage. It is also incrementally less good (e.g. machinery only covered if under 3 years old, rather than 5 - but no issue for me, mine are much older!). Only 18 hours single-handed is permitted. On balance, I see nothing in there which tempts me toward it. It also contains the replacement vessel language.

I re-read the Pantaneous policy too - on betterment, a 30% deduction (fixed). Coverage for contaminated fuel (specifically excluded by N&G as a consumable) - but it excludes diesel bug related issues which wipes out the vast majority of claims. There are some other additional benefits over some other policies (such as being insured on someone else's boat, or a chartered boat - but that assumes that they have not insured it themselves, so practically unlikely to be used). On balance, a good policy in my view, but nothing outstanding.

Finally, I've compared the Porthcawl N&G policy to my existing Amlin policy from Y/Topsail. It is very similar to the current Porthcawl N&G policy, although some minor differences (18 hours singlehanded, 7 years age limit on machinery, 30% betterment, )

So - there you have my thoughts (I'm a solicitor, so hope I've been reasonably thorough). For anyone taking a note of these things - please bear in mind the policies offered to you by these same companies may differ. This was just my experience, this year.

Aside from the wording of the policies, there is the remaining element of perception, laziness and trust. Insurers rely on our inherent laziness/trust in us not wanting to change providers from year to year. It's widely acknowledged that they exploit existing customers as a result. Of course, you may have had good experiences in the past with an insurer, or know those who have - this has value, but ultimately, none of us really know how well any insurer will handle a claim until the chips are down - and none of us wish to find out!

Nice piece of work
What is your understanding of “betterment”?

 

[Solent Sailor]

Nice piece of work
What is your understanding of “betterment”?

Not sure where you are going with this, but it seems a loaded question? Betterment in the context that I have referred to it above means the ability of the insurer to reduce the amount they pay to settle a claim to avoid the insured from profiting from having made a claim. For instance, my cockpit cushions all go overboard, I claim for the cost of replacement but the insurer notes that they were 30 years old and more patches than cushion and accordingly reduces the value of the settlement in line with the contract of insurance so that I do not suddenly get "new for old" coverage when I wasn't paying for it.

 

[DavidJ]

Not sure where you are going with this, but it seems a loaded question? Betterment in the context that I have referred to it above means the ability of the insurer to reduce the amount they pay to settle a claim to avoid the insured from profiting from having made a claim. For instance, my cockpit cushions all go overboard, I claim for the cost of replacement but the insurer notes that they were 30 years old and more patches than cushion and accordingly reduces the value of the settlement in line with the contract of insurance so that I do not suddenly get "new for old" coverage when I wasn't paying for it.

Thanks
I have looked at a couple of proposals (well scanned really!) but hadn’t really come across “betterment”. Odd word but you describe it very well.
No angle to my question, just another poor sole trying to navigate his way through boat insurance.

 

[Solent Sailor]

No angle to my question, just another poor sole trying to navigate his way through boat insurance.

No problem - the professional cynic in me was scratching his head trying to work out what clever point in all this I'd missed.

 

[petem]

No replacement vessel nonsense (I find it hard to believe this would be invoked in practice as its more hassle than its probably worth)

I suspect that if they considered that a vessel was significantly over insured, they would invoke it. For the majority of us, this won;t be an issue.

 

[Piers]

For me, there were other unacceptable clauses, such as: "Claims as a result of the Vessel striking a submerged object or grounding will be subject to double the excess."

 

[Solent Sailor]

True - except if the excess is only £425 (which all have proposed to me) then £850 isn't so significant if I need two new props and shafts (likely cost £6-7000+). And yours are bigger than mine Piers (although so might your excess be!).

Edit: actually, Pant's excess for me was £700 - so I'd be worse off for the vast majority of potential claims. They are off sharpening their pencils though having challenged them about the price. I'm not averse to paying more than the cheapest premium going, but I do want to be sure that I am getting additional value for money (or in this case, mitigating significant additional risks) by doing so.

 

[Seastoke]

We went with ng as the wording for replacement was the agreed value of the vessel

 

[Hurricane]

I've just read the Porthcawl policy through and I can see no major headaches in there. No replacement vessel nonsense (I find it hard to believe this would be invoked in practice as its more hassle than its probably worth), 24 hours single handed (double excess though) and the only restrictions on leaving the boat unattended apply if under 28ft or 17ft (an inherent inconsistency in the policy, but neither apply to me).

Also looked at TopSails' N&G policy: it is identical, save that there is no cover for "any loss or damage to fishing equipment, water skis, water toys, diving or sports equipment whilst in use" and they offer an excess waiver (practically an additional insurance policy with a premium to pay, and is not available if singlehanded). On balance, nothing to attract me to this policy over the Porthcawl variant.

The GJW policy contains a betterment clause with the nebulous language of "we reserve the right to deduct a reasonable amount" - as opposed to the 25% in both N&G policies). Prime grounds for disagreement at the claim stage. It is also incrementally less good (e.g. machinery only covered if under 3 years old, rather than 5 - but no issue for me, mine are much older!). Only 18 hours single-handed is permitted. On balance, I see nothing in there which tempts me toward it. It also contains the replacement vessel language.

I re-read the Pantaneous policy too - on betterment, a 30% deduction (fixed). Coverage for contaminated fuel (specifically excluded by N&G as a consumable) - but it excludes diesel bug related issues which wipes out the vast majority of claims. There are some other additional benefits over some other policies (such as being insured on someone else's boat, or a chartered boat - but that assumes that they have not insured it themselves, so practically unlikely to be used). On balance, a good policy in my view, but nothing outstanding.

Finally, I've compared the Porthcawl N&G policy to my existing Amlin policy from Y/Topsail. It is very similar to the current Porthcawl N&G policy, although some minor differences (18 hours singlehanded, 7 years age limit on machinery, 30% betterment, )

So - there you have my thoughts (I'm a solicitor, so hope I've been reasonably thorough). For anyone taking a note of these things - please bear in mind the policies offered to you by these same companies may differ. This was just my experience, this year.

Aside from the wording of the policies, there is the remaining element of perception, laziness and trust. Insurers rely on our inherent laziness/trust in us not wanting to change providers from year to year. It's widely acknowledged that they exploit existing customers as a result. Of course, you may have had good experiences in the past with an insurer, or know those who have - this has value, but ultimately, none of us really know how well any insurer will handle a claim until the chips are down - and none of us wish to find out!

IIRC for most of the policies that I read, the betterment clause was in connection with the following:-
(a) protective covers and canopies;
(b) Machinery, batteries and tenders;
(c) paintwork or other surface finish;
(d) upholstery and soft furnishings;
or
(e) mast, spars, sails, standing and running
For me , the main issue with this clause is the "tender"
I have a more valuable tender that most boats would carry which I considered an issue for me.
The Topsail policy said that they WILL reduce the amount they offer by 25% on any claim.
Whereas the HKJ policy specifically says that they will reduce the amount by no more than 30% BUT they exclude this clause in the event of a total loss.
IMO, having the tender stolen is a likely event so I favoured full cover for the tender in the event of a total loss.

Of course, there were other considerations - the betterment clause was just one point.

 

[Piers]

Play d'eau was previously insured by Y-Yacht, now Topsail. Having read so much about insurance companies, I have been to great pains to understand the offerings from the above providers.

Interestingly, two offered N&G, but each N&G offering was different.

Some providers stated, "We may replace the Vessel or any insured item with one of similar age, type or condition even if the appearance is not the same" Really?

In comparison, by far the most comprehensive cover (prime consideration) and middle of road cost (secondary consideration), came from Andy Crick of Pantaenius who was been extremely helpful throughout the whole eye watering process.

Choosing the best policy for Play d'eau was an interesting but very time consuming journey. Not only in verifying the precise detail of each of the four offerings I was given, but in listing our key criteria for choice. So what did I learn?

1. Not all policies from the same provider are the same - i.e., N&G.
2. The value of the boat determines which policy a provider offers.
3. Some wording could not be removed - e.g., the replacement clause detailed above.
4. The most suitable policy is not always the most expensive - e.g., the wording from Pantaenius was the most suitable for Play d'eau, and the cost was middle of the road.

When considering which policy to choose, we listed the 'no go' clauses and sorted them in order of importance. Some providers would not alter their wordings, some would. Some provided explanations, some didn't.

From this, the final choice became obvious.

 

[Solent Sailor]

I have a more valuable tender that most boats would carry which I considered an issue for me.

If the tender is truly worth that much, the perhaps it would be better to insure it separately as a vessel in its own right? Just a thought.

 

[Hurricane]

If the tender is truly worth that much, the perhaps it would be better to insure it separately as a vessel in its own right? Just a thought.

I did keep that in my mind when considering but the rest of the HKJ policy was IMO better than the alternative that Topsail were offering.
My would cost over £35,000 to replace as new.
I suspect that Williams Jets can be a similar value.
So, to have it reduced by 25% to 30% after the excess would hurt - if it were stolen (say).

Some policies also had double excess (for hitting submerged objects for example).