yacht insurance renewal

[maby]

Ever filed a claim?
How did it go?

Cheap rates, friendliness, etc... only go so far.
With insurance in the end it only comes down to one thing: how they settle a claim.

They seem to have a decent reputation.

 

[Tranona]

They seem to have a decent reputation.

If you go back over the recent long threads on this subject you will find that comment applies to all the other popular insurers. Not to say that they are all perfect, but the difference seems to revolve around specific exclusions which can result in a claim being rejected. So you can get an insurer with a "decent reputation" who also has disputes with individual claimants or quite legitimately rejects a claim.

 

[Koeketiene]

They seem to have a decent reputation.

They do - but what is this perception worth?

It would be nice to get some first hand feedback from people who filed a claim with them.

 

[xyachtdave]

Ever filed a claim?
How did it go?

Cheap rates, friendliness, etc... only go so far.
With insurance in the end it only comes down to one thing: how they settle a claim.

Who's going to volunteer to wreck their boat this week so we can find out if Y Yachts claims dept works satisfactorily?

I'm busy....

 

[sailorman]

Who's going to volunteer to wreck their boat this week so we can find out if Y Yachts claims dept works satisfactorily?

I'm busy....

I have a website to moderate :ambivalence:

 

[Koeketiene]

Who's going to volunteer to wreck their boat this week so we can find out if Y Yachts claims dept works satisfactorily?

I'm busy....

Off work next week.
Leave the keys under the sprayhood and I'll do it for you.

Let us know how you get on.

 

[xyachtdave]

Off work next week.
Leave the keys under the sprayhood and I'll do it for you.

Let us know how you get on.

That's a kind offer but Fox's are unlikely to finish it by next week.

 

[awol]

I declined Y Yacht because one clause - "The Vessel is covered for single-handed sailing by the Insured named in the Certificate of Insurance, for a passage which might last 18 hours or more, the Vessel is only covered for loss, damage, liability or expense while underway, provided at least two people are on-board throughout and each person is qualified or has experience appropriate for them to take charge of the Vessel unless otherwise stated in the Certificate of Insurance." - I found unacceptable. The use of the word "might" in a policy is sloppy and while I haven't and have no plans to sail single-handed for >18 hours, it "might" happen. That and they cost more than Pantaenius.

 

[maby]

Who's going to volunteer to wreck their boat this week so we can find out if Y Yachts claims dept works satisfactorily?

I'm busy....

I've just signed up with Pants...

 

[doris]

I believe that Y, being a Lloyd's backed broker, use the same loss adjusters as HKJ. This lot, allegedly, do not have such a wonderful reputation when it comes to paying claims, IMHO, of course.
Worth looking into.

 

[sailorman]

I believe that Y, being a Lloyd's backed broker, use the same loss adjusters as HKJ. This lot, allegedly, do not have such a wonderful reputation when it comes to paying claims, IMHO, of course.
Worth looking into.

Its the policy wording & exclusions that define any policy, boat,car or household

 

[doris]

Its the policy wording & exclusions that define any policy, boat,car or household

I'll believe you. Then comes the arguments over payout.

 

[sailorman]

I'll believe you. Then comes the arguments over payout.

The wording "IS" the wording a contractual obligation

 

[Tranona]

The wording "IS" the wording a contractual obligation

That is a very simplistic view of the world. Of course the policy wording defines what the contract is, but unfortunately claims do not always fall into neat categories so there are times when there are alternate interpretations on specific issues. You only find out about these when the claim occurs. If it was simply looking at the wording there would be no place for loss adjusters.

 

[sailorman]

That is a very simplistic view of the world. Of course the policy wording defines what the contract is, but unfortunately claims do not always fall into neat categories so there are times when there are alternate interpretations on specific issues. You only find out about these when the claim occurs. If it was simply looking at the wording there would be no place for loss adjusters.

The job of a loss adjuster is to stuff the policy holder
read what is excluded within the policy is jfm`s advise

 

[Colvic Watson]

Is there any connection between the two companies? I mean is Y a Front for Pants?

 

[Parsonsheath]

I declined Y Yacht because one clause - "The Vessel is covered for single-handed sailing by the Insured named in the Certificate of Insurance, for a passage which might last 18 hours or more, the Vessel is only covered for loss, damage, liability or expense while underway, provided at least two people are on-board throughout and each person is qualified or has experience appropriate for them to take charge of the Vessel unless otherwise stated in the Certificate of Insurance." - I found unacceptable. The use of the word "might" in a policy is sloppy and while I haven't and have no plans to sail single-handed for >18 hours, it "might" happen. That and they cost more than Pantaenius.

Just re read summary of my insurance as I have to renew on 26.03, same comments about 2 on board unless in certificate, and my certificate confirms single handed for passages with planned duration not exceeding 18 hours, only reference to crew is "competent".

This is Yachtmaster Insurance Services.

 

[Tranona]

The job of a loss adjuster is to stuff the policy holder
read what is excluded within the policy is jfm`s advise

As usual you are missing the point. I know all about the exclusions, but whatever the clauses are they are open to interpretation. So no matter how clear you think the written contract is, it does not guarantee that your claim will be met to your satisfaction. If insurance companies accepted every claim just because the claimant thinks his claim is justified they would soon be out of business. So there will always be disputes no matter what the wording is.

 

[Lucky Duck]

I declined Y Yacht because one clause - "The Vessel is covered for single-handed sailing by the Insured named in the Certificate of Insurance, for a passage which might last 18 hours or more, the Vessel is only covered for loss, damage, liability or expense while underway, provided at least two people are on-board throughout and each person is qualified or has experience appropriate for them to take charge of the Vessel unless otherwise stated in the Certificate of Insurance." - I found unacceptable. The use of the word "might" in a policy is sloppy and while I haven't and have no plans to sail single-handed for >18 hours, it "might" happen. That and they cost more than Pantaenius.

+ 1. Just about any trip "might" take more than 18 hours. I did query this with Y Yacht who responsed to the effect that the clause was only intended to operate with voygages that would ordinarily take more than 18 hours.

If that was the intention why not write the clause to say that?

 

[Georgio]

I specifically wanted single-handed cover with no restrictions and have just moved to Pants. Having read their policy and asked for views on here I was pretty satisfied with them.

It helps that they were also cheaper than the alternatives (although I did have to get a survey done).