Airbnb Insurance for boats

[Mike Adams]

38 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

According to their website, C&RT will not grant you a licence for a 'hire boat' without you having a mooring.

 

 

I think there was a previous thread about this where the boat didn't have a mooring or if it did there was no requirement to use it. after all any hire boat is likely to travel more than any other CCr.

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

I think there was a previous thread about this where the boat didn't have a mooring or if it did there was no requirement to use it. after all any hire boat is likely to travel more than any other CCr.

 

CRT want a 'base' rather than just a home mooring. Somewhere the hirer can park their car, with rubbish disposal and facilities for the between-hirer turnarounds, IIRC. 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by MtB

[ditchcrawler]

23 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

CRT want a 'base' rather than just a home mooring. Somewhere the hirer can park their car, with rubbish disposal and facilities for the between-hirer turnarounds, IIRC. 

 

 

This boat doesn't have a base Home | Hotel Boat Ellis (narrowboatellis.com) and continuously cruses.

[___]

1 hour ago, jeddlad said:

That was exactly my point in the original post (way back when), when we first discussed this.  Most boat movers insurance isn't worth the paper it's printed on.....

 

If you don't want to follow the advice, fine, but you should only speak on behalf of yourself (or your friend). My schedule is explicit as to the existence of, and limit of cover for, a craft in my care. I would assume any boatyard has something similar for boats in their care. That is separate to the general public liability figure, which has an extra zero on the end.

 

 

[jeddlad]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

If you don't want to follow the advice, fine, but you should only speak on behalf of yourself (or your friend). My schedule is explicit as to the existence of, and limit of cover for, a craft in my care. I would assume any boatyard has something similar for boats in their care. That is separate to the general public liability figure, which has an extra zero on the end.

 

 

"Assume"........ Have a lovely day.  

Edited February 3, 2022 by jeddlad

[___]

2 minutes ago, jeddlad said:

"Assume"........ Have a lovely day.  

 

It was just an example of a situation where similar cover would be required to illustrate that explicit third party cover for boats must exist. My policy doesn't apply to a boatyard operation so there is no assumption.

 

I think if the policy you've obtained had similar to what I describe, and you thought that to be worthless, you'd have have said so in response.

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, jeddlad said:

The insurance documents my friend has as a boat mover are very clear, he is covered for any damage he causes when moving a boat to any 3rd party but the actual boat he is moving is not covered.

 

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

"Your insurers will not pay for" :

 

2.1.10 any liability incurred whilst Your Craft is being used by or is in the custody or control of:

 

vi. delivery skippers or their employees or crew;

 

So the combined effect of these two insurance requirements is that the boat being moved by the boat mover is covered by neither insurance policy. Which means that, in the event of damage to that boat while it is under the control of the boat mover, the boat mover is personally liable for the damage. And if the owner of said boat's policy includes legal protection insurance, as many policies do, then the boatowner will have the legal resources to sue the boat mover if he doesn't pay up willingly.

Anything in the boat mover's Ts and Cs that attempts to absolve him of responsibility for damage to the boats in his care is liable to be deemed to be unenforceable under consumer protection law. 

Is @jeddlad's friend aware of the risk he is taking?

[Tacet]

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Found it :

 

"Your insurers will not pay for" :

 

2.1.10 any liability incurred whilst Your Craft is being used by or is in the custody or control of:

i. shipyard operators or their employees;

ii. repair yard operators or their employees;

iii. slipway operators or their employees;

iv. yacht club operators or their employees;

v. marina operators or their employees;

vi. delivery skippers or their employees or crew;

vii. sales agencies or their employees; or

viii. any other similar organisations

 

So basically if you are paying anyone to do anything to your boat, you have no insurace cover and should rely on the person you are paying to have adequate cover, that actually covers your boat. eg. If a crane operator drops your boat onto another boat, then both boat owners need to be able to claim off the crane drivers insurance.

If a delivery skipper hits a boat with your boat and damages both boats, both owners need to be able to claim off the delivery skippers insurance.

 No  - to the conclusions you draw.  If a skipper of another boat runs into yours (or a crane operator drops a boat onto yours) the exclusion does not arise on your policy.

 

Otherwise you might be rather busy checking the policies of all cranes and other boats that might be skippered anywhere on your route.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, Tacet said:

No  - to the conclusions you draw.  If a skipper of another boat runs into yours (or a crane operator drops a boat onto yours) the exclusion does not arise on your policy.

 

That is not what I said  - I actually said the opposite of what you think I said.

 

I said if a crane operator drops my boat onto another boat my insurance will not pay out for the damage to either my boat, or the boat it has been dropped on.

[Tacet]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is not what I said  - I actually said the opposite of what you think I said.

 

I said if a crane operator drops my boat onto another boat my insurance will not pay out for the damage to either my boat, or the boat it has been dropped on.

OK - fair comment.  Perhaps it would be easier to say that the crane operator would be well advised to have third party insurance that includes damage not only to its customers - but damage to others too.

 

Broadly speaking, if a crane operator drops your boat onto another, the owner of the other boat will look to the operator for any claim.  Even though your boat may have damaged the other, if you have not been at fault there will be no basis of claim.  I say broadly speaking, as it would be possible to see that you were at least partly liable; you might have knowingly or recklessly engaged an incompetent crane operator or, maybe, incorrectly stated the weight of your boat etc.  But it's a bit of a red herring as you would still be liable/partly liable for your own acts even if the crane operator was insured for its liability in dropping boats on boats. 

 

[Chewbacka]

On 04/02/2022 at 10:18, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is not what I said  - I actually said the opposite of what you think I said.

 

I said if a crane operator drops my boat onto another boat my insurance will not pay out for the damage to either my boat, or the boat it has been dropped on.

If the crane operator has 3rd party cover, then your boat would not be covered, but the boat yours dropped onto would be, as that other boat would be a 3rd party.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

If the crane operator has 3rd party cover, then your boat would not be covered, but the boat yours dropped onto would be, as that other boat would be a 3rd party.

 

So either way "I'm screwed"

My insurance will not pay out, and, the crane drivers's insurance will not pay out.

 

I'd suggest before any 'paid employee' is allowed to touch your boat you ascetain their insurance cover.

 

If you dont ask, you don't know and it could come back and bite you in the bum !

When we were planning on being lifted out at Plymouth the crane operator wanted us to sign a disclaimer stating that 'all risks were ours'. We declined and went elsewhere.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[PaulJ]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'd suggest before any 'paid employee' is allowed to touch your boat you ascetain their insurance cover.

 

If you dont ask, you don't know and it could come back and bite you in the bum !

Good advice. Now you know why I reccomend people tell their insurers I am moving their boat (re reply in last thread on this)

Insurers being what they are , will check against a policy number if asked and would soon let you know if you wasnt being correctly covered -especially if they thought they could charge you any extra for the privilege.

This actually does work in practice as I have had one customer coming back to me after their insurer said my policy number didnt exist- the customer gave his insurers a wrong number and once corrected all was fine.

I dont know how else you can 100% prove someone was suitably insured or not- a pdf of an insurance certificate isnt exactly hard to edit.

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, PaulJ said:

Good advice. Now you know why I reccomend people tell their insurers I am moving their boat (re reply in last thread on this)

Insurers being what they are , will check against a policy number if asked and would soon let you know if you wasnt being correctly covered -especially if they thought they could charge you any extra for the privilege.

This actually does work in practice as I have had one customer coming back to me after their insurer said my policy number didnt exist- the customer gave his insurers a wrong number and once corrected all was fine.

I dont know how else you can 100% prove someone was suitably insured or not- a pdf of an insurance certificate isnt exactly hard to edit.

Did we ever establish whether your boat-mover insurance policy covered damage to the boat being moved as well as third party cover?

 

Other posters are saying that they couldn't find a policy which provided such cover...

Edited February 5, 2022 by IanD

[PaulJ]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Did we ever establish whether your boat-mover insurance policy covered damage to the boat being moved as well as third party cover?

 

Other posters are saying that they couldn't find a policy which provided such cover...

I have no idea whether you or anyone else on here managed to establish it- Ive personally known I have it all along. 

I think you'll  find other posters have found it no problem just not the one youre talking about. 

[dmr]

1 hour ago, PaulJ said:

I have no idea whether you or anyone else on here managed to establish it- Ive personally known I have it all along. 

I think you'll  find other posters have found it no problem just not the one youre talking about. 

 

I have recently taken out a very expensive marine trades policy and this also covers me for working on private and commercial boats up to 80 foot in length (excluding hot works). I have not checked the wording but I assume this must include damage to the boat and not just third parties. Whilst getting quotes one company asked for the maximum value of the boats so this infers that damage to the boats is covered. If its possible to get insurance to work on boats then I would be very surprised if its not possible to get insurance to move boats around the canal system.

[ditchcrawler]

I hope the OP managed to find a company to give him the cover he requires

[PaulJ]

24 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

I have recently taken out a very expensive marine trades policy and this also covers me for working on private and commercial boats up to 80 foot in length (excluding hot works). I have not checked the wording but I assume this must include damage to the boat and not just third parties. Whilst getting quotes one company asked for the maximum value of the boats so this infers that damage to the boats is covered. If its possible to get insurance to work on boats then I would be very surprised if its not possible to get insurance to move boats around the canal system.

You got it DMR.  

I had to change my insurers as the last ones, great as they were, would only cover me for moving boats that I was working on (as in repairs, refits etc) and not purely for moving/delivering boats. Yours will prob be the same.

 

 

 

[___]

I too found that even in the commercial marine insurance market not all providers will cover commercial skippering, others will cover the public liability but not the boat being skippered itself, and some will cover the boat in the skipper's care and the general public liability. You've got to do the work to find the latter but there's a big clue in this thread as to one place to start.

[___]

11 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I have recently taken out a very expensive marine trades policy and this also covers me for working on private and commercial boats up to 80 foot in length (excluding hot works). I have not checked the wording but I assume this must include damage to the boat and not just third parties. Whilst getting quotes one company asked for the maximum value of the boats so this infers that damage to the boats is covered. If its possible to get insurance to work on boats then I would be very surprised if its not possible to get insurance to move boats around the canal system.

 

Be more A de E and get reading it!

 

I found that because the base policy documents are generic for the range of marine trades and environments some clauses were not conducive to my intended method of operation.

 

This included working time arrangements, work in hours of darkness, geographical limitation of public liability, and confirmation that the clause which permits boatyards to move boats they are engaged to work upon - but no others - was in a section that did not apply to my operation.

 

Surprisingly they not only agreed to my proposed alternatives but the cost of the policy reduced with the revised offer. I can only assume that was because it was evident to the underwriter that I had evaluated the risks and had set my own controls on them. Hence it is in the back of my mind that while cover may be available it may not be offered to all applicants, and if it is it won't be on the same terms.

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Captain Pegg

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Be more A de E and get reading it!

 

I found that because the base policy documents are generic for the range of marine trades and environments some clauses were not conducive to my intended method of operation.

 

This included working time arrangements, work in hours of darkness, geographical limitation of public liability, and confirmation that the clause which permits boatyards to move boats they are engaged to work upon - but no others - was in a section that did not apply to my operation.

 

Surprisingly they not only agreed to my proposed alternatives but the cost of the policy reduced with the revised offer. I can only assume that was because it was evident to the underwriter that I had evaluated the risks and had set my own controls on them. Hence it is in the back of my mind that while cover may be available it may not be offered to all applicants, and if it is it won't be on the same terms.

 

 

The working on boats cover is something that came with the policy and not something that I currently need, but I will read the detailed wording at some stage.

The trouble with reading the small print is that you find so many possible restrictions that it looks like the insurance is worthless. The one that concerns me is negligence, and it could be argued that almost every accident involves some degree of negligence.

 

Insurance is a funny thing, and as you say asking for extra things can sometimes reduce the premium. Adding a wife as a second driver on car insurance used to give a significant reduction 😀

[IanD]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

 

The working on boats cover is something that came with the policy and not something that I currently need, but I will read the detailed wording at some stage.

The trouble with reading the small print is that you find so many possible restrictions that it looks like the insurance is worthless. The one that concerns me is negligence, and it could be argued that almost every accident involves some degree of negligence.

 

Insurance is a funny thing, and as you say asking for extra things can sometimes reduce the premium. Adding a wife as a second driver on car insurance used to give a significant reduction 😀

All insurance policies have small print, but here it's the big print that's most important -- does the boat-movers insurance cover damage to the boat being moved, and if so up to what value limit?

 

Unlike some (most?) Captain Pegg's policy *does* cover the boat -- but the limit is too low for an expensive new boat, which just shows that the small print matters too... 😉

[TheBiscuits]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Unlike some (most?) Captain Pegg's policy *does* cover the boat -- but the limit is too low for an expensive new boat, which just shows that the small print matters too... 😉

 

It's not like anyone is daft enough to stick a quarter of a million quid's worth of boat in a muddy ditch though, so I can't see it being a problem ... 

 

[ditchcrawler]

27 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It's not like anyone is daft enough to stick a quarter of a million quid's worth of boat in a muddy ditch though, so I can't see it being a problem ... 

 

How much would Whitfield cost if it was built today?

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

How much would Whitfield cost if it was built today?

 

What it would cost isn't quite the same as what it is worth!

 

Didn't it sell/be offered for sale recently for about a quarter of it's build cost?