Boat Insurance.

[Momac]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Whilst we would hope that the possibility is small, I'd certainly rather pay a few £s a year extra for peace of mind  knowing that if it did sink I'm not going to have to find £1000s to pay for the recovery.

 

I agree.

But the question raised was about C&RT  requirements and not about what is wise .

 

 

 

 

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, haggis said:

Surely that is the boat owners responsibility. The point they made was that while the boaters had third party cover,  wreck removal was excluded.

I agree it is the boatowner's responsibility. But when neither the owner nor insurer pay up it becomes CRT's responsibility, and it shouldn't.

All I'm saying is that in order to satisfy CRT's legal requirement for a boat to have third party cover, that cover should include wreck removal. I.e. a policy which does not include wreck removal would not satisfy the legal requirement for a licence, and any boatowner offering such a policy would be refused a licence.

[Momac]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Rather than urging boat owners to check their cover, shouldn't they be working with the insurance industry to ensure all policies offered for boats on CRT waterways include the relevant cover, and then checking (perhaps on a sample basis) when issuing licences that the insurance covers this?

No. This responsibility for obtaining the appropriate insurance  lies with the boat owner . Its the same with cars , houses etc.

[Gybe Ho]

2 hours ago, cheesegas said:

I think this is a bit of a silly comment. You would be very surprised as to how many people of the 50-60 year old generation also have no idea how to sort themselves out; in my opinion, it's a universal thing, perhaps influenced by upbringing, rather than generational. As someone who looks a bit younger than I actually am, I frequently get patronised by older gents who assume I don't know what I'm doing around practical things which is rather annoying.

 

 

Absolutely, The Boomers invented the whole culture of frivolous accidental insurance claims that then led to runaway premium inflation. I remember the days when Boomers used to get into conspiratorial huddles and discuss whether they had made a profit from their house or boat insurance.

 

Back in the late 80s I had direct access to the household insurance claims database of a large high street bank, the nonsense in the narrative of accidental claims was saddening to read.

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, Momac said:

No. This responsibility for obtaining the appropriate insurance  lies with the boat owner . Its the same with cars , houses etc.

And there's the key word. Appropriate. Insurance which doesn't include wreck removal is not appropriate.

[Momac]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

And there's the key word. Appropriate. Insurance which doesn't include wreck removal is not appropriate.

I agree.

But cover for wreck removal it is not a requirement of C&RT.

 

[SLC]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

I agree.

But cover for wreck removal it is not a requirement of C&RT.

 

I do not understand this comment. If your boat has to be removed by CRT to prevent pollution for example, that is a third party cost which surely can be recovered from the boat owner.

It has also been mentioned that RCR warned about buying cheap insurance that did not include salvage.

Scottish Canals make it very clear. To go on to their waters you must have salvage cover.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, SLC said:

I do not understand this comment. If your boat has to be removed by CRT to prevent pollution for example, that is a third party cost which surely can be recovered from the boat owner.

 

That is C&RTs warning - buy insurance with exclusions for X, Y, Z and 'salvage', then we will come after you (the boat owner) personally for the costs incurred.

 

(It's like your car insurance that excludes any cover for 'racing, rallying or speed trials')

[Momac]

32 minutes ago, SLC said:

I do not understand this comment. If your boat has to be removed by CRT to prevent pollution for example, that is a third party cost which surely can be recovered from the boat owner.

 

I only know what I have read including C&RT's website which suggest some 3rd party cover insurances exclude salvage costs.

My statement is very simple 

C&RT do not require salvage cover.  So you could have one of those policies that excludes salvage and C&RT would sill issue a license ,

I am not in any way suggesting that not having salvage cover  is a good idea .

 

I am not at all sure whether salvage/wreck removal cover is an ordinary part of third party  cover. If it is stated in the policy as included then fair enough.

 

PS Most people don't actually read their insurance policy and when they do they don't really understand what is and isn't included .

[wandering snail]

22 hours ago, agew said:

Just moved to Insure4Boats - very competitive, and contents added for v reasonable sum…. Of course the real test is when you have to claim, which I hope is not going to happen….. fingers crossed

I see they are under the 'Ripe' umbrella. Our current insurer CraftInsure has also recently been taken over by them too. Our renewal has just come through with a hike in the price so I will have a look at this other 'Ripe' broker, it will be interesting to compare.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

My statement is very simple 

C&RT do not require salvage cover.  So you could have one of those policies that excludes salvage and C&RT would sill issue a license 

And my suggestion is that CRT should require (as a condition of issuing a licence) that the minimum third party insurance covers wreck removal, as that would reduce the number of times CRT end up footing the bill. If Scottish Canals can require it then why not CRT?

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And my suggestion is that CRT should require (as a condition of issuing a licence) that the minimum third party insurance covers wreck removal, as that would reduce the number of times CRT end up footing the bill. If Scottish Canals can require it then why not CRT?

 

Interestingly my reading of the 1995 Act appears to read that the boat insurance does NOT require salvage cover - should C&RT demand it, then there would be claims that they are going beyond their powers by demanding something not required by law.

 

See what you think ...........................

SCHEDULE 2

 

Part I Insurance policies as to vessels

1 An insurance policy must be issued by an insurer authorised under the [1982 c. 50.] Insurance Companies Act 1982 to carry on in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland insurance business of a relevant class or who has corresponding permission under the law of another member state of the European Community.

 

2 The policy must insure the owner of the vessel and such other person, persons or classes of persons (if any) as is or as are authorised by the owner to have control of the vessel, in respect of any liability (other than a liability specified in paragraph 3 below) which may be incurred by the owner or any such other person resulting from the presence of the vessel on any inland waterway in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or any damage to property.

 

3The policy shall not by virtue of this Act be required—

(a)to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of a person in the employment of a person insured by the policy or of bodily injury sustained by such a person arising out of and in the course of his employment;

(b)to cover liability in respect of damage to the vessel to which the policy relates;

(c)to cover liability in respect of goods carried on or in the vessel to which the policy relates, or any vessel drawn or propelled by such vessel;

(d)to cover any liability of a person in respect of damage to property in his custody or under his control;

(e)to cover any contractual liability; or

(f)to provide cover in respect of any one accident for a sum in excess of such sum as may for the time being be prescribed by the Board for the purposes of this paragraph.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

I am not at all sure whether salvage/wreck removal cover is an ordinary part of third party  cover.

 

Its an interesting point. CRT count as a "third party" I'd have thought, so any loss you cause them might well be covered in just the same way another boat owner is covered if you cause them loss. So no need to specifically state wreck recovery included.

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Its an interesting point. CRT count as a "third party" I'd have thought, so any loss you cause them might well be covered in just the same way another boat owner is covered if you cause them loss. So no need to specifically state wreck recovery included.

 

 

 

 

But what if the policy specifically states wreck recovery / salvage is excluded from this policy

The same as if you have an accident in you car whislt doing 'time trials' - no cover as it is specifically excluded in the policy documents

[Momac]

31 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And my suggestion is that CRT should require (as a condition of issuing a licence) that the minimum third party insurance covers wreck removal, as that would reduce the number of times CRT end up footing the bill. If Scottish Canals can require it then why not CRT?

Good suggestion . Wasted on here. Perhaps you should write to C&RT about it.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Momac said:

Perhaps you should write to C&RT about it.

 

Reaching the right person is the hard bit, doing this. In the first instance an email would land in the inbox of a Customer Services spod who probably wouldn't know what to do with it so would just escalate it to their supervisor, who wouldn't ..... etc etc....

 

 

[haggis]

It could be raised with the commission, could it not ? 

[David Mack]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or any damage to property.

So when we all glibly say "third party liability" it is only the above liabilities that need to be covered. So I am now minded to agree with Alan - if a sunken wreck does not cause death or bodily injury, and does not cause damage to CRT property, then the issue of needing salvage cover doesn't arise.

So if, for example, a boat ran into lock gates at speed and they failed and the boat sank, CRT could claim against the insurer for damage to the gates, but if there was no salvage cover, could not claim against them for the cost of removing the sunken boat. For that they would have to go after the owner directly.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

So when we all glibly say "third party liability" it is only the above liabilities that need to be covered. So I am now minded to agree with Alan - if a sunken wreck does not cause death or bodily injury, and does not cause damage to CRT property, then the issue of needing salvage cover doesn't arise.

So if, for example, a boat ran into lock gates at speed and they failed and the boat sank, CRT could claim against the insurer for damage to the gates, but if there was no salvage cover, could not claim against them for the cost of removing the sunken boat. For that they would have to go after the owner directly.

 

I think we are on the same wavelength.