Insurance

[Traveller]

My insurance is up for renewal. Am happy with the quote but is legal protection worth having? It only adds about a tenner to the cost but all this tenners add up!

[Idunhoe]

Like all insurance you will only truly know when you need it, that said and for what it's worth I opted for legal protection when I last renewed my insurance

[Gwydion]

For the sake of a tenner you might as well do it.

[Horace42]

My insurance is up for renewal. Am happy with the quote but is legal protection worth having? It only adds about a tenner to the cost but all this tenners add up!

Have you ever been involved in an insurance claim? - especially when your own insurance company nit-picks - that is where the small print comes in - and solicitors love small print - it is their bread-and-butter - meaning it could cost a packet to make, or defend, a claim.

So £10 insurance is a cheap and easy way to cover yourself - just in case.

[Dave Payne]

If its the same as car then do it, i had two no fault accidents in 2014, first had no legal protection and they took a cut of the money received, second had legal protection and i got 100% of the money, pay the £10, you would spend that on a couple of beers this weekend!

[Tony Brooks]

Have you ever been involved in an insurance claim? - especially when your own insurance company nit-picks - that is where the small print comes in - and solicitors love small print - it is their bread-and-butter - meaning it could cost a packet to make, or defend, a claim.

So £10 insurance is a cheap and easy way to cover yourself - just in case.

 

Except when I have tried to use such cover the best they were willing to do is to tell me to write the letters that had already been written, sent and received. That was it, a waste of money.

[Alan de Enfield]

We had a car (no fault) accident last year resulting in the Daughter in law breaking her back in three places - we are so far up to well over 100,000 pounds in legal costs and have not yet even got to court.

 

Pay the 'tenner'. Like all insurance its a waste of money until you need it.

[Delta9]

The chances of ever needing it on a boat policy are extremely low. Don't waste your money.

[Paul C]

Pay it if you want, but its basically useless.

[Dave Payne]

Ok, so if you hit another boat, someone falls of other boat and loses an arm in the prop, your fault? do you get sued?

[Delta9]

Ok, so if you hit another boat, someone falls of other boat and loses an arm in the prop, your fault? do you get sued?

Has that ever happened?

[Dave Payne]

No idea, but the point is £10 is nothing and covers you, pay it, dont pay it, everyone has that choice.

 

Ill pay mine.

[Paul C]

My point is that £10 is £10, not nothing.

[Alan de Enfield]

Has that ever happened?

I'd suggest its more useful when someone hits you, denies it and does 'a runner', legal help in recovering your out of pocket costs may be useful.

 

It is a personal choice, but if you are purely doing it because of the additional financial costs then if 'a tenner' is going to make the difference then you soon won't be boating anyway.

Don't have a couple of pints, don't buy that packet of cigs, a 'tenner' is 'nothing' these days.

[Dave Payne]

My point is that £10 is £10, not nothing.

A tenner is something you are right, but its not a lot!

[Tony Brooks]

Ok, so if you hit another boat, someone falls of other boat and loses an arm in the prop, your fault? do you get sued?

 

That will be/should be covered by the basic policy - 2, 3, 4, or 5 million third party insurance. The only time it would not be is if you broke the terms of the insurance, possibly like being drunk.

[Ex Brummie]

Keeping Up's recent post gives some justification to taking out legal cover. As has been said already, you never know what may be sprung on you, or any challenge to you in connection with ownership of your boat which your insurers may decide is outside the scope of your insurance. With my policy, I am responsible for the first £100, which in my experience covers the "Good morning, ****** Solicitors, How may I help you?" reply to your phone call. Peace of mind at a relatively small price.

[Horace42]

Apart from Tony Brooks #6 negative comment, has anybody else had personal positive experience of using a legal insurance policy where it actually worked.

I've had minor insurance no-fault claims (not boating) when nit-picking trivia ran up costly legal bills and delays that gave even more hassle trying to add them to the claim.

If you want to save money, economise on gas - 1 bottle only. Fill tank with just enough fuel to get you to the next boatyard, ....assuming you have a choice (you have the money) ..saving on insurance boils down to peace if mind.

[Cas446]

A better way to economise would be to see if the legal cover on another insurance policy provides the cover you need. For example my house policy provides legal cover for all claims I or immediate family are involved in. Hence saving doubling up on the car and boat insurance.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Cas446

[Traveller]

A better way to economise would be to see if the legal cover on another insurance policy provides the cover you need. For example my house policy provides legal cover for all claims I or immediate family are involved in. Hence saving doubling up on the car and boat insurance.

 

Excellent point, must look at that.

 

I can certainly afford to run my boat, this is just a general question as to whether the legal cover is really worth while. If it is not then I would rather spend the dosh on a couple of pints. If it is a maybe/maybe not type of situation then I agree a tenner is not a lot to pay for peace of mind.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Traveller

[Paul C]

Pay it if you want, but its basically useless.

After a few emails between myself and the legal people, and a half-hour telephone conversation with one of their more senior people, I have made no progress at all. In fact some backwards progress and I am uttery fuming mad!

 

They are adamant that my legal case stands little or no prospect of success, because I was "substantially to blame" for the incident (in which, to recap, the other boat came out of a blind side-turning and hit the side of my boat that was virtually stationary under the bridge-hole on the main line). They said that although the BW Bye-Laws would take precedence over the COLREGS if they contradicted them, in this case the Bye-Laws require me to navigate with care and consideration and that the COLREGS would be taken by the courts as representing "best practice" for doing so. Therefore (they said) I was significantly failing in my Duty of Care by not having a lookout on the bows of my vessel. They accepted that my own view was unobstructed in my direction of travel and that a bow lookout would not have seen anything in time to make any difference because they would still have been under the bridge-hole until a couple of seconds before the impact; but they said that this merely indicates that I should have stopped before the bridge and sent a lookout through on foot before proceeding. When I asked how this would work if I had been single-handed, they said that taking a 20-metre boat through any bridge single-handed would be regarded by the Courts as being dangerously negligent.

 

They have stated bluntly that given the small likelihood of success, and the level of legal costs which would be incurred, they are not prepared to continue with my claim, except ...

 

One element of my claim was to seek compensation for Debbie who suffered a minor head injury. They have separated out that element, and made it into a case on its own. Because Debbie was demonstrably not at fault (being a passenger at the time) she stands a good chance of being able to claim compensation - against ME because I was the skipper and was "substantially to blame". In that case they would gladly represent her in that claim, and I should seek another lawyer because otherwise it would be a conflict of interest for them.

 

It seems I have no way forward with this. They advised against the Small Claims Court because an action there would inevitably trigger a counter-claim from the boatyard, for damage to their boat and its contents; and as I have no evidence that their boat was undamaged I would almost certainly end up paying their counter-claim and their legal costs!

 

Yes I am furious.

(from http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83473&page=4)

[jonathanA]

Apart from Tony Brooks #6 negative comment, has anybody else had personal positive experience of using a legal insurance policy where it actually worked.

I've had minor insurance no-fault claims (not boating) when nit-picking trivia ran up costly legal bills and delays that gave even more hassle trying to add them to the claim.

If you want to save money, economise on gas - 1 bottle only. Fill tank with just enough fuel to get you to the next boatyard, ....assuming you have a choice (you have the money) ..saving on insurance boils down to peace if mind.

Not in relation to the boat , but in the car I had a run in with a horse rider, the police and cps decided to charge me with dangerous driving which is pretty damn serious. Legal policy paid for a barrister to attend magistrates court and I was found not guilty. I'm convinced the barrister was worth his big fee ( over £2000) .

 

Best £10 I've ever spent and very reassuring to have legal support under those circumstances.

[Traveller]

Not in relation to the boat , but in the car I had a run in with a horse rider, the police and cps decided to charge me with dangerous driving which is pretty damn serious. Legal policy paid for a barrister to attend magistrates court and I was found not guilty. I'm convinced the barrister was worth his big fee ( over £2000) .

 

Best £10 I've ever spent and very reassuring to have legal support under those circumstances.

 

I think I am convinced the tenner is worth it, just in case.

 

Thanks