New Boat Purchase by Newbie

[Neil2]

I wonder how that insurance company defines "qualified" marine surveyor. 

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Exactly this ^^^^^

If you are even considering insuring third party only you as you don't think the cost of a survey is worth it, then you have to consider what you would do in the event of a total loss and can you afford to lose that sort of money and just start again.

The point is, she was insured but is now having to fight to get anywhere near the value the boat was insured for as it was an old boat

[tomsk]

Isn't that the case with many insurers though?

The acid test for a good insurer of anything has to be how they deal with claims.

Any crappy insurer can take your money and sell you a policy, it's only come claim time that their real worth can be properly assessed.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Just now, David Mack said:

I don't know which "usually recommended" company you are referring to, but the policy wording of the insurer I would understand your expression to mean does not contain the word "survey" at all.  All the policy requires is that

" Exclusions 

The Company shall not provide indemnity against liability

...

17) where the Insured Craft is not in sound condition and the claim directly relates to the condition of the Insured Craft."

 

So you are covered, including salvage costs, as long as you can show that the condition of the craft was not the cause of the third party losses. 

 

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Survey Clause :

If the insured Vessel is over 40 years of age You must have in Your possession an out of water condition and valuation survey, carried out and completed within the last five years by an independent qualified marine surveyor. 

The company I refer to is "Insure4boats.co.uk" who are the oft recommended one for people 'on a budget' or who have 'dubiously sea-worthy boats' and only want 3rd party insurance to be able to get a licence.

 

They specifically state the 'survey-clause' as detailed above.

 

See page 10

Ooops - it won't upload.

 

Click the relevant link for "Third Party Liability Only Insurance Booklet - Policies incepted from 09/02/2017" from here :

https://www.insure4boats.co.uk/ourcover/policywordingdocuments

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The company I refer to is "Insure4boats.co.uk" who are the oft recommended one for people 'on a budget' or who have 'dubiously sea-worthy boats' and only want 3rd party insurance to be able to get a licence.

 

They specifically state the 'survey-clause' as detailed above.

 

See page 10

Ooops - it won't upload.

 

Click the relevant link for "Third Party Liability Only Insurance Booklet - Policies incepted from 09/02/2017" from here :

https://www.insure4boats.co.uk/ourcover/policywordingdocuments

 

 

 

Insure4boats.co.uk is a pretty new outfit, having only started trading under that name just over a year ago. I can't actually recall them being recommended at all on here for low cost boat insurance (although I may have missed it). 

The usual recommendation for low cost third party boat insurance is Basic Boat Liability Insurance, from whose policy I quoted above.  No survey required for boats of any age.

[Naughty Cal]

7 hours ago, David Mack said:

Insure4boats.co.uk is a pretty new outfit, having only started trading under that name just over a year ago. I can't actually recall them being recommended at all on here for low cost boat insurance (although I may have missed it). 

The usual recommendation for low cost third party boat insurance is Basic Boat Liability Insurance, from whose policy I quoted above.  No survey required for boats of any age.

No but the boat still has to be proven to be in sound condition. How would you argue that if the insurers decided it wasn't?

They will also only pay up to £50k for wreck removal if you are legally bound to do so. 

Two clauses I instantly dislike.

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

No but the boat still has to be proven to be in sound condition. How would you argue that if the insurers decided it wasn't?

They will also only pay up to £50k for wreck removal if you are legally bound to do so. 

Two clauses I instantly dislike.

You are correct.  After a 'minor' collision, if the boat sinks, then the logic will be that the boat can not possibly have been in sound condition otherwise it would not have sunk.  Hard to argue anything different.

[rusty69]

13 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

You are correct.  After a 'minor' collision, if the boat sinks, then the logic will be that the boat can not possibly have been in sound condition otherwise it would not have sunk.  Hard to argue anything different.

Which would presumably be the same conclusion they would draw if you had fully comp insurance and a survey report. 

[Chewbacka]

53 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Which would presumably be the same conclusion they would draw if you had fully comp insurance and a survey report. 

But you would have a much stronger case in being able to show you met their requirement to have a survey, that it was more than reasonable to assume the boat was sound as you have a survey that says so and unless the defect was very obvious, you can reasonably claim to be unqualified to be able to identify such defects.  Probably the insurance would pay, but they may then go after the surveyor if they feel he was grossly negligent and claim from his professional insurance.