Historic Boat Insurance

[David Mack]

Towergate have just told me that they are no longer offering new insurance policies for any boats over 50 years old (even with a recent out of water survey), although they will continue to offer renewals on existing policies providing normal conditions are met.

So this represents the end of the historic boat policy first offered by Michael Stimpson in 1978 and which transferred to Mardon Marine and later Towergate. And also means that when most historic narrow boats change hands, the new owners are going to have to cast the net wider if they want comprehensive cover.

I would have thought that historic boat insurance was a nice little earner for Towergate, and I can't see why a boat from the 1930s, with an adequate survey, should represent any higher risk than a boat from the late 60s or 70s. 

And does anyone have recommendations for an alternative?

Edited March 23, 2018 by David Mack

[Paul H]

Michael Stimpson is still offering historic narrow boat insurance via A-Plan/Canopius and his number is still 01923 770425.

[roland elsdon]

I contacted stimpy last year he put me onto aplan. They were excellent efficient and well priced. They also gave me a year to get a survey as mine was 5 years old. Im sure by now they will have stopped asking about spars and rigging. Very good staff.

[alan_fincher]

M y only caveat was that whilst Michael Stimpson told me what was now being offered via him would be cheaper than Towergate.

It hasn't been yet on any of the quotes I had via him. (Tried for both boats).  His was not a lot more expensive, but it was more expensive in each case.

[David Mack]

If Michael Stimpson is now offering boat insurance under his own flag again he is keeping a remarkably low profile! His basic webpage seems to have disappeared and Google finds various references to Morris dancing insurance, but nothing current relating to boats.

Edited March 23, 2018 by David Mack

[alan_fincher]

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

If Michael Stimpson is now offering boat insurance under his own flag again he is keeping a remarkably low profile! His basic webpage seems to have disappeared and Google finds various references to Morris dancing insurance, but nothing current relating to boats.

Unless things have changed very recently, he is.

His approach does seem a bit low key, (to put it mildly!), but if you are correct about Towergate, and the outfit he has now allied himself to is still prepared to comprehensively insure "historics", even for new business, then I would have thought their services will quickly be in demand, with Towergate disappearing from the frame.

Both ours still with Towergate, and have had no communication from them since last renewal - it  will be interesting to see what they say at the next.

[sarahavfc]

Try GJW, they are actively encouraging historic boat owners to insure with them. 

[BruceinSanity]

1 hour ago, sarahavfc said:

Try GJW, they are actively encouraging historic boat owners to insure with them. 

We've just moved our modern boat insurance to them. They were helpful, flexible and £100 cheaper than last year.

[Jrtm]

Its surveys that screw me over, an insurance company seams to see build material wood and just go nope. Survey give a reapire guide line and they just say no.

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, billybobbooth said:

Its surveys that screw me over, an insurance company seams to see build material wood and just go nope. Survey give a reapire guide line and they just say no.

Expensive hobbies can be very expensive. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Jrtm]

3 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Expensive hobbies can be very expensive. What is so hard to understand about that?

Its not that most insurance companies if a repair on a steel boat is needed e.g. a patch or something as getting thin your servey says to do it you do it job done, a wooden boat depending on who does it sometimes says ok but plank x or bottom x starting to go and will give you a repaire guide, insurace see this and go nope youve not done this and it will be a future repair guide e.g. that plank may last 10 years before its close to need replacing but you know about it way before the needs replacing. I have 3 that need and a few bottoms at 2.5- 2.75 inches all have far more life in than most comp insurance will accept. As they see a new one at 3- 3.25 so think its thin at 2.5!

Buy yes and no to expencive hobby a wooden boat!

80k buys me some historic steel boats.

10-30 buys me a wooden boat.

Steel boat needs new bottom 5-10k maybe

Wooden needs new bottoms all over maybe 20-40k

Wooden boat still cheaper and will last just as long if not longer sometimes.

I still have a few original bottoms in towy, dane has some from when she worked at claytons.

[pete harrison]

7 minutes ago, billybobbooth said:

Buy yes and no to expencive hobby a wooden boat!

80k buys me some historic steel boats.

10-30 buys me a wooden boat.

Steel boat needs new bottom 5-10k maybe

Wooden needs new bottoms all over maybe 20-40k

Wooden boat still cheaper and will last just as long if not longer sometimes.

I still have a few original bottoms in towy, dane has some from when she worked at claytons.

These numbers do not stack up, or at least they need not be anywhere near what you quote.

I bought OTLEY for just over a third of what you state a steel boat costs, and it had considerable hull work in 2003 including a bottom, footings and knees out / cleaned / riveted back in. From my own experience there is a possibility that some other hull work will now be required, but it will not be much (hopefully) - and I am certainly of a mind that a steel bottom should last between 20 and 30 years, and used as a pleasure boat even longer. Other works on OTLEY are of course optional and it is me that is deciding to return it to a carrying boat, whereas somebody else might have decided to continue with the cabin conversion 

 

[Jrtm]

39 minutes ago, pete harrison said:

These numbers do not stack up, or at least they need not be anywhere near what you quote.

I bought OTLEY for just over a third of what you state a steel boat costs, and it had considerable hull work in 2003 including a bottom, footings and knees out / cleaned / riveted back in. From my own experience there is a possibility that some other hull work will now be required, but it will not be much (hopefully) - and I am certainly of a mind that a steel bottom should last between 20 and 30 years, and used as a pleasure boat even longer. Other works on OTLEY are of course optional and it is me that is deciding to return it to a carrying boat, whereas somebody else might have decided to continue with the cabin conversion 

 

No in your case maybe not but without starting an easy argument i dont have the time to calculate every boat buy price and do an indervidual calc for every boat for every bit of work to get a perfect price per boat! but say some boats are up for 100k some 30k some 5k but as i said towy cost me not that much and needs 3 planks in 5-15 years its was designed as an average pete, some steel boats need next to nothing others need new bows and side bottoms ect, some wooden boats cost a bit but no work others come in pairs and need total rebuilds.

 

On average steel boats cost more to buy but work costs less, wooden boats are cheaper to buy but work can cost more. Say a 50 years most will have roughtly not perfect but roughtly averaged out from buying cost to maintenance cost will be not far off each other if looked after.

Edited March 29, 2018 by billybobbooth

[pete harrison]

54 minutes ago, billybobbooth said:

No in your case maybe not but without starting an easy argument i dont have the time to calculate every boat buy price and do an indervidual calc for every boat for every bit of work to get a perfect price per boat! but say some boats are up for 100k some 30k some 5k but as i said towy cost me not that much and needs 3 planks in 5-15 years its was designed as an average pete, some steel boats need next to nothing others need new bows and side bottoms ect, some wooden boats cost a bit but no work others come in pairs and need total rebuilds.

On average steel boats cost more to buy but work costs less, wooden boats are cheaper to buy but work can cost more. Say a 50 years most will have roughtly not perfect but roughtly averaged out from buying cost to maintenance cost will be not far off each other if looked after.

If I was a gambler I would bet that more wooden hulled boats have needed replacement fore ends than metal hulled boats, and bottoms of both types are sacrificial in my opinion and need replacement every 20 to 30 years. I would also bet that in 50 years from now there will be no wooden hulled ex-working boats still extant.

Every boat I have ever looked at buying has required that basic calculation based on general condition versus restoration cost versus post restoration value. I have every confidence that OTLEY's renovations will cost more than I am hoping for (I have a figure in mind) and possibly exceeding its post restoration value, but I will offset this by the pleasure it will bring to my sons and their families as well as to me if it allows me to retire early - which is all part of the plan 

[haggis]

I would be very wary of insuring a boat through Stimpson after a bad experience our small canal society had.

We had a small work boat which we insured through Stimpson and received a certificate of insurance. This carried on for a few years and when I needed some information  I was having difficulty getting it from him so I phoned the company on our certificate. They did not cover our boat and in fact had never done so and the policy number on the certificate was not one of theirs. I phoned Stimpson and he said that he had just covered the insurance himself and issued a false certificate. 

Needless to say, we went elsewhere for our insurance after that. 

Haggis

Edited March 29, 2018 by haggis

[koukouvagia]

Clearly Towergate is not interested in insuring old boats. I've just received a silly renewal quotation. So, after being with them for over 30 years from the days when it was Michael Stimpson's outfit, I have now changed to Euromarine who were over £200 cheaper!

 

Of course, I don't know what they are like if I need to make a claim, but I think I'll take a chance.

 

[roland elsdon]

On 29/03/2018 at 17:26, haggis said:

I would be very wary of insuring a boat through Stimpson after a bad experience our small canal society had.

We had a small work boat which we insured through Stimpson and received a certificate of insurance. This carried on for a few years and when I needed some information  I was having difficulty getting it from him so I phoned the company on our certificate. They did not cover our boat and in fact had never done so and the policy number on the certificate was not one of theirs. I phoned Stimpson and he said that he had just covered the insurance himself and issued a false certificate. 

Needless to say, we went elsewhere for our insurance after that. 

Haggis

That rather shocks me. I worked with mike in the 80s, and he was extremely cautious.

Mike had underwriting authority with a number of companies at that time. That meant unlike a broker if you fitted the scheme he could insure you without reference to the company.

If you did not fit the risk was taken to the underwriters directly. I know this for a fact because i referred many boats to the underwriters myself.

As time went by i suspect he had more and more delegated authority, and this enabled him to do some insurance himself.

if the company withdrew the authority which they may have done he indeed would have been unable to re insure.

If you look he marketed himself ( correctly) as an underwriter not broker.

[haggis]

42 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

That rather shocks me. I worked with mike in the 80s, and he was extremely cautious.

Mike had underwriting authority with a number of companies at that time. That meant unlike a broker if you fitted the scheme he could insure you without reference to the company.

If you did not fit the risk was taken to the underwriters directly. I know this for a fact because i referred many boats to the underwriters myself.

As time went by i suspect he had more and more delegated authority, and this enabled him to do some insurance himself.

if the company withdrew the authority which they may have done he indeed would have been unable to re insure.

If you look he marketed himself ( correctly) as an underwriter not broker.

Whatever, it struck me as fraudulent to issue a certificate of insurance from a company which wasn't covering the insurance and when I spoke to him about it at an IWA Festival he didn't seem in the least bothered that he had acted fraudulently. The insurance company on the certificate Stimpson sent me had never insured our boat.  I was sufficiently concerned that when he teamed up with Towergate, I made sure the insurance for another boat i was involved with moved away from that company. 

This all took place a long time ago now,

 

haggis

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by haggis

[roland elsdon]

Probably best if i said no more. I was merely explaining how the system of the narrowboat scheme worked, and how he fitted in the chain between insurance company and customer. Unlike brokers.

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, koukouvagia said:

Clearly Towergate is not interested in insuring old boats. I've just received a silly renewal quotation. So, after being with them for over 30 years from the days when it was Michael Stimpson's outfit, I have now changed to Euromarine who were over £200 cheaper!

 

 

Odd. Fulbourne's renewal with Towergate earlier this year was significantly cheaper than last year's. But they weren't interested in quoting for Belfast. 

[Mike Adams]

I have used GJW on two boats for 10 years now. They seem to be fine and reasonable but I have never made a claim. Survey required every seven years and premiums about 1% of insured value which seems a bit high compared to modern boats but with one at 86 years old and the other at 50 that would seem reasonable for some peace of mind.

[alan_fincher]

Well despite assurances from Towergate at my last renewal that there would be no change in historic boat cover, despite the change of underwriter, I have just received a mail from them about Flamingo's renewal in a couple of weeks time.

 

They are now no longer able to offer cover on vessels built before 1953.  (So this would seem to imply more than 65 years old, not the 50 years David said he was told in his first post).  This also differs from David's March post that says they will still cover boats already insured with them, but not take on new business.

 

So it seems dear old Towergate have rescinded on what they told be before.

So far I'm seeing three suggestions for alternatives - Michael Stimpson via A-plan, GJW and Euromarine.

 

I will contact all of these, and see what they have to say - I hope the fact that the last survey was over 5 years ago, and done for the previous owner will not be a complication!).

 

Any other suggestions, please?

Those of you with pre 1953 boats still insured by Towergate, you have been warned!

 

 

[BruceinSanity]

We’ve found GJW very good to deal with. We’ve just had to add a couple of high value items mid-term and they charged us just £18 for the privilege.

[Robert B.]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread rather than start afresh. I had a chat with GJW this afternoon and was categorically told that they no longer insure vessels more than 60 years old. With Sara being up to a century beyond their cut-off they were regrettably unable to make an offer. I'm waiting to hear back from Aston Lark/Euromarine.

 

RB

[alan_fincher]

3 minutes ago, Robert B. said:

Thought I'd resurrect this thread rather than start afresh. I had a chat with GJW this afternoon and was categorically told that they no longer insure vessels more than 60 years old. With Sara being up to a century beyond their cut-off they were regrettably unable to make an offer. I'm waiting to hear back from Aston Lark/Euromarine.

 

RB

That's a very unexpected answer as I was able to move one of our 82 year old boats to cover with GJW as recently as November last year.

 

If what you say really is the case it must represent a very major change f direction in a very short time.