Liability only or full coverage

[Pau Hana]

The insurance thing comes up often, and it's nothing more than a risk/benefit situation.


If everything were equal... you were an average boater had an average risk, average boat and operated in average conditions, insurance would be a waste of money in the long term.


I could argue, if one had a number of items to insure and spent a strong effort on avoiding an issue they would come out WAY ahead without insurance.



Another thought.... if you self insure:

you don't worry about deductibles
there is no hassle with the insurance companies
there are no policies with fine print
you don't have to go to court to get justice
there are no attorneys

there no need to create and maintain a value list of the components and their value and pictures
And, in some cases you can deduct the loss as a casualty loss. (See IRS Publication 547, form 4684.)


So, what's the chances you'll have an accident? Just raw stats, including EVERY boat is once in 285 years, and that loss would be $1,085.65. Now, our boats are most likely a LOT more expensive than the average, but crash a LOT less than average. If we factor in how many boats 40 to 65 feet have accidents and the percent that are out there it's about 20 times safer than the average.


The point being, is that you're VERY UNLIKELY to have and accident, and significantly less having a total loss.


BUT and here's the BIG BUT...... IF the boat is a substantial amount of your net worth, perhaps your home and that's most of what you have, a total loss will put you out of business permanently. You will likely die before getting the benefit of the "time between total losses" makes you whole. And that's a risk most folks aren't willing to take.



So, it's a very personal thing.

Interesting stats you cite- what is their origin and source of data?

The base definition of a claim is a "sudden, direct, accidental loss to the vessel"; we can prepare for almost an eventuality, but accidents do happen...and in the marine world, they compound very quickly. So, the argument that "nothing will ever happen to me because I know how to prepare against a loss" is moot.

Self insuring brings out its own set of unique challenges (as noted earlier) along with the standard challenges that a marine insurance company faces.

Claims, large and small, do happen with frightening frequency and severity. As I've mentioned several times- insuring companies are profitable at $.04 on the dollar. I just read an article regarding the London Syndicates that stated the below:

“Only about 18 syndicates were profitable on hull insurance over the past three years and around 50 were in the red,” another London broker said. “They have been insuring for as low as 0.1% of the vessel’s value, which is unsustainable.”

Brokers say hull premiums may need to double to make them sustainable."

There is market upheaval in play, due in no small part to various insuring companies offering coverage well below market rates (this does not mean more profitability for the insurance company- "market rate" is basically a break even point). Falvey Insurance company turned in $70M of losses on a Tuesday, and shuttered their rec marine and charter marine business the following day.

Falvey was known for offering extremely cheap rates (sometimes below 50% of market) and this contributed greatly to their downfall and subsequent scrutiny of the insuring markets.

In the past month, 2 other well known marine insurers have officially pulled the plug on their yacht business, and a 3rd has announced it is curtailing writing vessels over 27 years of age.

Bottom line- insuring your vessel is indeed a personal choice. Given that fact that one can still insure their vessel at an agreed value for a fraction of its purchase price, and have coverages for eventualities yet unseen (liability, salvage/wreck removal, pollution, and more)- it is a choice worth considering.

 

[BandB]

Claims, large and small, do happen with frightening frequency and severity. As I've mentioned several times- insuring companies are profitable at $.04 on the dollar. I just read an article regarding the London Syndicates that stated the below:

“Only about 18 syndicates were profitable on hull insurance over the past three years and around 50 were in the red,” another London broker said. “They have been insuring for as low as 0.1% of the vessel’s value, which is unsustainable.”

Brokers say hull premiums may need to double to make them sustainable."

.

We've sure observed the challenges of the London Syndicates. We're insured through Lloyd's and the underwriter or actual insurer has changed 3 times in 7 years. Rates have doubled but I still feel reasonable. I thought my initial rates were far too low versus what I thought the market was.

 

[ksanders]

It’s a heck of allot easier contemplating liability only with a boat that has a modest replacement cost. Many TF members have wonderful boats that fit into that category.

Other TF members have boats that have boats that are valued in the hundreds of thousands and I suppose some even in the millions of dollars. That level of financial commitment will generally make hull coverage something the owner considers necessary.

Keep in mind that hull coverage insures you against looses caused by others, yes including the semi derilek sail boat three slips down from you that the owner lives in with his portable space heater.

It also most often insures you against losses to your expensive engines due to a internal, or external failure, like a broken valve spring trashing your $30,000 diesel engine, or the plastic you sucked up in the sea strainer causing your again, $30,000 (or more) engine to overheat and be ruined.

I pay around 1% of my boats agreed to value to for my yacht policy, and am happy to pay it, and am happy to give my business to my friend Peter Ricks, a fellow TF member.

 

[Simi 60]

.

It also most often insures you against losses to your expensive engines due to a internal, or external failure, like a broken valve spring trashing your $30,000 diesel engine, or the plastic you sucked up in the sea strainer causing your again, $30,000 (or more) engine to overheat and be ruined.

I am yet to see a policy here that would cover that.

I pay around 1% of my boats agreed to value to for my yacht policy,

Yeah, that's what I was paying and would be happy to again but seems the massive losses that occurred on your side of the world are being paid for by those on the other.

 

[Mark P]

To be clear if your boat is damaged and you make a claim against your insurance company, that is a contract claim and the language of your contract applies and may include depreciation limits etc. If you claim against the Dude who damaged your boat, that is a tort claim. If he is insured you will get cost to repair not exceed the value of the boat. Your claim against the other Dude is limited by the value of your boat. Proving value can be easy or hard. In my case my 280 SLX is a common boat so a lot of market data.

 

[GFC]

I am yet to see a policy here that would cover that.

My "yacht policy" has paid out three claims for me, none of which was an accident as we think of an accident:
1. A lightening strike near my boat blew out my radar and GPS. They replaced it to the tune of about $11,000.
2. A runaway starter motor on my stbd engine cooked much of the electronics on my boat. They paid to the tune of just over $15,000.
3. A blown transmission resulted in a) haul the boat out of the water; b)removal of the trans from the boat; c) rebuild of the trans; d) reinstall of the trans; e) ops check, sea trial, etc., to the tune of $7,500.

So that's $33K, none of which involved an accident and none of which resulted in an increase in my premium.

It pays to have a good insurance broker to handle your coverage.

 

[ksanders]

My "yacht policy" has paid out three claims for me, none of which was an accident as we think of an accident:
1. A lightening strike near my boat blew out my radar and GPS. They replaced it to the tune of about $11,000.
2. A runaway starter motor on my stbd engine cooked much of the electronics on my boat. They paid to the tune of just over $15,000.
3. A blown transmission resulted in a) haul the boat out of the water; b)removal of the trans from the boat; c) rebuild of the trans; d) reinstall of the trans; e) ops check, sea trial, etc., to the tune of $7,500.

So that's $33K, none of which involved an accident and none of which resulted in an increase in my premium.

It pays to have a good insurance broker to handle your coverage.

Yes I personally know of a thermostat that is presumed to have failed on a Cummins 330 HP 6BTA engine. The engine overheated while under full power, causing cylinder failure. The engine was removed, torn down, and rebuilt.

The owners insurance paid the complete cost with the exception of the cost of the thermostat itself which was excluded because it failed due to a latent defect, which was not covered under the policy. The rest of the costs amounting to well over $15,000 were paid as they were consequential damages as the result of the latent defect in the thermostat.

Since the thermostat was not covered, the owner paid his deductible plus the cost of the thermostat.

 

[Seevee]

Curious if your numbers are based on liability, hull insurance, or both?

Another question that comes to mind is how many losses and accidents go unreported? If you don't have any insurance and your boat sinks, does that make the statistics? If you only have liability insurance, do you report accidents with your vessel so the insurance company can raise your liability rates?

Finally, the use factor really isn't factored into those statistics. I currently own 6 registered boats (don't ask ), of which 2 didn't go in the water this year. It wouldn't surprise me if 33% of all the boats in the USA were used (underway) less than 10 hours this year, and 90% were used less than 100 hours this year. The point being if you're a car driver, over a certain amount of miles each year, you are more statically likely to be involved in an incident. I would imagine that probably is true for boating.

This is one of those things where looking at averages is probably hugely misleading as we are probably a group at the top 10% of the price range and top 20% of the use range.

Ted

Ted,


Great points.


Stats from the latest US Coast Guard stats on recreational boating. And, I'll agree that looking at stats is often a guessing game to a point... however there are some relevant numbers.


And yes, we are a group that does use the boat far above average, and have more expensive boats. However, I'd bet that the vast majority of us are WAY above average in training, knowledge, attention to boating and discipline in boating.


And totally agree, that most boats aren't use much at all. And that could be the issue for accidents..... the guy that gets out occasionally on a weekend, no training, pays no attention and takes a bunch of beers with him is probably 100 times more likely than you to end up in an accident. And, yes, he can hit one of us... that IS a risk and the reason a lot of us don't boat on weekends.



As for comparing it to cars, I agree. A car is more likely to be used than a boat.... for most folks. But a car for a lot of folks is a throw away tool like I have. Yes I have a nice Yukon XL, a great car, but not worth insuring. And I've never had a car claim.... with any of my cars.... so I'm WAY ahead. If I did, I'd just buy another one. I also don't insure my bikes, motorcycles, lawnmowers, canoes, kayaks, etc. either..... it just isn't worth it.



Ted, you always have great posts and thoughts and this is no exception. However, insurance (hull) is just a risk/benefit decision. I would assume that most of us have liability... it's really dirt cheap.

 

[Seevee]

Interesting stats you cite- what is their origin and source of data?

The base definition of a claim is a "sudden, direct, accidental loss to the vessel"; we can prepare for almost an eventuality, but accidents do happen...and in the marine world, they compound very quickly. So, the argument that "nothing will ever happen to me because I know how to prepare against a loss" is moot.

Self insuring brings out its own set of unique challenges (as noted earlier) along with the standard challenges that a marine insurance company faces.

Claims, large and small, do happen with frightening frequency and severity. As I've mentioned several times- insuring companies are profitable at $.04 on the dollar. I just read an article regarding the London Syndicates that stated the below:

“Only about 18 syndicates were profitable on hull insurance over the past three years and around 50 were in the red,” another London broker said. “They have been insuring for as low as 0.1% of the vessel’s value, which is unsustainable.”

Brokers say hull premiums may need to double to make them sustainable."

There is market upheaval in play, due in no small part to various insuring companies offering coverage well below market rates (this does not mean more profitability for the insurance company- "market rate" is basically a break even point). Falvey Insurance company turned in $70M of losses on a Tuesday, and shuttered their rec marine and charter marine business the following day.

Falvey was known for offering extremely cheap rates (sometimes below 50% of market) and this contributed greatly to their downfall and subsequent scrutiny of the insuring markets.

In the past month, 2 other well known marine insurers have officially pulled the plug on their yacht business, and a 3rd has announced it is curtailing writing vessels over 27 years of age.

Bottom line- insuring your vessel is indeed a personal choice. Given that fact that one can still insure their vessel at an agreed value for a fraction of its purchase price, and have coverages for eventualities yet unseen (liability, salvage/wreck removal, pollution, and more)- it is a choice worth considering.

Peter,


Great points.....


My sources are:
Insurance Journal
Forbes
Consumer Advocate
CNBC
Insurance Institute Information
FactCheck.org
The Washington Post
Money/CNN.com


and others......


I think it's quite clear that insurance is a very profitable business overall. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Of the top P/C underwriters I believe it was All State and Progressive were in the 8 to 10% net profit area. Again, nothing wrong with that.



However, as an insured, my premiums pay not only for claims, but the operating expenses, commissions and profits of the underwriters and agents so if I'm "average" is not a good bet over the long haul.



Now, if one would be devastated by a loss, or it required, there's a strong argument to be insured. And, yes I have some insurance for those reasons.


And self insuring DOES bring out its own set of unique challenges, and it also has its benefits as I've noted, which are VERY compelling.


And, yes, a very personal choice. One just needs to decide if the premium percentage is a value for them.



It would be real interesting to see the stats that the insurance
actuaries have on different risks.

 

[Lepke]

Bud and Lepke- your observations may or may not be correct based on the policy you select:

• An Agreed Value policy will not depreciate for total loss- in the event of total loss, you will receive the value agreed upon at policy start and stated on the Declarations page of your policy. Partial losses may have depreciation applied, depending on the policy language.
• An Actual Cash Value policy will determine the value the vessel at the time of loss, rather than at policy inception. Depreciation usually factors into the settlement.

Having liability only is a calculated risk. It's not for everybody. My decision is based on my experience, my boat handling ability, general boat condition and the ease that my current boat handles.

The agreed value also effects your policy price. The yearly policy cost for full coverage at the survey value would buy this boat again every 5-10 years. But saving the difference between full and liability only will buy a replacement boat in under 5 years. And if I don't make the boat a total loss in 10 years, I have money for a 2x better boat. And so far it's 8 years of savings. Back when the majority of boats were wood, my commercial boats yearly policies were about 10% of the value. Now it's higher for a yacht. I won't pay that any more than pay $1000/month for dockage. (My 1st big boat was 50¢/foot)

 

[markpierce]

It has been at least 40 years since I had an insurance claim when a full-sized car hit my VW Bug from the rear. Still carry full-coverage insurance, but in hindsight I would have been better off financially if I only had the legally-minimum-required insurance.

At my age, if my boat was lost, I would not replace it.

 

[O C Diver]

Ted,


Great points.


Stats from the latest US Coast Guard stats on recreational boating. And, I'll agree that looking at stats is often a guessing game to a point... however there are some relevant numbers.


And yes, we are a group that does use the boat far above average, and have more expensive boats. However, I'd bet that the vast majority of us are WAY above average in training, knowledge, attention to boating and discipline in boating.


And totally agree, that most boats aren't use much at all. And that could be the issue for accidents..... the guy that gets out occasionally on a weekend, no training, pays no attention and takes a bunch of beers with him is probably 100 times more likely than you to end up in an accident. And, yes, he can hit one of us... that IS a risk and the reason a lot of us don't boat on weekends.



As for comparing it to cars, I agree. A car is more likely to be used than a boat.... for most folks. But a car for a lot of folks is a throw away tool like I have. Yes I have a nice Yukon XL, a great car, but not worth insuring. And I've never had a car claim.... with any of my cars.... so I'm WAY ahead. If I did, I'd just buy another one. I also don't insure my bikes, motorcycles, lawnmowers, canoes, kayaks, etc. either..... it just isn't worth it.



Ted, you always have great posts and thoughts and this is no exception. However, insurance (hull) is just a risk/benefit decision. I would assume that most of us have liability... it's really dirt cheap.

I use to think exactly as you on liability only for vehicles and small boats, but there are a couple of other points to consider:

When my truck turned 10 years old (300,000 miles) I switched to liability only insurance. A few years later I switched insurance companies. When talking to the agent, the collision coverage for the truck was only $500 a year and it was a zero deductible that covered any car I rented. At the time, I was flying and renting cars 6 or so times per year. You don't ever want to rent a car without insurance and have an accident. Part of the fine print on the rental contract is paying the most expensive day rate until the car is back in service.

So the collision insurance seemed cheap when factoring in no rental insurance. Then a drunk driver hit me from behind at a 100+ miles per hour on the interstate (I was doing 60 mph). Her insurance estimated $8k in repairs which exceeded the 70% rule in Florida, meaning they wouldn't repair it. Buying a used full size 3/4 ton pickup with a diesel engine for less than $25k would almost assuredly be a project vehicle. My insurance company graded my pickup showroom condition, reduced it somewhat for the 430,000 miles, and valued it at $12K. They paid to fix the truck, 2 months of a loaner car, and all expenses related to the accident. Obviously they got it all back from the other insurance company, but the point is that I'm about $20,000 ahead and still have my 17 year old very nice truck.

My takeaways are that you can't prevent all accidents (drunk driver from behind), you probably won't beat the other insurance company on a <$30K claim, and the saved $20K will probably buy collision insurance for the rest of my life.

Ted

 

[Seevee]

I use to think exactly as you on liability only for vehicles and small boats, but there are a couple of other points to consider:

When my truck turned 10 years old (300,000 miles) I switched to liability only insurance. A few years later I switched insurance companies. When talking to the agent, the collision coverage for the truck was only $500 a year and it was a zero deductible that covered any car I rented. At the time, I was flying and renting cars 6 or so times per year. You don't ever want to rent a car without insurance and have an accident. Part of the fine print on the rental contract is paying the most expensive day rate until the car is back in service.

So the collision insurance seemed cheap when factoring in no rental insurance. Then a drunk driver hit me from behind at a 100+ miles per hour on the interstate (I was doing 60 mph). Her insurance estimated $8k in repairs which exceeded the 70% rule in Florida, meaning they wouldn't repair it. Buying a used full size 3/4 ton pickup with a diesel engine for less than $25k would almost assuredly be a project vehicle. My insurance company graded my pickup showroom condition, reduced it somewhat for the 430,000 miles, and valued it at $12K. They paid to fix the truck, 2 months of a loaner car, and all expenses related to the accident. Obviously they got it all back from the other insurance company, but the point is that I'm about $20,000 ahead and still have my 17 year old very nice truck.

My takeaways are that you can't prevent all accidents (drunk driver from behind), you probably won't beat the other insurance company on a <$30K claim, and the saved $20K will probably buy collision insurance for the rest of my life.

Ted

Ted,



Great point on the rental car insurance, and worth considering. When I was renting a lot, I had a business credit card that gave some protection and still have that card... just don't rent cards much more than half a dozen times a year.



Now I did have an interesting accident. My wife rented the car, only because she was freed up while I took care of other things. My buddy drove the car for a ski run up in the hills. Hit a boulder and knocked off the oil pan. I was designated to hitch hike to town to call for a tow. (but of course took my skiis with to get a few runs in). Her car insurance was a bit marginal and they wanted to charge for "loss of use" which she wasn't covered for and was quite substantial, and way inflated. My buddies insurance picked up the whole thing without issue. Lucked out on that one, and that was the only car accident I've been in over the past 45 years.



True, one cannot control everything, but being aware of ones surroundings helps. I used to work for the Chicago Sun Times (night shift)..... remember that paper? I parked on lower Wacker Dr. underneath the main streets. Horrible place to park. After they slashed my 57 Chevy convertible top a few times to break in, patched the top and I just left the doors unlocked. No valuables in there, but every so often it would get ransacked again. I just lived with it.... fun times. Pay was good

 

[Bud]

I keep thinking back to vehicle insurance. Can you imagine if vehicle insurance companies made you have several fire exstinguishers and if they were not inspected by a professional fire exstinguisher company that year they won"t pay for an accident. (Probably more fires in vehicles that boats). Then they make you pay $$$$ every 3 years (or whenever they say you need one) to get your car surveyed. They say you can"t go to this state or that state because to risky. You are the only one that can drive your car. If there is a named storm in your state during the time of claim your dedutable will double. Any accident deemed to be due to lack of maintenance will be excluded. The auto industry, financing companies and other associated companies would never allow it. They want it to be easy and painless process to buy and insure vehicles.
The boating industry has not used their influence effectively. It is broken down into small groups that are less effective on their own. To list a few that have associations: Rec fisherman, Charter fisherman, Trawlers, If you listed all organizations, businesses and sectors involved in boating you would be amazed it would be thousands and you included everybody you would have a much more influential group that would have lobbying power.
My impetus to write this stems from my policy costing 4.5% of agreed value (It was not agreed they dictated) with a $7000 deductable (doubles for named storm) and a boat load of exclusions. Also don't forget a depreciation schedule which puts the value down to 20%. There was one other company that offered insurance here in the Florida Keys for my size vessel they were more money for a little better policy. I have not found any companies that will insure liability only for my size vessel.

 

[Shrew]

A lot of it is Glass half-full/Glass half-empty sort of perspective.

Using general numbers. Let's say I own a boat worth $100,000 and pay $1,000/yr for insurance. Let's say I own the boat for 10 years, paying $10,000 in premiums over that time span and have no claims.

Have I wasted $10,000? Maybe.

If the boat were a total loss, paying $10K on a 100K asset sure seems to make sense. If post-accident, you were told "It'll cost you $10K or $100K", who would choose the latter? Nobody cares that they saved $10K when they lose $100K.

Obviously, on a depreciating item, the value of the asset slides down, reducing the time to break even on the ROI.

If you can absorb the total loss and would chase fractions of a dollar, then great.

 

[SteveK]

Insurance appears to be provided by companies spread over many sectors (housing, vehicles, boats, liabilities etc) and not specific to one sector as in this case boats. Therefore natural disasters play a part in higher premiums spread out over their portfolios causing increases in this sector that may be unfounded. Location of insured identical vessel will also see a higher premium. I stand to be corrected.
My views come from local insured properties which pay annual premiums that constantly increase, deductibles increase and yet never place claims above the premiums paid if anywhere past 20%. The load is spread out and those without claims are giving their premiums to pay claims of others.
I wish the insurance Gurus here could throw out real numbers on costs in their areas that can be used as a comparison.

 

[Chrisjs]

On alternate option is to fully insure for collision etc but accept a higher deductible. This will lower the cost in exchange for the owner carrying a financial responsibility. We carried a $10K deductible on a $500K vessel (agreed value) and never made a claim. Similarly we carry a $10K deductible on a much higher value home and have never made a claim. There is a sweet spot above which increasing the deductible does not help too much in reducing premium. Plus, if one insures and claims for minor costs, you soon find your premium going up or insurance being withdrawn.

 

[Bud]

A lot of it is Glass half-full/Glass half-empty sort of perspective.

Using general numbers. Let's say I own a boat worth $100,000 and pay $1,000/yr for insurance. Let's say I own the boat for 10 years, paying $10,000 in premiums over that time span and have no claims.

Have I wasted $10,000? Maybe.

If the boat were a total loss, paying $10K on a 100K asset sure seems to make sense. If post-accident, you were told "It'll cost you $10K or $100K", who would choose the latter? Nobody cares that they saved $10K when they lose $100K.

Obviously, on a depreciating item, the value of the asset slides down, reducing the time to break even on the ROI.

If you can absorb the total loss and would chase fractions of a dollar, then great.

Ok then let’s take a look at the depreciation with a little more detail. If they truly believed the vessel depreciated according to there schedule then why don,t they lower the agreed value down each year according to the schedule, because that would mean they would have to lower the premium OMG. Instead they keep the agreed value up which only comes into play on a total loss (hardly never) and they bury the depreciation schedule deep in the text of he policy. The policy protection is eroding a little more each year and a lot of people don't realize it. The renewal cover sheet does not reflect it.
Now let’s look at the schedule itself, mine depreciates 5 to 10% a year depending on which part of the vessel. So a vessel worth $200,000 after 34yrs at 10% per year is worth $6181. That’s laughable and unbelievable in most cases with a vessel that is still in service. Lets compare it to real estate depreciation. If we have rental property or have a business property we have to depreciate it, we can not write off the whole amount the first year even if we paid for it in full. Usually over 29 years. (Reagan took away excelarated depreciation) so do we actually think the property or building is worth nothing after we depreciate it? of course not that was just a tool used to spread out the deduction. Put that property on the market and you get more than what you paid for it originally. Another words it appreciated. Their using an IRS deduction tool to lower their liability in a quiet back of the policy kind of way. These insurance companies pretty much do what they want to there benifit and nobody holds them accountable.
This is my third boat over 37ft and the first two I sold for more than what I paid for them. I am not saying every boat goes up in value but they definitely do not go down in the way they layout in the schedule, not even close. I have all the previous owners info and purchase prices on my boat and it is worth 50% of what it was bought for new 30 plus years ago.

 

[ksanders]

Ok then let’s take a look at the depreciation with a little more detail. If they truly believed the vessel depreciated according to there schedule then why don,t they lower the agreed value down each year according to the schedule, because that would mean they would have to lower the premium OMG. Instead they keep the agreed value up which only comes into play on a total loss (hardly never) and they bury the depreciation schedule deep in the text of he policy. The policy protection is eroding a little more each year and a lot of people don't realize it. The renewal cover sheet does not reflect it.
Now let’s look at the schedule itself, mine depreciates 5 to 10% a year depending on which part of the vessel. So a vessel worth $200,000 after 34yrs at 10% per year is worth $6181. That’s laughable and unbelievable in most cases with a vessel that is still in service. Lets compare it to real estate depreciation. If we have rental property or have a business property we have to depreciate it, we can not write off the whole amount the first year even if we paid for it in full. Usually over 29 years. (Reagan took away excelarated depreciation) so do we actually think the property or building is worth nothing after we depreciate it? of course not that was just a tool used to spread out the deduction. Put that property on the market and you get more than what you paid for it originally. Another words it appreciated. Their using an IRS deduction tool to lower their liability in a quiet back of the policy kind of way. These insurance companies pretty much do what they want to there benifit and nobody holds them accountable.
This is my third boat over 37ft and the first two I sold for more than what I paid for them. I am not saying every boat goes up in value but they definitely do not go down in the way they layout in the schedule, not even close. I have all the previous owners info and purchase prices on my boat and it is worth 50% of what it was bought for new 30 plus years ago.

I have found that any language in a policy is negotiable if you are a good customer.

Remember that as a good customer the insurance company wants your business. You can negotiate to remove the depreciation, or as an option you can hire a different insurance company.

Thats where a good agent comes in. He or she will take care of these things for you.

 

[Bud]

I have found that any language in a policy is negotiable if you are a good customer.

Remember that as a good customer the insurance company wants your business. You can negotiate to remove the depreciation, or as an option you can hire a different insurance company.

Thats where a good agent comes in. He or she will take care of these things for you.

Thats not true down here in the Florida Keys for boats. The agent I use is Brown and Brown very good. they put my policy out for bid and only one company came back with a policy because of the area, Hurricanes and such. I have never had a claim even went through Hurricane Irma with no boat claims. My wifes car got totaled full of salt water and the house had 4 inches of water in it.
I spent some time this summer calling around to different insurance companies and found Geico insurance to be the only other company that will write a policy for a 49ft boat here in the keys and they were a little more for a little higher value but bigger deductable.

 

[rgano]

Ok then let’s take a look at the depreciation with a little more detail. If they truly believed the vessel depreciated according to there schedule then why don,t they lower the agreed value down each year according to the schedule, because that would mean they would have to lower the premium OMG. ......

So just change insurer every few years getting a new, lower agreed value.

 

[BandB]

Thats not true down here in the Florida Keys for boats. The agent I use is Brown and Brown very good. they put my policy out for bid and only one company came back with a policy because of the area, Hurricanes and such. I have never had a claim even went through Hurricane Irma with no boat claims. My wifes car got totaled full of salt water and the house had 4 inches of water in it.
I spent some time this summer calling around to different insurance companies and found Geico insurance to be the only other company that will write a policy for a 49ft boat here in the keys and they were a little more for a little higher value but bigger deductable.

I don't know about Brown and Brown or who you called, but I do know we're in Fort Lauderdale and it's an All Risk Policy, has no exclusions for hurricanes, and does not have depreciation for partial losses (new for old), it does cover latent defects and it does not have exclusions for implied warranties of sea worthiness. I can't say whether you could get similar or not.

I will ask this, did you try Lloyds or Pantaenius?

You said Geico would insure it for a little more. Did they have all the same exclusions and depreciation that you dislike?

 

[Bud]

I don't know about Brown and Brown or who you called, but I do know we're in Fort Lauderdale and it's an All Risk Policy, has no exclusions for hurricanes, and does not have depreciation for partial losses (new for old), it does cover latent defects and it does not have exclusions for implied warranties of sea worthiness. I can't say whether you could get similar or not.

I will ask this, did you try Lloyds or Pantaenius?

You said Geico would insure it for a little more. Did they have all the same exclusions and depreciation that you dislike?

I did not personally try Lloyds or Pantaenius but was told by my agent at Brown and Brown it went out to all insurers of yachts.
Geicoi I beleive had similar depreciation schedule I don't remember about other exclusions. I will check

 

[ksanders]

Thats not true down here in the Florida Keys for boats. The agent I use is Brown and Brown very good. they put my policy out for bid and only one company came back with a policy because of the area, Hurricanes and such. I have never had a claim even went through Hurricane Irma with no boat claims. My wifes car got totaled full of salt water and the house had 4 inches of water in it.
I spent some time this summer calling around to different insurance companies and found Geico insurance to be the only other company that will write a policy for a 49ft boat here in the keys and they were a little more for a little higher value but bigger deductable.

There are criteria that either singularly or grouped together that to an insurer represent a high enough risk of loss that an some insurers would not be willing to assume the risk and would naturally decline coverage.

But for every risk, there is an insurer that for a price is willing to accept that risk.

 

[Shrew]

I lean towards multi-line agencies that specialize in marine insurance. I often find the agents that write home and auto policies all day don't always understand the nuances of marine insurance. I also find that represent companies thathave a marine division but specialize in Home, Auto, Umbrella, business.

Often times the marine insurance agencies represent companies that only wrote marine insurance policies as well. Just a thought.

 

[Bud]

There are criteria that either singularly or grouped together that to an insurer represent a high enough risk of loss that an some insurers would not be willing to assume the risk and would naturally decline coverage.

But for every risk, there is an insurer that for a price is willing to accept that risk.

I beleive that is well understood. It has to be area of operation and age of boat combo. I had no problem in the Gulf of Maine had five times the coverage for less money no exclusions no depreciation. We bought and older boat with newer engines and upgrades so grand kids could raise a muck and not get yelled at. If I had known it was going to be difficult to insure, probably would have gone a different route.
At this point I really would be happy with liability only with an enviromental endorsement of some sort.

 

[Simi 60]

.

I will ask this, did you try Lloyds or Pantaenius?

Pants used to use Lloyd's as underwriter but Lloyd's got out of it and now its the Berkshire Hathaway/Chubb and hugely increased premium.

 

[BandB]

Pants used to use Lloyd's as underwriter but Lloyd's got out of it and now its the Berkshire Hathaway/Chubb and hugely increased premium.

What?

 

[Simi 60]

Pants = Pantaenius

 

[BruceK]

I think "Pants" is an abbreviation for Pantaenius.
Lloyds cover is from syndicates of "names"(that`s what they are called)who combine to underwrite a risk. Getting instructions from them during a Court hearing was near impossible,so being insured with them and looking for a response could be interesting.
Australia has a range of insurers, only a couple are marine specialists. Largest best established is Club Marine,owned by Allianz.