Hull depreciation--how common?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

angus99

Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
2,749
Location
US
Vessel Name
Stella Maris
Vessel Make
Defever 44
My insurance company notified me that my current policy (1987 boat) will not be renewed and the replacement they're offering has a 50% depreciation provision for partial losses -- anything other than full replacement. Coupled with a hefty deductible, this seems to make any serious claim short of scuttling the boat extremely costly for the insured.

Do others have this provision in their policies and do you find it reasonable?

I've been trying to get in touch with Peter Ricks (Pau Hana) but it looks like he's no longer a broker and has taken a job as an underwriter.
 
What insurance co (if you don't mind) as it sounds like one to avoid?


And ANY major changes to a policy for no real positive statistical reason from an insurance company to me NEVER sounds like a good reason.


2 reasons should change a policy dramatically for an individual....their "care" of the insured and their claims record.
 
My insurance company replaced my "agreed value" policy with an "actual value" policy once the boat was over ten years old. I can understand the reasoning because at the agreed value, I could sink it and make a hefty profit.


The question is, how do they determine the actual value?
 
Usually you are charged a price for an agreed upon value based on risk...if you are willing t pay that premium...what is the big deal?


if they can insure singers voices and all kinds of other crazy stuff...no matter the cost....why are they so 'fit in the column" about some things?


I know because they can...but some insurance companies still work with you and that's why I was inferring switch companies if something seems wrong.


BandB seems to have a pretty good handle on insurance issues...let's see if he chimes in.
 
Gimmicks to be watched.

There is nothing preventing changing the agreed value. It obviously should decrease year by year.

Now two of you present different situations. One says their insurer just changed them to actual value, but doesn't mention if any other changes made such as the depreciation change. I don't like actual value and would have asked for an agreement on a new agreed value.

However, the depreciation issue is serious. It means you are highly unlikely to get paid what it costs to make any repairs. Think of your car a moment. One reason your premium doesn't drop much with age is that parts still cost the same. If you have an accident and need a new rear bumper, it costs the same as if that was a new car. Your insurer doesn't say "depreciated value" and pay only 50% of the price of the bumper. You'd never go for that.

Well, that's just what your boat insurer did and I'll bet they didn't cut your premium in half. It becomes a nightmare even in dealing with how they administer it. Although it doesn't work out exactly this way, the theory is that your boat is only worth 50% of new value so they're only going to pay 50% of repair costs since each part is only worth 50%. Well, that's not going to get you going again. It's almost like putting a 50% copay in.

I would never accept that change and would immediately look elsewhere. A 10 year old boat isn't old. If your boat was 30 years old, it would be more difficult. I don't know your insurer, but turn to marine insurers, not homeowners and auto insurers doing it on the side.
 
if they can insure singers voices and all kinds of other crazy stuff...no matter the cost....why are they so 'fit in the column" about some things?


I know because they can...but some insurance companies still work with you and that's why I was inferring switch companies if something seems wrong.


BandB seems to have a pretty good handle on insurance issues...let's see if he chimes in.

I chimed in. And to your point of crazy stuff, it's not the same insurer or same type. You wouldn't go to State Farm or Allstate to get your vocal cords insured or your hands (if a hand model) or your breasts or any of the things we've heard of. You go to people like Lloyd's and others who specialize in insuring anything for a price. Well, many companies will insure boats but I recommend companies and brokers that specialize in it. Pau Hana will likely speak up and he is one who deals with it all the time although he's not gone to work for an insurer I believe. Still, he gives excellent advice based on decades of experience.

There are other brokers and insurers who have been recommended here. Your agent or broker let you down. If they were going to come to you with the change, they should have also come with some alternatives. Likely they're single line though and can't offer others. Most marine brokers insure through many different companies and would have said, "Your insurer, company A, is changing all 10 year old boats to 50% depreciation policies. However, I got you a quote from company B and I'd recommend changing to them." Or they should have said, "I don't have anything else I can offer you, but I'd suggest you talk to xxxx as they often have other options."
 
Gimmicks to be watched.

There is nothing preventing changing the agreed value. It obviously should decrease year by year.

Now two of you present different situations. One says their insurer just changed them to actual value, but doesn't mention if any other changes made such as the depreciation change. I don't like actual value and would have asked for an agreement on a new agreed value.

However, the depreciation issue is serious. It means you are highly unlikely to get paid what it costs to make any repairs. Think of your car a moment. One reason your premium doesn't drop much with age is that parts still cost the same. If you have an accident and need a new rear bumper, it costs the same as if that was a new car. Your insurer doesn't say "depreciated value" and pay only 50% of the price of the bumper. You'd never go for that.

Well, that's just what your boat insurer did and I'll bet they didn't cut your premium in half. It becomes a nightmare even in dealing with how they administer it. Although it doesn't work out exactly this way, the theory is that your boat is only worth 50% of new value so they're only going to pay 50% of repair costs since each part is only worth 50%. Well, that's not going to get you going again. It's almost like putting a 50% copay in.

I would never accept that change and would immediately look elsewhere. A 10 year old boat isn't old. If your boat was 30 years old, it would be more difficult. I don't know your insurer, but turn to marine insurers, not homeowners and auto insurers doing it on the side.

Thanks. My boat is approaching 30 years of age but people who own Defevers don't seem to have trouble repairing them. But your 50% copay analogy is excellent. Unless I am grossly misreading the notification, which is doubtful, the insurance company raised my premium and added the 50% deductible to the replacement policy they are offering. I intend to call them Monday and verify. If that holds true, they have lost me (and anyone who listens to my recommendation) as a customer. I don't want to tar them publicly until I confirm their side of it. After that, I'll post the facts.
 
Thanks. My boat is approaching 30 years of age but people who own Defevers don't seem to have trouble repairing them. But your 50% copay analogy is excellent. Unless I am grossly misreading the notification, which is doubtful, the insurance company raised my premium and added the 50% deductible to the replacement policy they are offering. I intend to call them Monday and verify. If that holds true, they have lost me (and anyone who listens to my recommendation) as a customer. I don't want to tar them publicly until I confirm their side of it. After that, I'll post the facts.

Don't agree until they send you a copy of the policy so you can see how it reads in respect to partial losses. It will either indicate no deduction for depreciation or indicate that they are subject to depreciation. The vast majority of claims are not total losses, but partial claims. The reason I don't like actual value is that it may be difficult to prove to them your boat was in superior condition. Obviously the agreed value should be much less than new and less than when you acquired it.
 
Don't agree until they send you a copy of the policy so you can see how it reads in respect to partial losses. It will either indicate no deduction for depreciation or indicate that they are subject to depreciation. The vast majority of claims are not total losses, but partial claims. The reason I don't like actual value is that it may be difficult to prove to them your boat was in superior condition. Obviously the agreed value should be much less than new and less than when you acquired it.

I have the proposed policy and it indicates a 50% deductible for partial losses. I intend to verify that with the insurer.

I don't concur that the agreed value should always be less than someone paid for a boat. That may apply to newer vessels that are still depreciating, but not for fully depreciated boats that have had many thousands of dollars in upgrades added over the past year. It also ignores what someone might have paid for the boat in the first place.
 
I have the proposed policy and it indicates a 50% deductible for partial losses. I intend to verify that with the insurer.

I don't concur that the agreed value should always be less than someone paid for a boat. That may apply to newer vessels that are still depreciating, but not for fully depreciated boats that have had many thousands of dollars in upgrades added over the past year. It also ignores what someone might have paid for the boat in the first place.

You're right that one might have made upgrades. But if you made those up front they should have been reflected in actual value if not initially, after year one. So, let me rephrase that.

Unless some major work is done on a boat it's actual value should decrease. I don't believe though that any boat is fully depreciated.

The 50% on partial losses would really bother me. For that and the change to actual value instead of agreed your premium should have dropped significantly. I'm betting it didn't.
 
We bought. 1987 41' President last year. BOAT/US insured it for the surveyor's estimated value which was more than I actually paid for it. They did require a survey and I had to take care of the surveyors recommendations. It is an agreed value policy. I then added new electronics and they raised the agreed value to include the electronics. I just had to send them a copy of the invoice for the electronics.
 
The 50% on partial losses would really bother me. For that and the change to actual value instead of agreed your premium should have dropped significantly. I'm betting it didn't.

Yes, as I noted earlier, the premium actually went up a few hundred dollars. They are pretty much history with me.
 
My insurance company replaced my "agreed value" policy with an "actual value" policy once the boat was over ten years old. I can understand the reasoning because at the agreed value, I could sink it and make a hefty profit.


The question is, how do they determine the actual value?

Aye, and there's the rub. My insurance co demands an 'actual', or market value now, and insists on a 5 yrly survey now in view of her age, ostensibly when the actual market value will be reassessed.

Trouble is when I used the surveyor they themselves recommended for this purpose the last two times, when I asked them what they made the actual market values, one responded, asks a broker, I'm just a surveyor. Probably the best answer actually...as the second one valued it so low it was a sick joke, and said he based it on glancing through some boat sales magazines, as he wasn't a broker or valuer either. Go figure who is going to lose out if the boat was lost.
:banghead::eek:
 
08 and 09 my ins cost just under six hundred dollars per year... with good coverage in general and an acceptable, honest stated value if total loss occurred. Then the big storms on east coast f'd up many thousands of boats. Suddenly my annual premium somewhat more than doubled. At first I was pissed off. Then I learned my ins cost is not too bad at all compared to coverage provided, so I decided to grin and bear it. Oh well... share the loss; and, all that stuff. Since then annual cost has crept up slightly... but not too much. Been thinking of going with Paul... just never got around to a new survey. Ins co I currently deal with does not require surveys on regular basis.
 
Seems to me the PO is being told that they don't want his business, but in a strange way. I agree that a specialist marine insurer is the best way to go. I hope you can get hold of Pau Hana - they looked after me well when I was in North America with the boat.

My boat is 35 years old. No problems getting insurance for 'market value'. Agreed value might have been a different story though, and I am carrying some risk as I've spent more than the market value. Policy is with Club Marine, wholly owned by Allianz. The main reason I have the insurance, and am not too concerned about the market value, is the $10 million third party liability.

Deductible varies from hull, motor, equipment or property but maximum is $2000.
 
That`s tough Angus, increased premium greatly reduced cover. An easily resisted offer. Brian is probably right about them not wanting the business, hope you find a more accommodating insurer.We have several marine specialist insurers, I hope you do too. It helps if they understand boats, and owners needs.
 
That`s tough Angus, increased premium greatly reduced cover. An easily resisted offer. Brian is probably right about them not wanting the business, hope you find a more accommodating insurer.We have several marine specialist insurers, I hope you do too. It helps if they understand boats, and owners needs.

This is the strange thing. This is a MAJOR marine insurance firm. Apparently this is a new product they are switching many of their their (soon to be former) customers to based on (I assume) age of the vessel.
 
I'm with Club Marine also Brian, and cover for the $80k it is now insured for costs me $1300 per year.
 
This is the strange thing. This is a MAJOR marine insurance firm. Apparently this is a new product they are switching many of their their (soon to be former) customers to based on (I assume) age of the vessel.

Any problem with giving a name?

Not yet because of still having them?

Would be nice for the record when you can...please...:thumb:
 
Any problem with giving a name?

Not yet because of still having them?

Would be nice for the record when you can...please...:thumb:

Well, I've narrowed it down so much, I might as well. :). It's Pantaenius. And they are portraying this as a "select" policy for boats with agreed hull values of less than $250K, which mine is just under. Full loss is covered to the limits of the policy. Partial losses for boats more than 5 years of age are subject to 50% depreciation. ('Younger" boats under this policy have a lower depreciation factor.) The prior policy I had with them did not have these limits. So I don't get the sense they're after me individually, but as a class of boater they might be. I'm sure I'll be walking but I want to talk to a rep to see what's behind this and to ensure I'm not missing something. Will post what I learn.
 
Seems to me the PO is being told that they don't want his business, but in a strange way. I agree that a specialist marine insurer is the best way to go. I hope you can get hold of Pau Hana - they looked after me well when I was in North America with the boat.

Emails to Peter at Anchor Marine bounce back with the contact info of a different broker at Anchor and the note that Peter has taken a position as an underwriter somewhere else. He hasn't responded to any PMs so he may not be watching the forum anymore.

In any event, I'm talking to other brokers some of you have suggested. Again, many thanks.
 
Well, I've narrowed it down so much, I might as well. :). It's Pantaenius. And they are portraying this as a "select" policy for boats with agreed hull values of less than $250K, which mine is just under. Full loss is covered to the limits of the policy. Partial losses for boats more than 5 years of age are subject to 50% depreciation. ('Younger" boats under this policy have a lower depreciation factor.) The prior policy I had with them did not have these limits. So I don't get the sense they're after me individually, but as a class of boater they might be. I'm sure I'll be walking but I want to talk to a rep to see what's behind this and to ensure I'm not missing something. Will post what I learn.

When as happened... of suddenly doubling my annual insurance premium (see my post # 14): I immediately called my ins broker and asked why did my boat insurance cost double having had no claims or late payments?? She got back to me and said when she called the carrier (one of largest insurance cos in U.S.) all she could find out was that they virtually doubled all insured "boats" (notice the "parenthesis" on boats) in my area due to potential losses from "weather disturbances that may occur" (again "parenthesis"). I said to my trusted, decades utilized agent: Barbara, baby!... We have our boat under covered berth at a quality marina in one of the most mellow sea condition, gentle weather areas on west coast (i.e. deep inside SF Delta's fresh water)... how can they suddenly say that? She said she tried to get them to drop the annual back down but could not. They are stuck on this weather issue.

Soooo... It took me a couple hours of phone calls and re calls, introducing myself as CEO of one of my companies, to executives at my ins carrier's HQ. I eventually needed to get stern over the phone with one of the VP's in Actuary. This is exactly what I was told by this woman (in a near whisper voice): "Please do not pass on that I told your this." I said "Agreed". Then she whispered... "Our company has raised rates on boats in most areas due to huge hurricane losses on south east coast." I then asked: "Because my boat is always kept in such a protected area can I get consideration for at least partial premium cost drop, back down to previous levels?" She answered: "I'm sorry I can't help you there." I said: "In that case, even after years of being a good customer to your company it seems I am now forced to shop around for more reasonable rates." She said: "Wish I could help you more, but, I can not." End of conversation! :popcorn:
 
Greetings,
I ran into a "change" in my former policy as well a couple of years back. The new stipulation was our boat had to be hauled and stored ashore in the event of a named storm for coverage to remain in effect. The ironic part was the closest storage yards were in an area that historically bore the full brunt, to the point of SERIOUS damage to shore facilities, of most hurricanes that ran up the east coast.

I called the agent and asked "So you want me to move my vessel from a known hurricane hole into the potential path of destruction?" The answer was "Yes". I asked what the rational for THAT bit of rocket science was and the answer was "That's the way the insurance company wanted it".

This was very shortly after Sandy where, as I explained to the agent, the most damaged vessels had been ashore and not afloat. New company time for me.
 
Emails to Peter at Anchor Marine bounce back with the contact info of a different broker at Anchor and the note that Peter has taken a position as an underwriter somewhere else. He hasn't responded to any PMs so he may not be watching the forum anymore.

In any event, I'm talking to other brokers some of you have suggested. Again, many thanks.
When Peter left I was switched to Sam at Anchor Marine. He did a good job switching me to a policy that included liveaboard for my 1988 Krogen 54. I can provide you his contact info if you wish.

Richard
 
When Peter left I was switched to Sam at Anchor Marine. He did a good job switching me to a policy that included liveaboard for my 1988 Krogen 54. I can provide you his contact info if you wish.

Richard

Thanks Richard. Peter's auto reply referred me to Michelle at Anchor and she's already gotten back with me. Appreciate the thought.
 
Thanks Richard. Peter's auto reply referred me to Michelle at Anchor and she's already gotten back with me. Appreciate the thought.
Great - glad you're being taken care of.

Richard
 
Well, I've narrowed it down so much, I might as well. :). It's Pantaenius. And they are portraying this as a "select" policy for boats with agreed hull values of less than $250K, which mine is just under. Full loss is covered to the limits of the policy. Partial losses for boats more than 5 years of age are subject to 50% depreciation. ('Younger" boats under this policy have a lower depreciation factor.) The prior policy I had with them did not have these limits. So I don't get the sense they're after me individually, but as a class of boater they might be. I'm sure I'll be walking but I want to talk to a rep to see what's behind this and to ensure I'm not missing something. Will post what I learn.

Well, here's what it sounds like to me. Pantaenius now has Super Yacht, Yacht and Select. This sounds like an effort to concentrate on the larger, more expensive yachts and push others to their "Select" categories and less coverage. However, I see nothing that says the Yacht Policy isn't still available for your boat, just have no idea the cost.

Here is the page comparing.

Pantaenius Yacht Insurance Comparison

You can see with the Yacht Policy there is no depreciation on partial losses. With the Select policy there is on boats over 5 years old. There are many other differences. The Select policy has lousy coverage.
 
Are you dealing with a broker or with their office directly? Just curious as to whether they've put in a hard rule that under $250k you can only get the select policy.

Regardless, their business has traditionally been bigger and more expensive boats, so it doesn't surprise me. Their premiums for $20 million and up boats are $75k and more. Many of the boats they insure are $50 million to $200 million. Sounds like they've said, "We want the smaller less expensive boat business as long as we don't have to offer them anything decent."

I've long had a business policy. If I bring you my business, I expect to always be given your best price and treated well. I don't intend to shop around every year. However, if you ever force me to shop around and I find out you're taking advantage of me, then I'm gone. And, no, you won't be given a chance to match or second chance, not for a minimum of three years.

Had I been a loyal Pantaenius customer and they pulled this on me, whether individually or as part of a group, I'd be long gone. That insult and audacity that they just thought you would say "Thank you, now kick me again" or blindly accept it.

That 50% deductible even for fire and lightning, no coverage for latent defects, no automatic insurance for new boats, deductible on personal items, no coverage of art, none of a substitute vessel, 50% deductible on transportation and storage, no coverage of living expenses, no wear and tear, no skipper's liability. This policy is everything that Pantaenius has advertised against for decades, all they said they weren't.

I think it's insane they started offering it a couple of years ago, more insane if they're forcing people to it, and they would have been far better off just saying they no longer wanted to insure certain boats than saying "we'll insure you, just not our real policy, a lousy one."
 
Are you dealing with a broker or with their office directly? Just curious as to whether they've put in a hard rule that under $250k you can only get the select policy.

Regardless, their business has traditionally been bigger and more expensive boats, so it doesn't surprise me. Their premiums for $20 million and up boats are $75k and more. Many of the boats they insure are $50 million to $200 million. Sounds like they've said, "We want the smaller less expensive boat business as long as we don't have to offer them anything decent."

I've long had a business policy. If I bring you my business, I expect to always be given your best price and treated well. I don't intend to shop around every year. However, if you ever force me to shop around and I find out you're taking advantage of me, then I'm gone. And, no, you won't be given a chance to match or second chance, not for a minimum of three years.

Had I been a loyal Pantaenius customer and they pulled this on me, whether individually or as part of a group, I'd be long gone. That insult and audacity that they just thought you would say "Thank you, now kick me again" or blindly accept it.

That 50% deductible even for fire and lightning, no coverage for latent defects, no automatic insurance for new boats, deductible on personal items, no coverage of art, none of a substitute vessel, 50% deductible on transportation and storage, no coverage of living expenses, no wear and tear, no skipper's liability. This policy is everything that Pantaenius has advertised against for decades, all they said they weren't.

I think it's insane they started offering it a couple of years ago, more insane if they're forcing people to it, and they would have been far better off just saying they no longer wanted to insure certain boats than saying "we'll insure you, just not our real policy, a lousy one."

I dealt with their headquarters. Their letter to me indicates it's a hard rule . . . and a recently enacted one.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. If they'd said outright they didn't want to insure boats like mine, I'd have looked for a company that did and not have to go insurance shopping again. I even object to the BS brand "Select" policy when the coverage is less and the premium more. It will be interesting to hear why they're doing this and I'll post what I hear.
 
I dealt with their headquarters. Their letter to me indicates it's a hard rule . . . and a recently enacted one.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. If they'd said outright they didn't want to insure boats like mine, I'd have looked for a company that did and not have to go insurance shopping again. I even object to the BS brand "Select" policy when the coverage is less and the premium more. It will be interesting to hear why they're doing this and I'll post what I hear.

"Select" has become a popular term for less. I'm not sure how that happened. Medicare uses it. What's the lowest quality beef..."Select". Well, there is ungraded, but the lowest most groceries will carry.

We know the "why". It just stinks. They were one of two companies we had make proposals to us initially. Right now, I'm very glad I chose the other one. The reason we chose the other one ultimately was that I've used them in business and in many countries, and never once have they doubled or tripled rates or said, we can't cover this any more or through other actions made it clear they wanted us gone.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom