Insurance for boats with lithium house banks

[SteveK]

I would love to see ABYC issue recommendations that address specifically LiFePO4 batteries installed in boats. Anything less specific is just muddying the waters, and is basically useless to us as boat owners.

Exactly, separate out from all other Lithium to show it is acceptable properly installed. We can hope.

 

[Shrew]

Yes, Markel has restrictions. Thank you.

Getting back to my original question, I am looking for insurance companies that do allow LFP or at least don't ask/care. Looking for actual names, preferably from boat owners who have them. Thanks.

Your question is both slightly flawed and rooted in assumptions. NOBODY lists what the DO insure. They only list what they DON'T insure. In other words you'll never see a policy that says "We WILL Insure LifeP04 battery banks". That is why you're getting the answers you're getting. Either those who can't find a reference on their policy, or those that can find a statement that indicates the item Is Not insured.

 

[twistedtree]

I would love to see ABYC issue recommendations that address specifically LiFePO4 batteries installed in boats. Anything less specific is just muddying the waters, and is basically useless to us as boat owners.

This was debated once again from every imaginable angle, and the result is that E-13 remains non-specific WRT Li-ion chemistry types. The differences are expected to be reflected in the Safe Operating Limits and other installation and operation instructions from the manufacturer. Also keep in mind that although house batteries are almost always LFP, propulsion systems often are NOT LFP. Anything built around a Torquedo propulsion system, any unmodified Greenline boat, and I gather a number of others are non-LFP.

Personally, I agree that safe operation can be reflected in the SOL limits, and that chemistry distinction isn't needed. Where I think there IS a big unacknowledged difference is in the Risk/Danger profile with different chemistries if something goes wrong. I would never allow any non-LFP battery larger than a power tool on my boat. But again, my personal opinion.

 

[SteveK]

TT, the ABYC general lithium ion statement is the problem. That is not specific to large house banks, non specific for lifepo4 is ok installed correctly.
Lithium fires/explosions do exist, but not yet with LFP.
Separate them.

 

[twistedtree]

TT, the ABYC general lithium ion statement is the problem. That is not specific to large house banks, non specific for lifepo4 is ok installed correctly.
Lithium fires/explosions do exist, but not yet with LFP.
Separate them.

If there were two standards, what would you suggest be different between them? My list right now is a blank sheet of paper.

However, if certain changes that were proposed during the review had been adopted, I would have been arguing hard to bifurcate the standard to only accept those changes for certain chemistries. But that didn't happen.

 

[slowgoesit]

More important than different standards, I would like to see ABYC clarify the risks and dangers of LiFePO4 vs other Lithium Ion chemistries.

If ABYC, a respected influencer in the industry, would go on record in their recommendations with the same clarity as the ABYC President did in his open letter (see attached) regarding the lack of reactivity/danger of LiFePO4, vs other chemistries, it would go a long way to lifting the veil on what the risks really are. Maybe that would give the insurance industry pause in their total fear regarding LiFePO4.

Then again, the conspiracy theorist inside me wonders if perhaps the insurance industry, already recognizing the difference, just wants to use misinterpretation of the facts, realizing that more and more people will be turning to LiFePO4 batteries, to deny payouts to in future.

 

[SteveK]

If there were two standards, what would you suggest be different between them? My list right now is a blank sheet of paper.

However, if certain changes that were proposed during the review had been adopted, I would have been arguing hard to bifurcate the standard to only accept those changes for certain chemistries. But that didn't happen.

I would want to see what Lithium can be used on boats (Per ABYC) and particularly for large house banks. I have lithium in the phone, computer, smoke alarm etc. Lithium ion covers a big assortment including the ones that catch on fire. I would like to see ABYC say use LifePO4 with BMS in the following manner.
If more than LFP can be used for house bank then explain that too.
Battle Born has a decent explanation.
Otherwise, the poster that was going to use old style Tesla batteries can go ahead too as they quailfy as Lithium ion.
Most recently, Tesla has turned to prismatic Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LFP) batteries.

 

[tpbrady]

It would seem the UL 1642 recommendation would eliminate some other lithium chemistries as the purpose of that test is to badly abuse the batteries and see if they catch fire or explode. While not all LFP batteries have been tested to that standard, at least some have and didn’t explode or catch fire. If another lithium chemistry passed that test it should be equally acceptable.

 

[twistedtree]

It would seem the UL 1642 recommendation would eliminate some other lithium chemistries as the purpose of that test is to badly abuse the batteries and see if they catch fire or explode. While not all LFP batteries have been tested to that standard, at least some have and didn’t explode or catch fire. If another lithium chemistry passed that test it should be equally acceptable.

That pretty well sums up the thinking behind requiring 1642 or one of the ISO equivalents.

 

[twistedtree]

See below. I'm not trying to defend or justify anything in particular, but rather trying to shed light on some of the background.

I would want to see what Lithium can be used on boats (Per ABYC) and particularly for large house banks.

I think E-13 does this.

I have lithium in the phone, computer, smoke alarm etc. Lithium ion covers a big assortment including the ones that catch on fire. I would like to see ABYC say use LifePO4 with BMS in the following manner.
If more than LFP can be used for house bank then explain that too.

E-13 says how to use Li-ion batteries, and it's equally applicable to LFP, NMC, LCO, etc. It does not say to use one type here and another type there. Any type can be used if it meets the requirements in E-13.

Battle Born has a decent explanation.

Yes, but also slanted towards their offering.

Otherwise, the poster that was going to use old style Tesla batteries can go ahead too as they quailfy as Lithium ion.

If they can do that and meet the requirements of E-13, then yes. However I think such an attempt would fail to meet all the language about complying with manufacture's direction, etc.
So I don't think something cobbled together from Tesla or other EV battery packs would comply. That said, some companies have taken OEM EV battery packs and built compliant systems around then with active cooling, BMS, etc, etc, These likely are compliant.

Most recently, Tesla has turned to prismatic Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LFP) batteries.

 

[twistedtree]

More important than different standards, I would like to see ABYC clarify the risks and dangers of LiFePO4 vs other Lithium Ion chemistries.

If ABYC, a respected influencer in the industry, would go on record in their recommendations with the same clarity as the ABYC President did in his open letter (see attached) regarding the lack of reactivity/danger of LiFePO4, vs other chemistries, it would go a long way to lifting the veil on what the risks really are. Maybe that would give the insurance industry pause in their total fear regarding LiFePO4.

Then again, the conspiracy theorist inside me wonders if perhaps the insurance industry, already recognizing the difference, just wants to use misinterpretation of the facts, realizing that more and more people will be turning to LiFePO4 batteries, to deny payouts to in future.

That open letter has caused me and a lot of other people quite a bit of grief. Nobody on the E-13 or electrical standards committee was aware of that testing, knowns what the tests were or how they were performed, or has seen any test results. In short, I have no idea what they did and what actually happenend. I have asked multiple times for some sort of a report, but have never received or seen one. I learned about all this at the same time you did, when the letter was published. It's embarrassing to me as someone working on these standards, and I think was irresponsible of ABYC to make such a statement without also publishing the test procedures and results.

 

[SteveK]

That open letter has caused me and a lot of other people quite a bit of grief. Nobody on the E-13 or electrical standards committee was aware of that testing,

plausable deniability

Meaning of plausible deniability in English the ability to say in a way that seems possibly true that you did not know about something or were not responsible for something

 

[twistedtree]

plausable deniability

Maybe, but I always favor incompetence over conspiracy as an explanation, simply because incompetence is so much more common.

 

[SteveK]

The E13 update planned this year should now have a worthy LifePO4 endorsement for use in boats with the usual installation practises. If written well no insurer should be concerned IF LFP is used.
Separate the wheat from the chaff.
BTW I recently noticed my cell phone has a switch to limit charging to 85%. Wonder if that is an update to the many fires caused from charging phones.

 

[CharlieO.]

BTW I recently noticed my cell phone has a switch to limit charging to 85%. Wonder if that is an update to the many fires caused from charging phones.

My phone started doing that also, it tells me it will charge to 100% at 3:00 am when it is non peak hours.

 

[rslifkin]

From my understanding the limited or slow charging on phones is to extend battery lifespan. Li-ion batteries don't love sitting around fully charged and faster charging is also bad for lifespan. So if it has all night to charge, it's better to charge slowly and not fully charge until closer to when you'll unplug it and start using the battery. I've noticed significantly less battery degradation on phones since they added those features.

 

[luna]

The E13 update planned this year should now have a worthy LifePO4 approval for use in boats with the usual installation practises. If written well no insurer should be concerned IF LFP is used.
Separate the wheat from the chaff.

ABYC is a Standard writing body and does not “approve” anything, with the exception that they would likely approve the use of their own Standards.

Their Standards are written to let you know what is required for your particular installation to be in compliance and as a result, reasonably safe.

As Rod Collins has noted these standards are the minimum, you can do better.

 

[twistedtree]

The E13 update planned this year should now have a worthy LifePO4 endorsement for use in boats with the usual installation practises.

I can save you the anticipation - there is no such endorsement. The E-13 sub committee has been soliciting feedback and participation from insurance companies, but none have taken us up on the offer.

 

[SteveK]

I can save you the anticipation - there is no such endorsement. The E-13 sub committee has been soliciting feedback and participation from insurance companies, but none have taken us up on the offer.

So ABYC cannot be expected to produce guidelines that make sense.
But they remain the source for what is guidelines.
Too bad, so sad.

 

[DDW]

ABYC is a Standard writing body and does not “approve” anything, with the exception that they would likely approve the use of their own Standards.

The problem is, what the ABYC writes as recommendations, the insurance companies take as requirements, often with no consideration of science or common sense. Of course they are not experts, and have to rely on something. If there were a large pool of truly competent surveyors, with an understanding of both science and common sense, then a survey could replace the insurance companies lack of expertise, sadly, no such pool exists.

 

[twistedtree]

So ABYC cannot be expected to produce guidelines that make sense.
But they remain the source for what is guidelines.
Too bad, so sad.

I guess I still don't really understand what you would like to see different in E-13. Would you want it to say to only use LFP batteries?

 

[Marco Flamingo]

As Rod Collins has noted these standards are the minimum, you can do better.

Exactly. For LFP batteries, the ABYC may state "professional installation," but I can do better.

 

[SteveK]

I guess I still don't really understand what you would like to see different in E-13. Would you want it to say to only use LFP batteries?

I would like to see E13 separate lithium chemistries with guidelines of installation for any they consider should be on a boat and installed in a way that is as safe as possible.

 

[NoRain]

Exactly. For LFP batteries, the ABYC may state "professional installation," but I can do better.

No, do NOT state “professional installation”. As far as I know there is no accreditation of “professional lithium battery installer”. By all means state “installed to satisfy the following specifications xyzabc”.

 

[rslifkin]

No, do NOT state “professional installation”. As far as I know there is no accreditation of “professional lithium battery installer”. By all means state “installed to satisfy the following specifications xyzabc”.

Seconded. And a prohibition on DIY installs is a slippery slope. Plus one that would mean no LFP for me, and there's not a chance in hell that I'm paying someone to do work on my boat that I can likely do better myself.

 

[tiltrider1]

I Have never had an insurance company tell me that I had to meet ABYC standards. I have had a surveyor tell me that I didn’t meet ABYC standards. Even though I pointed out that I meet the standard at date of manufacture, the surveyor wrote it up. At that point, my insurance company insisted I correct the issue.

 

[SteveK]

I Have never had an insurance company tell me that I had to meet ABYC standards. I have had a surveyor tell me that I didn’t meet ABYC standards. Even though I pointed out that I meet the standard at date of manufacture, the surveyor wrote it up. At that point, my insurance company insisted I correct the issue.

exactly. This coversation gave me an idea. Next year when I need a survey I will remove the LFP and drop in a cheap 12v FLA. Then after the survey re&re. That will avoid a surveyor writing up he has LFP and avoid the hassle. There is no small print in the policy about it, BUT if the survey notes it a can of worms may develop.

 

[luna]

exactly. This coversation gave me an idea. Next year when I need a survey I will remove the LFP and drop in a cheap 12v FLA. Then after the survey re&re. That will avoid a surveyor writing up he has LFP and avoid the hassle. There is no small print in the policy about it, BUT if the survey notes it a can of worms may develop.

I don’t think in the event of an otherwise insured loss, that bit of sleight of hand would be a good idea.

Just think of the Insurer’s questions.

How long have you had these LFP batteries that the serial numbers tells us are now 4 years old?

Do you have a purchase receipt? A Visa statement or Bank Account statement with the payment recorded?

Have they ever been installed in your boat before?

The worst thing you could do is lie to the Insurer after you have told the world of your plans.

It’s undoubtedly easier to comply with ABYC’s Standards if that is what satisfies the Insurer. Safer too!

 

[SteveK]

I bought them from Luna for cash and he said they were brand new.

 

[twistedtree]

I would like to see E13 separate lithium chemistries with guidelines of installation for any they consider should be on a boat and installed in a way that is as safe as possible.

That's exactly what it does, and believing those guidelines are exactly the same regardless of chemistry, it does not distinguish between chemistries.