Cruising insurance premium doubled

[Zach]

Thanks for talking about Geico insurance, I had not tried them for a quote recently and they seem reasonable.

[Scrimshaw4]

I'm with Pantaenius America and just received my renewal policy for the east coast, north of the Carolinas and east to Bermuda, and had NO increase even though I had a claim for a stolen dinghy motor in July. BTW their claim service was outstanding and sent me a check within 10 days of the claim! Best coverage and rates I've ever seen! JMHO

[sandymwp]

We have Pantaenius...boat was on the hard at Nanny Cay during Irma/Maria. Our premium increased, but nowhere near what you are being charged. Ours is 20%, give or take....I can't remember exact premium.

[Capt Phil]

When I had my delivery business in San Diego, I used Cox insurance in LA. Never had a claim and don’t recall who the underwriter was. We lived aboard our DeFever 54 which was insured through them as well as liability for delivery crew.
Wonderful people to deal with as well!
Capt Phil

[neilsty]

Have been with pants for 6 years with boat laid up in Caribbean for hurricane season. Premium up about 10% over last year + a few more requirements on how boat is stored for hurricane season.

[Simi 60]

Please, Stop suggesting pants.

My theory being the less people that know about them the less likely they are to be inundated with claims and the less likely premiums rising to astronomical heights for us that are with them.

[sailcrazy]

For Neilsty, sandymwp, and Scrimshaw4......which brokerage do you use for your policy with Pantaenius? Do you have a contact that you could pass on? My current policy is due to expire in Nov, and while I have not (yet) been advised one way or the other by the broker, several cruisers I know have indicated they have had "issues" with that same underwriter. I'm looking for other possibilities-we're cruising in the NE Caribb, and summer over in Puerto Rico, up on the hard. Thanks

[valhalla360]

Lots of people talking about not having a claim...unless you have a series of claims, usually a single claim won't have any impact on rates. Claims are rare random events. Just because you haven't had a claim or 5yrs doesn't mean they won't pay out a huge claim next year....they don't set rates on such and individualistic basis.

As far as general rates, they price based on three things:
- Cost of claims.
- Operations costs (staffing, offices etc..)
- Profit margin.

Claims are typically the largest bulk by a wide margin.

Ideally, they would group pricing by risk groups which can include area but particularly within a country, they are regulated. To some degree they do this but there are limits. If they charged the legitimate claims rate for Florida and ICW area, it would likely kill the boating industry, so instead they shift some to other less risky areas like the west coast and great lakes.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Oceansailor

Pantaenius Europe have hiked the prices for coverage in the Caribbean with 50-60% as a result of the losses they made in 2017.

And the raised european insurances by 15 to 20% to cover those costs too.

I am looking to go to another insurer after 15 years with Pantaenius. I don't think it is fair to pay more to cover loses on higher risk areas when one sails on a low risk area.

[Oceansailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

And the raised european insurances by 15 to 20% to cover those costs too.

I am looking to go to another insurer after 15 years with Pantaenius. I don't think it is fair to pay more to cover loses on higher risk areas when one sails on a low risk area.

Well it is much easier to find insurance for Europe than Caribbean. You will have no problem finding alternatives.

[14murs14]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't think it is fair to pay more to cover loses on higher risk areas when one sails on a low risk area.

I don't think it's fair to pay insurance to cover people who suffer damage to their boats when one doesn't suffer damage to their own boat. Unfortunately since pooling losses is the basis of the entire concept of insurance, I'm not sure either of our concepts of "fairness" is going to have much impact on the business of running an insurance company that needs to make a profit to continue as a going concern.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by 14murs14

I don't think it's fair to pay insurance to cover people who suffer damage to their boats when one doesn't suffer damage to their own boat. Unfortunately since pooling losses is the basis of the entire concept of insurance, I'm not sure either of our concepts of "fairness" is going to have much impact on the business of running an insurance company that needs to make a profit to continue as a going concern.

Faulty logic.

The post you were responding to was asking for the pooling to group relative to the risk where possible. Your logic assumes there should be a single massive pool that everyone is thrown into.

Now it's impossible to carry that down too far into the minutia but it is easy to categorize the hurricane risk in S. Florida vs the Great Lakes...hint, it's drastically higher risk in S. Florida.

You getting lucky surviving a hurricane in S. Florida undamaged thru nothing more than luck...you weren't a lower risk. Next hurricane, you are just as likely to have your boat destroyed. (assuming you did the same as your neighbor who had his boat destroyed)

On the other hand, if you got lucky and your boat survived the hurricane that hit S. Florida because your boat was in Wisconson...odds are pretty good, it will survive the next hurricane....so why should you pay the same as someone with a much higher risk of a claim?

[14murs14]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Faulty logic.

The post you were responding to was asking for the pooling to group relative to the risk where possible. Your logic assumes there should be a single massive pool that everyone is thrown into.

Now it's impossible to carry that down too far into the minutia but it is easy to categorize the hurricane risk in S. Florida vs the Great Lakes...hint, it's drastically higher risk in S. Florida.

You getting lucky surviving a hurricane in S. Florida undamaged thru nothing more than luck...you weren't a lower risk. Next hurricane, you are just as likely to have your boat destroyed. (assuming you did the same as your neighbor who had his boat destroyed)

On the other hand, if you got lucky and your boat survived the hurricane that hit S. Florida because your boat was in Wisconson...odds are pretty good, it will survive the next hurricane....so why should you pay the same as someone with a much higher risk of a claim?

As someone who runs a business, my business has to at least break even or I go under. I may suffer a massive loss in the Widget A making part of my business that has absolutely nothing to do with the Widget B making part of my business. But I may still have to increase the price of my Widget B's so that I remain in business. No matter if that's "fair" to Widget B buyers or not. That's what insurers face here. There's no "fair" in life and business, just doing what you have to do to stay in business.

If you can find a Wisconsin only insurer who doesn't face this business reality then by all means switch to them. You probably won't, because the nature of insurance is to spread the idiosyncratic risk around as many markets as possible, but if they're all missing some cosmic truth it's a spectacular opportunity for an entrepreneur to come in and clean them all out with that Great Lakes only company.

[karenmccraw]

Try Scott - SStusek@pantaenius.com

[john61ct]

Companies should have as large a pool as possible, but then vary the premiums drastically based on proven risk factors.

If that means it becomes unaffordable to be in the Hzone anywhere near the season, then so be it, exactly how it's supposed to be.