Stay away from Pantaenius Yacht Insurance Why? read below..

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

If you're DUI, your insurance company will say "thank you for the premiums, goodbye!"

Not in MA. Here the legal basis would be to pay out the harmed innocent 3rd party and then at the option of insurance company of the wrongdoer to go after the worngdoer, their insured. As IMO it should be to justify our state's requirement that all automobiles have insurance. Otherwise it would just be one huge giveaway to the insurance industry.

BTW NH does not have compulsory auto insurance (at least until recently don't know if they still don't) and their insurance premiums were 1/3 to 1/2 of ours. As a Libertarian I dread the day when our state will require boats to have compulsory insurance as it does for cars.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

You are now blaming the victims who HAVE TO resort to hiring lawyers precisely because the legal system leaves the victims practically defenseless UNLESS they hire a lawyer.

If we as consumers were allowed to come up with a tough pro consumer laws and regulations there would not be a great need for this army of lawyers. The large armies of lawyers in any industry are not the cause of the problem, they are the visible symptoms.

Of course with a conusmer oriented compensation rules the profits of the insurance companies would suffer. But hey why in a democracy the will of the few at the top overrides completely the will and needs of the most at the bottom?

That's one interpretation of it. Perhaps the more realistic view is that the overabundance of ambulance chasers encourages excessive amounts of lawsuits, thus they are indeed a problem. Most of these lawsuits are NOT due to them having to sue, but rather due to them hearing commercials telling them that they will get lots of money regardless of whether or not they deserve it. In New York City alone, we are bilked out of billions for spurious lawsuits. Cellino and Barnes alone advertises over $2 BILLION in settlements. The majority of the plaintiffs are scamming the system and are regularly found "suffering" so badly that they have to go skiing, jet skiing, etc. The consumer is far, far from defenseless.

In terms of profits, that is a sound bite that gets great exposure until one uses even a tiny amount of common sense. Dockhead had a good post earlier that pointed out the profit margins of insurance companies is pretty small; I recall a figure of somewhere around 3 or 4%. Investopedia suggests a median average of 4 or 5%. Regardless it is pretty small and certainly a lot smaller than many so-called socially conscious companies that many love. Google consistently shows more than a 20% margin, and for a while is was over a 75% operating margin. Facebook is growing their margins and last quarter was at around 32%.

I am certainly not suggesting that insurance conglomerates are warm and fuzzy entities. I know that they will try to avoid payouts in many cases, but then they are a business. They also have a fiduciary responsibility to their owners and to the employees to avoid unnecessary payouts. The fact of the matter however is that there is a contractual relationship between the policy holder and the company. It is a business relationship; they are not a charity.

New York State has some of the most lawsuit friendly laws in the world. NO ONE is suffering in this state from a lack of consumer friendly laws. Quite the contrary. The average person is suffering from too many "pro consumer" laws. It drives up prices quite a bit. It discourages job creation and in fact helps to drive away businesses. It is like the class action lawsuits. One day I, and several million others, received a check for some $3. The law firm however made millions. In the end I, and the others, paid for this in the form of increased fees.

[Jim Cate]

Dockhead, I've been learning a lot from your informative posts... and I'm not sure that i like what I've been learning! I had the apparently common and incorrect idea that my 3d party insurance did cover the sort of no-negligence situations that you describe and that other's policies would too. I find your undoubtedly correct interpretation quite unsettling! And yet...

In the case of the dragging boat that you posit, it seems very difficult to determine that the dragging vessel had been "properly" anchored so as to relieve the owner of responsibility for damages caused. One argument would be that the prudent mariner always anchors in such a way that he will not drag, even if the wx is worse than f/c... this is the normal practice of seamen, and that is a phrase oft bandied about in COLREG discussions. And who is to say that the anchor was suitable for the bottom, or that enough scope was laid out? The endless discussions here on CF would suggest that these sorts of factors are poorly understood by even prudent seamen, let alone juries. Would the argument that the anchor had been supplied as factory equipment be adequate? We all know that the undersized Deltas that come on new boats are woefully inadequate, but would a judge? These sorts of questions must arise in the real world all too often.

Do you know of cases like this that have gone to court? I have never been hit by a dragging boat but I'd like to know more about my chances of compensation should it happen. Meanwhile, thanks for bringing your knowledge into the discussion.

Jim

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by careka

we had Pant.. on our tripp from northen Europa to Carib and back, our davits cracked on our way home and we had to return to BVI for repairs, welding, they did not cover it. boat is from 2011. and davits where not overloaded, Make sure to read the text what they cover. we will not use them again. read it well, and you will find a lot of holes where they will not cover.

Davits failed. Fatigue, overloading or corrosion. Why would you expect your insurance company to pay for that?

You might have a potential claim against the manufacturer but not your insurer.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

In our state (MA) it is. And it is specifically spelled out in law, insurance regs and actual legal practice. To hold otherwise would make th ewhole concept of "insurance" a fraud perpetrated on the unwary.

In insurance related legislation we even have a law which supposed to fine insurance companies each time they improperly delay or contest 3rd party liability settlements etc. The fine is not a big deal for them ($500) but as a small negotiating tool is highly effective. Especially considering that there is another consumer statute (sadly now often less used) which trebles this amount in case of highly aggregious behavior by the corporate sharks.
--------------
(9) Unfair claim settlement practices: An unfair claim settlement practice shall consist of any of the following acts or omissions:

(a) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;

(b) Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies;

(c) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;

(d) Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;

(e) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed;

(f) Failing to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;

(g) Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds;

(h) Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application;

(i) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of the insured;

(j) Making claims payments to insured or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made;

(k) Making known to insured or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements of compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration;

(l) Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring that an insured or claimant, or the physician of either, submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information;

(m) Failing to settle claims promptly, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage; or

(n) Failing to provide promptly a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.

(10) Failure to maintain complaint handling procedures; failure of any person to maintain a complete record of all of the complaints which it has received since the date of its last examination, which record shall indicate in such form and detail as the commissioner may from time to time prescribe, the total number of complaints, their classification by line of insurance, and the nature, disposition, and time of processing of each complaint. For purposes of this subsection, ''complaint'' shall mean any written communication primarily expressing a grievance. Agents, brokers and adjusters shall maintain any written communications received by them which express a grievance for a period of two years from receipt, with a record of their disposition, which shall be available for examination by the commissioner at any time.

(11) Misrepresentation in insurance applications: making false or fraudulent statements or representations on or relative to an application for an insurance policy, for the purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money, or other benefit from any insurers, agent, broker, or individual.

(12) A violation of section 2B, 95, 113X, 181 to 183, inclusive, 187B to 187D, inclusive, 189, 193E or 193K of chapter 175.

Another person who just doesn't understand how liability insurance works. I hope this thread will be helpful.

Massachusetts is a no-fault state, where even less will your insurance pay for someone else's damage or injury. Where cars are concerned, you have to turn to your own insurance in most cases even when the other driver is at fault. The only exception is the case of injured pedestrians, who get to claim against any car involved without having to prove fault.

With regard to boats, insurance in Massachusetts works on the same principles as everywhere else. Your insurance covers you, and not third parties. If you are legally responsible to a third party for some kind of damage which occurred as a result of your legal fault (negligence, failure to perform some legal duty, etc.), then your liability insurance is supposed to pay for it, but only in that case. If you have no legal liability to a third party, then your liability insurance won't pay for it either. That's the law, and nothing you quoted above contradicts that. Massachusetts like many states has regulations intended to curb unethical practices of some insurance companies. These regulations do not change the basic principles of liability insurance.

Here's the Traveler's Boat Insurance Policy for Massachusetts:

SECTION SIX:
BOAT LIABILITY COVERAGE

A.
COVERAGE
We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this insurance applies. We have the right and duty to investigate, settle and defend, as we consider appropriate, any claim or suit seeking covered damages.


The same principles as liability insurance everywhere -- your liability insurance will pay to third parties instead of you which you are legally obligated to pay. That's how liability insurance works. If the insured person is not legally obligated to pay, then your insurance won't pay it either. Liability insurance covers YOU, not third parties. It pays to third parties ON YOUR BEHALF, in order to protect YOU from claims and lawsuits. That's why you pay for it. Liability insurance does NOT protect third parties (not directly, anyway) -- it protects the insured person against claims from third parties.

In Massachusetts, just like everywhere else, if you are properly anchored, but your Ultra anchor swivel had invisible crevice corrosion and broke while you were not on board, and your boat blew away and ran down and sank some jon boat with three kids in it, killing them (God forbid of course), you have NO LIABILITY FOR THIS provided you don't have any actual fault (should have known that all Ultra swivels are defective, etc.). The fact that it was your boat that did it, has nothing to do with it. And since YOU have no liability for the tragic accident, your insurance WILL NOT PAY. The family of the victims will have to sue the Ultra Swivel Company, and here it's normally much easier to make a case anyway.

[Capt Gill]

A lot's be digested in this thread, which also has some drift from the OP, so it'd be helpful to me and perhaps others to narrow the focus a bit: (1)for clarity this pertains to Liability ins. only (2) a key sentence is "legally liable"to pay to a third party. That said, it seems v. important to understand for what are you "legally liable" and does that df. vary from state, country, etc. Does this make sense ?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Dockhead, I've been learning a lot from your informative posts... and I'm not sure that i like what I've been learning! I had the apparently common and incorrect idea that my 3d party insurance did cover the sort of no-negligence situations that you describe and that other's policies would too. I find your undoubtedly correct interpretation quite unsettling! And yet...

In the case of the dragging boat that you posit, it seems very difficult to determine that the dragging vessel had been "properly" anchored so as to relieve the owner of responsibility for damages caused. One argument would be that the prudent mariner always anchors in such a way that he will not drag, even if the wx is worse than f/c... this is the normal practice of seamen, and that is a phrase oft bandied about in COLREG discussions. And who is to say that the anchor was suitable for the bottom, or that enough scope was laid out? The endless discussions here on CF would suggest that these sorts of factors are poorly understood by even prudent seamen, let alone juries. Would the argument that the anchor had been supplied as factory equipment be adequate? We all know that the undersized Deltas that come on new boats are woefully inadequate, but would a judge? These sorts of questions must arise in the real world all too often.

Do you know of cases like this that have gone to court? I have never been hit by a dragging boat but I'd like to know more about my chances of compensation should it happen. Meanwhile, thanks for bringing your knowledge into the discussion.

Jim

Yes, Jim, the principles are very clear, and not complicated, but the APPLICATION could be an entirely different thing. The factual basis of liability can be very complex indeed.

But determining whether negligence or fault exists on the basis of murky and even contradictory facts is kind of the bread and butter of what courts do.

It's hard to imagine that an anchor-dragging case would ever go to court, and I've never heard of one. There's just too little at stake to justify the cost of litigation. But if one did go to court for some reason, then it would be like any other tort case -- the plaintiff would bring evidence that the defendant didn't anchor properly, didn't choose his anchor right, should have been keeping a better watch, blah blah blah, and the defendant will try to prove the opposite. Among other things, the plaintiff will sure as hell try to prove that the standard delivery Delta is inadequate and that the defendant "should have known that", and might bring expert witnesses, enter CF threads in evidence , etc etc etc. Not any different from any other tort litigation. You got the arguments about right. And yes -- the ordinary practice of seamen is likely to be relevant too.

But in real life you don't go to court over such things. The dragging boat insurance company will evaluate the facts and if it thinks it's reasonably clear that the insured person anchored properly and really didn't have any fault (or if they are simply unethical), then they will refuse the claim. If the victim has his own insurance, then the two insurance companies will simply work it out among themselves -- by the way, another great reason to have insurance -- your insurer will deal with all of this dreary stuff instead of you and save you not only nerves, but possibly hiring a lawyer as well.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Capt Gill

A lot's be digested in this thread, which also has some drift from the OP, so it'd be helpful to me and perhaps others to narrow the focus a bit: (1)for clarity this pertains to Liability ins. only (2) a key sentence is "legally liable"to pay to a third party. That said, it seems v. important to understand for what are you "legally liable" and does that df. vary from state, country, etc. Does this make sense ?

Yes, you got it.

And yes - it's always good to know what you are liable for -- in other words, what are your legal duties. They do vary somewhat from state to state and country to country. But what concerns accidents -- the One Big Legal Duty you have is to be careful. If you cause damage or injury to someone through carelessness, you are generally liable to compensate him. That's a general principle and there are a few nuances, but it's practically universal.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Not in MA. Here the legal basis would be to pay out the harmed innocent 3rd party and then at the option of insurance company of the wrongdoer to go after the worngdoer, their insured. As IMO it should be to justify our state's requirement that all automobiles have insurance. Otherwise it would just be one huge giveaway to the insurance industry.

BTW NH does not have compulsory auto insurance (at least until recently don't know if they still don't) and their insurance premiums were 1/3 to 1/2 of ours. As a Libertarian I dread the day when our state will require boats to have compulsory insurance as it does for cars.

It sounds like you're talking about compulsory third party PERSONAL insurance, not third party property damage insurance.

We have that in Australia too, for cars. And yes persons injured by a drunk driver are insured.

But even if the drunk driver had comprehensive property insurance, in a crash he would automatically be at fault, and liable, but not covered for damage to property.

[FlyingScot]

I just want to say thanks to all those involved in this very informative discussion, despite the thread drift.

It sure makes a good argument for having your own insurance even if you are a careful and prudent seaman.

I completely agree that the very poor and the very rich can afford to go without.


-Chris

[Dockhead]

I'd like to add another big kudos to Pantaenius:

I'm sailing this summer into the wilderness, into the Arctic with a lot of hazards -- uncharted waters, ice, etc. -- where I think few insurers would write any kind of coverage.

Well, I was very pleased when Pantaenius proposed to cover this adventure for £4000. It seemed quite reasonable to me.

And then I got the actually policy binder --

It's £4000 a year prorated on a daily basis for the time I'm above the latitude of Bergen.

In other words, £11 a day.

F me!

I've bought a lot of different kinds of insurance in my life, but I can't actually recall being more pleased than I've been with Pants.

The other really good insurance company I dealt with was Amica, when I was living in the U.S.

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by Robert Tilbury

You may need to watch this ,

The Man Who Sued God .

Hey...That looks HILARIOUS.

I gotta see that flick.

Hahahahahahahaha

[Mike OReilly]

I wonder if there is a national or regional character difference between insurance companies and/or how customers feel about them? Reading the responses here it seems that Pantaenius gets consistently high marks from our European friends, but the US Pantaenius seems less loved.

[No Boat]

Hi to all this is also my first post. It is in support of Stay away from Pantaenius.

I read this post back in March last year, at the time I was tempted to show my support to the warning post after reading comments knocking the warning and supporting Pantaenius.

I noted the support comments were from either those outside Australia or from those who have not had to make a claim!!.

I too was really happy with their service while they were taking our money.
Then the unfortunate and unthinkable happened. Our yacht took a direct lightning strike!!! while in transit to Australia. The crew survived but the nightmare started and has yet to end.

The strike was in November 2017 it is now 28 February 2019. I too cannot say too much at this stage however I will give some facts on Pantaenius's appalling treatment of us.

1 Pantaenius sent an unlicensed surveyor to our stranded vessel because they would not pay $1600 fee to a licensed surveyor. (I have the email to prove this.)

2 The unlicensed surveyor stated we did not take a direct strike - that the damage was only to our 14 day old navigation system, navigation lights, ASIS and radar, various electrical systems and a hole blown in back stay tensioner rod.He stated there was no need to lift vessel for further investigation and did not go up mast as it was raining.

3 Pantaenius stated it was none of my business who they engaged to assess the damage.

4 Pantaenius insisted we used an unlicensed repairer to carry out some electrical repairs and withheld the complete report from me.

To cut a very harrowing story of breaking melted blocks, cut through new main sheet in the middle of the night, melted plastic main furler components, failure of anchor winch in Dilli, blown starter motor, low voltage alarms going of, VHF interfering with nav system. In short the vessel finally arrived back in Australia Feb 2018.

Pantaenius to date have assigned 4 different assessors to our boat. We sit mast less and paying marina fees with an un seaworthy boat.
I have been abused and screamed at, so has one of the trades Pantaenius originally engaged to to provide costings.

It took until November 2018 for them to lift the boat, and yes lightening exit points through the hull, compromised keel studs etc.$140,000 electrical bill on top of the new nav system I have already paid again for.

They want to cut 300mm off top of mast to get rid of strike mark, don't even worry about exit holes in furler, anodizing rubbing of spreaders and the heat damage to all stainless fittings,( it is just a shitty Selden rigg with a shitty anodizing job and the boat is 8 years old now so what do you expect.)

I have been advised that all bills for inspection work are to be paid by me and I will get repaid once I prove I have paid them. Next week they want me to stump up for the third haul out and foot the bill for the x-ray of the hull needed to determine the extent of the hull delamination.

To add insult to injury our original policy lapsed so we had to renew with them as the boat currently would not be touched by anyone else. Instead of keeping the same policy terms (morally expected) they amended the new one to take out the named tropical storm clause. This has now left us in the position that even though we are in a marina and have a vessel that cannot be moved we are no-longer covered for a named tropical storm in Brisbane. Bring on OMA just to give us something else to worry about.

This is the really short version I can assure you, I no longer sleep and in my spare time I trawl the internet trying to get scientific backing. I wont go into the all the dirty tricks and there are plenty.

To sum it up be very careful and I hope you don't have to go through the hell we are going through. All we did was bye a boat to have some fun and pay our insurance policy to protect our asset.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by No Boat

Hi to all this is also my first post. It is in support of Stay away from Pantaenius.

......

No boat
What a suxy experience. What Pantenius company is your policy with? Pantenius Australia.