Pantaenius is a Selective & Elective Joke Can someone help?

[AAFMIAMI]

that was fast!

[AAFMIAMI]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Perhaps the problem is with your valuation of 60k. According to soldboats.com the last time a Morgan sold for 60k was a 41' in 2003. A 41' now typically sells between 18k and 35k.

LOL ... I am not sure how that goes in your country... Or the boats for sale at that .com that you do your shopping at... I even agree there are all kinds of prices and "all kinds" of boats and all kinds of buyers! LOL
I saw a Morgan 41 for $8,000 , another one for $12,000 and from that to $140,000 everywhere in between! But I did research it only for 8 months and went to see 17 of them for sale!
I know that my Morgan 41, the one I purchased after those 8 months is perfectly priced according to the make year and conservation! Looking better than some new ones!

Furthermore that was never the problem!
The problem is that we all are used to, manipulated, conditioned into accept whatever insurance companies tell us to... By thinking that we have no choice other than swallowing their inconsiderate terms and abusive conditions they impose whatever they want and we pay for it and right There is where the whole problem roots at! But that is conversation for another forum

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Bulawayo

If this were correct can you explain my situation? I am a CASA and RYA Ocean Master, my cat was four years old, had been just the year before surveyed, and was owned by ourselves since new. The incident happened on the hard in Turkey.
My belief, which appears to be borne out by other postings is that the different offices operate in various ways with their own 'nuances'.
I have heard of varying levels of good service from Panty and some stories that are shocking. My own experience was not good and when I escalated it to the German H.O. office they ran for the trenches - they simply deferred everything back to the Monaco office. Not helpful and not anything like the customer service they should have provided. That was enough for me to avoid them ever since - shirking their responsibilities is not not acceptable. For those in less fortunate position than myself the events could have had even more consequences.

I use Monaco office and I had a very good experience with them when my boat was rammed violently while at anchor some years back. I talked directly with someone in Monaco (even if my insurance agent was Italian), through email and by telephone and they were outstanding in more ways than one.

Not only they were disposed to repair the boat immediately even if the fault was not mine as, after inspection, they would allow me to continue with my cruise (the accident was in June) till October and then to repair the boat on the shipyard of my choosing (the official shipyard for service regarding my boat brand).

In the end they forced the company of the big motorboat involved (one from Palermo, Sicily) to pay for everything on a very generous way (I had independent witnesses of the accident and had reported it to the Italian coast guard).

In your case it was not the shipyard insurance that should have paid the damage? Regarding problems with the boats and insurances local surveyors that work for the insurance company can have a big importance on the way things are done or conducted.

It is understandable that a company can have a lot of trust on somebody that has worked for them on a reliable way for many years and would not be willing to hear the other version, if it is a different one.

Maybe you had bad luck with the local surveyor/agent or maybe Yeloya is right and they are changing. Maybe they have become too big and equal to all other companies. I hope not

[undercutter]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Damn that's harsh...!!
You've just disillusioned hundreds of folk out there Monte..

Can't stop laughing.

[Bulawayo]

Im happy you had a decent experience - perhaps they have improved since my own experience, or perhaps I was unlucky with the German insurance assessor whom was responsible for making the recommendations etc. However, it does not change the way that the German HO or the Monaco outlet dealt with the matter subsequently. I have heard positive comments about other offices of Panties. Perhaps its all down to the responsible individuals and how their day has been going. I wont believe that myself - I still believe that Monaco Panties sucks and shall stay clear of the whole organisation in the future. At the time they were the insurance company that I favoured in the belief that they were utterly honourable. That was a mistake.
My boat was damaged and it was down to the insurance company to recover the money from the boatyard - it was not for me to tackle the yard; that was what I was paying insurance for.

Originally Posted by Polux

I use Monaco office and I had a very good experience with them when my boat was rammed violently while at anchor some years back. I talked directly with someone in Monaco (even if my insurance agent was Italian), through email and by telephone and they were outstanding in more ways than one.

Not only they were disposed to repair the boat immediately even if the fault was not mine as, after inspection, they would allow me to continue with my cruise (the accident was in June) till October and then to repair the boat on the shipyard of my choosing (the official shipyard for service regarding my boat brand).

In the end they forced the company of the big motorboat involved (one from Palermo, Sicily) to pay for everything on a very generous way (I had independent witnesses of the accident and had reported it to the Italian coast guard).

In your case it was not the shipyard insurance that should have paid the damage? Regarding problems with the boats and insurances local surveyors that work for the insurance company can have a big importance on the way things are done or conducted.

It is understandable that a company can have a lot of trust on somebody that has worked for them on a reliable way for many years and would not be willing to hear the other version, if it is a different one.

Maybe you had bad luck with the local surveyor/agent or maybe Yeloya is right and they are changing. Maybe they have become too big and equal to all other companies. I hope not

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Bulawayo

If this were correct can you explain my situation? I am a CASA and RYA Ocean Master, my cat was four years old, had been just the year before surveyed, and was owned by ourselves since new. The incident happened on the hard in Turkey.
My belief, which appears to be borne out by other postings is that the different offices operate in various ways with their own 'nuances'.
I have heard of varying levels of good service from Panty and some stories that are shocking. My own experience was not good and when I escalated it to the German H.O. office they ran for the trenches - they simply deferred everything back to the Monaco office. Not helpful and not anything like the customer service they should have provided. That was enough for me to avoid them ever since - shirking their responsibilities is not not acceptable. For those in less fortunate position than myself the events could have had even more consequences.

Rings too many bells about insurance Companies, I have always been stitched up by them. There's an old saying to the effect that if you need insurance, you can't get it, then if you don't need it, they are daggers drawn fighting to sell you a Policy, and if they can't sell you a Policy, they make it compulsory to have one.

I had house insurance in 1978 (and years prior). Had a break in over Christmas while I was away, and whoever broke in, used a sledgehammer to smash the lock for entry. Apart from all the stuff stolen, the mess they made was appalling.

House insurance? Sorry, you aren't covered, they used a sledgehammer to get in.

I've not had house insurance since (and not needed it). Their loss.

I don't think it will be that long, before there are no insurance companies left in business.

When I get my boat (not long now), I'll get the minimum cover required to get it home. I'll pay the premium monthly too, in case they all fail while I am travelling (not unlikely).

PS This not needing insurance has served me well over the years in buying all manner of stuff. If you can get a 12 month guarantee and no longer, the stuff dies any point from 12 months on (frequently within 14 months). If you can get a 5 year extended warranty, buy the kit, don't waste the money on the insurance (they hate paying out so it obviously lasts a lot longer, and most kit that fails does so within the first three months anyway, and you are covered for that), and you will probably find that the kit does 10 years standing on its head, and even a fair bit longer. Fellow workshop engineers with Thorn-Emi worked this out in the 1970's.

[Bulawayo]

Hi Ribbit, sadly, these experiences are not unusual. Its a pity that they are not more regulated. They claim if they are further regulated that the costs shall go up - utter tosh, of course, and not that they need any excuses to do so.

From what I have been told there are some decent insurance company's around and perhaps its even more critical to have a reliable broker. I believe my present broker is good but have not had any claims.
My experience with Panty Monaco and their HO in Germany was not good. I have pondered this before and concluded that this was because they did not have simple recourse to recover their costs from a third party. Frankly, they proved unreliable, uncommunicative and outright obstructive in every action. The German HO could not be bothered to assist as they were trying every tactic to avoid their responsibilities. I really cannot speak badly enough of them. This might have been a number of years ago but it still irritates.

Originally Posted by Ribbit

Rings too many bells about insurance Companies, I have always been stitched up by them. There's an old saying to the effect that if you need insurance, you can't get it, then if you don't need it, they are daggers drawn fighting to sell you a Policy, and if they can't sell you a Policy, they make it compulsory to have one.

I had house insurance in 1978 (and years prior). Had a break in over Christmas while I was away, and whoever broke in, used a sledgehammer to smash the lock for entry. Apart from all the stuff stolen, the mess they made was appalling.

House insurance? Sorry, you aren't covered, they used a sledgehammer to get in.

I've not had house insurance since (and not needed it). Their loss.

I don't think it will be that long, before there are no insurance companies left in business.

When I get my boat (not long now), I'll get the minimum cover required to get it home. I'll pay the premium monthly too, in case they all fail while I am travelling (not unlikely).

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by AAFMIAMI

LOL ... I am not sure how that goes in your country... Or the boats for sale at that .com that you do your shopping at...

soldboats.com is the reporting arm of Yacht World. Every boat listed on Yacht World is required to have the actual sales data reported when sold. They take that data and post it on soldboats .com Both Yacht World and soldboats.com are US companies. The numbers I mentioned were all actual sales (not listing prices) of US boats.

[ambloplites]

I had the exact same experience with Pant as the OP did. I was looking into Pant because I heard good things about them. I filled in the request for a quote, explained quite clearly what my experience was (not a trifle), description of my boat, that I had a recent survey that I could provide, where I am currently located, a detailed description of what my near and long-term sailing plans were, etc. I received the exact same response from Pant (I did not meet specific underwriter guidelines). OK, no problem, I figured I'd just go with someone else; it's just another form of shopping. But, I did request a clarification of what guidelines I did not come up to snuff on, so that, maybe, I could rectify that in the future. What I received back was absolutely nothing. Not even a short note to say they don't share that info. Nothing. Personally, I think that it was all quite rude. Certainly my business isn't going to break their bank, but I will not ever give Pant a good word, nor will I ever seek their business again in the future. I absolutely understand and empathize with the frustration that the OP and others have had with Pant. They talk a good line, but they don't walk it.

[hellosailor]

Every insurer, marine, home, auto or medical, whatever, is either a "mutual assurance" company owned by the policyholders, or more commonly a for-profit corporation. And in both cases, they all try to ensure some profit level by having many many trade secrets regarding how and who they will issue policies to.


BoatUS (at least used to) deny coverage if your first purchase was over 30' long and 30 years old. Even if you had experience and credentials. Many home insurance companies will cover your boat, sure, up to 28' OAL. Or some other limit, and you may get a real laugh out of the appraiser they send out to look for damage--who won't suggest a haul unless you ask for it.


Some companies try to set really tight limits on who they insure, so they'll have less claims to pay. Others just make it real hard to collect anything. About ten years ago, a NYTimes interview with a retired executive for one of the largest medical insurers in the US said their claims reps were told to simply reject every fifth claim, without cause. Because the company knew 2/3 of the policyholders would never appeal it, so that was a big chunk of money they never would have to pay out.


A fraternal group asked me to get a quote from "their" chosen insurer for my car. It was literally 3x what my policy was, for the same coverage. You know why they chose that company? Because that company pays huge referral fees. Nice, huh?


If you want cheap insurance to fulfill "paper" needs, you shop cheap. If you want a company with a reputation for paying out honest claims, doing professional surveys, and charging reasonable rates for whatever situation you are in?


Then you need to find a professional, reputable BROKER who has dealt with them all, and knows which one(s) might provide the service you need. And whatever that costs, that's what that level of service is going to cost, if the broker is a competitive professional.


Which is why so many folks say "Call Al Golden at IMIS". He's had that reputation for what, 30 years now? There must be others, but Al's a good place to start.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Every insurer, marine, home, auto or medical, whatever, is either a "mutual assurance" company owned by the policyholders, or more commonly a for-profit corporation. And in both cases, they all try to ensure some profit level by having many many trade secrets regarding how and who they will issue policies to.


BoatUS (at least used to) deny coverage if your first purchase was over 30' long and 30 years old. Even if you had experience and credentials. Many home insurance companies will cover your boat, sure, up to 28' OAL. Or some other limit, and you may get a real laugh out of the appraiser they send out to look for damage--who won't suggest a haul unless you ask for it.


Some companies try to set really tight limits on who they insure, so they'll have less claims to pay. Others just make it real hard to collect anything. About ten years ago, a NYTimes interview with a retired executive for one of the largest medical insurers in the US said their claims reps were told to simply reject every fifth claim, without cause. Because the company knew 2/3 of the policyholders would never appeal it, so that was a big chunk of money they never would have to pay out.
....

If you want cheap insurance to fulfill "paper" needs, you shop cheap. If you want a company with a reputation for paying out honest claims, doing professional surveys, and charging reasonable rates for whatever situation you are in?
...

Basically an insurance company provides a service but it is expected that overall it has a profit, so the service they provide has to deal with that in general terms.

Regarding what they insure or not and the price they will take for that they can have basically two policies:

No trade secrets and they insure everybody for the same price regarding size of the boat and in that case the ones that will have less claims than average will be at a loss, regarding price of insurance or service provided regarding a claim.

Or they use their experience regarding many years on the business to determine which are the cases and groups (of owners and boats) that will be less prone to make claims and they offer a better deal to those (in price or service), give a worse insurance price to others and to some they will just not be interested, considering the risk to big for any reasonable price.

The reasons of their choices in what regards policies is at the center of their business that is providing a good and efficient service and to have a profit and they are not going to make it public, also for not offending someone that has not the same views they have regarding risks regarding insuring a given boat or sailor.

Off course, they can be wrong regarding the risk, but it is their business and they will run it the way they see it should be run and they are entitled to do it. If they would not run it in a way that will satisfy most clients, than they will be in trouble.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by ambloplites

I had the exact same experience with Pant as the OP did. I was looking into Pant because I heard good things about them. I filled in the request for a quote, explained quite clearly what my experience was (not a trifle), description of my boat, that I had a recent survey that I could provide, where I am currently located, a detailed description of what my near and long-term sailing plans were, etc. I received the exact same response from Pant (I did not meet specific underwriter guidelines). OK, no problem, I figured I'd just go with someone else; it's just another form of shopping. But, I did request a clarification of what guidelines I did not come up to snuff on, so that, maybe, I could rectify that in the future. What I received back was absolutely nothing. Not even a short note to say they don't share that info. Nothing. Personally, I think that it was all quite rude. Certainly my business isn't going to break their bank, but I will not ever give Pant a good word, nor will I ever seek their business again in the future. I absolutely understand and empathize with the frustration that the OP and others have had with Pant. They talk a good line, but they don't walk it.

Hmmmm... velly intelesting...!!
Eulopean no ploblem insulance.. Amelican velly bad sea man so must pay much ovah top..

[JPA Cate]

^^^
Or, perhaps Americans are more litigation-prone? or more likely to abandon ship unnecessarily?

[Lizzy Belle]

Try getting insurance as a solo sailor. Easy enough if I stay close to home, but as soon as we're talking 'cruising', nobody wants your business (risk) ...

Which is funny, considering, cos a brand new and very expensive boat with an inexperienced crew of 2 or more will get happily accepted - an expensive risk.
Solo sailor on a cheap boat which is of no real risk to any company no matter what: no joy.

Oh, woe is me ...

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

Try getting insurance as a solo sailor. Easy enough if I stay close to home, but as soon as we're talking 'cruising', nobody wants your business (risk) ...

Which is funny, considering, cos a brand new and very expensive boat with an inexperienced crew of 2 or more will get happily accepted - an expensive risk.
Solo sailor on a cheap boat which is of no real risk to any company no matter what: no joy.

Oh, woe is me ...

That's because solo experienced sailors on old bluewater boats tend to be fearless sailors and know that their bluewater old boat can face any sea conditions while an inexperienced crew of two on a very expensive new boat tend to be wimps that are afraid of sailing in anything than in fair weather.

Besides that they seem to think that new boats, even if mass production ones, tend to sink less than old ones, as if older boats were not much better built and more seaworthy.

Yes that's dificult to understand some of those policies