Buying insurance worth it?

[rourkeh]

I am looking at selling my current boat and buying an older $250,000 Motoryacht.
Always had a boat, always lived in hurricane zone, always had insurance.
I am currently living in St Maarten and will keep the new boat here..
Problem since Irma and Maria is a lot of the insurance companies are getting out of marine insurance in the hurricane zone. The pre-irma cost of insuring $250k value would have been around $3k-$4k a year, now the quotes I am receiving are $8k-$10k a year with named storm deductible of 25% of value. In addition partial loss covers depreciated value of equipment and fixtures so if my boat has a fire or similar partial loss all of the destroyed items will be covered at their depreciated value not new for old. All insurance companies do this and it means that I would get about 50 cents on the dollar in partial loss situation. If there is a storm here I would move the boat so I am not concerned about hurricane damage. When I look at these numbers it is not making sense to buy full coverage insurance, unless I anticipate a total loss.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "So...you don't believe that a marine insurer ever gamed a customer on a claim? "

In a discussion which some of us have tried to contribute to on the basis of reason rather than emotion, slang terms such as "gaming" (used to mean "deliberately defrauding") obviously has no place and only makes it additionally difficult for the naive to learn what they need to know.

I am sure we all understand that insurance underwriters employ adjusters and that the job of an adjuster is, specifically, to DENY claims where that is possible by virtue of "breach of contract", i.e. where the INSURED has either 1) not met HIS obligations under the contract, or 2) made a FRAUDULENT claim. Be glad that it is so! Otherwise the premiums would have to increase limitlessly to enable underwriters to offer insurance at all, given the number of insureds who would then unblushingly "game" the insurers.

It is incumbent on all of us, particularly those of us who live in or have dealings with denizens of exorbitantly litigious societies, to have at least a nodding acquaintance with "the law of contract" as well as many other legal matters, including the specific legal meanings of words and phrases that are used by reasonable men and women to define and specify the way they govern their affairs, and the way they deal with each other and protect themselves against the many who are not reasonable. Slack-ass use of those words and phrases, and the use of the "vernacular" in circumstances when that is injurious to the attainment of understanding, is, as far as I can see, the very root of litigiousness and - ultimately - the cause of breakdown of civilized society.

TP

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

So...you don't believe that a marine insurer ever gamed a customer on a claim?

If you will read what I wrote, you will see that I specifically discussed this.

Of course bad insurers will do this from time to time. If you take the trouble to do the research and choose a good insurance company, and you're not too cheap to pay a little extra to use a good one versus a shady one, then this is unlikely ab initio.

But even with a bad insurer -- if you know what your policy says and what it means, and if you complied with it, then the insurer, bad or good, is legally obligated to pay the claim. The "gaming" of customers is done almost exclusively with ignorant customers. Those, for example, who don't even try to understand what the policy really means.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Quote: "So...you don't believe that a marine insurer ever gamed a customer on a claim? "

In a discussion which some of us have tried to contribute to on the basis of reason rather than emotion, slang terms such as "gaming" (used to mean "deliberately defrauding") obviously has no place and only makes it additionally difficult for the naive to learn what they need to know.

I am sure we all understand that insurance underwriters employ adjusters and that the job of an adjuster is, specifically, to DENY claims where that is possible by virtue of "breach of contract", i.e. where the INSURED has either 1) not met HIS obligations under the contract, or 2) made a FRAUDULENT claim. Be glad that it is so! Otherwise the premiums would have to increase limitlessly to enable underwriters to offer insurance at all, given the number of insureds who would then unblushingly "game" the insurers.

It is incumbent on all of us, particularly those of us who live in or have dealings with denizens of exorbitantly litigious societies, to have at least a nodding acquaintance with "the law of contract" as well as many other legal matters, including the specific legal meanings of words and phrases that are used by reasonable men and women to define and specify the way they govern their affairs, and the way they deal with each other and protect themselves against the many who are not reasonable. Slack-ass use of those words and phrases, and the use of the "vernacular" in circumstances when that is injurious to the attainment of understanding, is, as far as I can see, the very root of litigiousness and - ultimately - the cause of breakdown of civilized society.

TP

Another very good post () and another very small remark --

Note that not all small breaches of the insurance policy by the insured will invalidate the coverage. In most cases if the breach is not related to the damage, the coverage will still be effective. This does not apply to a large breach like not paying your premium . The extent to which a breach by the insured may invalidate the coverage varies according to the country and state (regulations may apply), and according to the policy. It's one of the really important things worth knowing about your policy.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "The extent to which a breach by the insured may invalidate the coverage varies..."

Absolutely! Now, it's a very long time ago, and what little I know derives from Pommeyland, but I seem to recall that a distinction is made twixt "willful" breach and "inadvertent" breach. In my (limited) direct experience, an insurer faced with an inadvertent and trivial breach by the insured - an "amatoor" - is as likely to go: "Oops! Let's fix this while we are at it." as he is to deny the claim, at least where meeting the claim is less expensive than it would be to go to law. Obvious "gaming" will of course - and rightly - elicit a different response.

But maybe we've beat up on the poor OP long enuff ;-)?

TP