Pantaenius insurance deck fittings interpretation

[Monkenstien]

Hi All,

I’m relatively new to the sailing world and early last year I purchased a Duncanson 35. She’s a great boat with a solid hull and u have been spending my weekends doing a minor refit and general maintenance.

Unfortunately someone collided with the vessel while she was on here swing Mooring and did some a fair bit of damage to the pushpit. They took off without leaving a note and left me to deal with it and ultimately pay the bill. I have comprehensive insurance through Pantaenius and thought that there would be no real issues making an insurance claim.

Upon speaking with the claims office I have been made aware of a number of “clauses” in the contract that will allow the insurance company to deduct 30% plus deductible on the cost of fabrication a new pushpit if the old one cannot be repaired.

As I’m rather new to the sailing scene I just have a question as to what a deck fitting is? I was under the impression that the pushpit is a deck fitting for insurance purposes? Am I incorrect?

The insurance contract states

12. WORDS WITH SPECIAL MEANING
Hull
Means the hull, deck, cabin, deck fixtures and fittings on or below the deck of your Vessel.

This is in relation to a deduction for new for lease clause that states if the part is older than 2 years old and needs to be replaced with a new part(in my case fabrication of a new pushpit) then the insurer will deduct 30% of the replacement cost. But “ The deduction will not be applied to labour costs, or to the repair of the basic Hull and deck structures of the Vessel.”

So basically of the pushpit is deemed a basic deck or hull structure then they should pay the full amount for the repair.

Anyway long story short they are saying that the pushpit does not come under the basic hull and deck structure and I am therefor liable to pay the 30%

Insurance is a necessary evil to have your boat moored but I feel that they always go out of there way to screw your down and dig in on paying out ect.

As the old adage goes your only insured until you make a claim

[chrisr]

sorry but have to agree that a pushpit should not be considered a basic deck or hull structure

(please don't let anyone know that i have agreed with an insurance co...i'll never live it down !)

cheers,

[Brioche]

Having spent a lot of time litigating against insurance companies I can only say that your reading could well be right but your chances of getting any relief are slim. But it is also true that reading just two sentences out of a policy is not enough to be sure your interpretation is correct. Other words would need to be defined, such as "fixtures". Fixtures are usually things that can be removed or replaced, but once attached remain in place and become part of the whole. For example, a mast is not a fixture because it can be, and often is, unstepped and stepped as part of routine maintenance or storage. From that standpoint the pushpit would seem to be a fixture. This also makes sense because fixtures, being worst of permanent, don't wear out, so there would be no reason to deduct 30% cost for wear and tear. Of course, there may be other things in the policy that cut against you. Interpretation of insurance policies is a very complex process. Bottom line though is that the insurance company gets to pay what they feel like and your only recourse would be to take them to court, and that would cost more than the 30% replacement cost of the pushpit. As you recognize, insurance is a necessary evil and insurers are in the comfortable position of taking money up front and deciding whether to deliver the goods after the fact.

[Shrew]

I would not consider the pushpit to be part of the deck or hull, nor would I consider it a deck fitting. In fact, I'd consider the pushpit an optional feature. The absence of the pushpit would not impact the existence or function or the deck, railings, cleat or the ability to sail the vessel.

IMHO, this would be similar to radar arch.

[hpeer]

Brioche gives an excellent answer I can not improve upon. In part this is one luxury of an old and cheap boat, I can afford to not need hull insurance. Screw ‘em.

I would like to think on the example of the mast Brioche used. If a mast is not a “fitting” because it is essential to the boats main function, part of its fundamental design, then so would be the chain plates, deck attachments and the bow sprit, for it supports the mast in a fundamental manner. They function together as a system, not independently.

It should then follow that a push pit is also a fundamental element of design and function, not some additional fitting. PROVIDED the mizzen and push pit were part of the original design, not added on.

It would be interesting to hear how some other items might be classified. For example is a CLEAT a deck fitting?

[Monkenstien]

Thanks for the reply yes I agree I don’t have much recourse. It’s frustrating I find the wording to be vague enough to be interpreted in different ways which I suppose is what the insurance companies want. They are there after all just to make money. You are right I’ll just have to suck it up and pay the extra. It’s depressing though

[Monkenstien]

It’s interesting I have read a number of Marine insurance contracts from other insurance providers and they all have a more descriptive definition of what fixture and fittings are for example.

NRMA insurance

Hull
The hull is:
• the frame or body of your boat
• deck
• cabin
• fixtures and fittings that are permanently attached to your boat – for example, winches, a fixed fridge, fixed fishing rod holders, railings and any GPS or fish finder that is permanently wired in.

Nautilus Insurance

Hull
means the shell of the Boat(s), deck, fixtures and fittings either on or below deck that are not normally removable and would normally be sold with the Boat(s).

New wave Marine insurance

Hull means the hull, deck, cabin, deck fixtures and fittings on or below the deck of your Boat that are not normally removable and would normally be sold with the boat.

It seems that all the insurance contracts I have found seem to say that if the part is not normally removable and would be usually sold with the boat then it would be considered as part of the hull. I feel I’m right but he reality is that does not matter. They decide if they will pay up and also how much.

Pantaenius insurance

Hull
Means the hull, deck, cabin, deck fixtures and fittings on or below the deck of your Vessel.

Very vague,

Anyway I think I will be changing insurance companies once this claim is finalised, insurance as a few of you have said is a necessary evil unfortunately. They have also implied that I’ll be lucky if it is approved?? I already have a High deductible of $2500Aud so for example assume the repairs cost $10000 minus $2500 $7500 -30% =$2250 I’ll get a measly $5250 so I’ll be out of pocket about 50% best case scenario. The thing that gets me is they advertise the new for old as a benefit??? The reality is it means you automatically lose 30% of your claim reimbursement.

Their underwriters are Chubb insurance and they obviously do as much as they can to refuse such payouts where they are unlikely to recuperate their costs. I know they run a business but it’s a shady business that’s for sure.

[letsgetsailing3]

You're getting more from them than you paid in, right?

[Monkenstien]

Yes I suppose but that’s not the point, you have a contract, a promise to pay, an agreement. What’s the point of having an agreement if you don’t stick to it.

It’s a bit like your boss saying to you after that weeks hard work that they have decided to pay you only 50% of what you agreed. Sure they are still paying you, but not what you agreed.

Common man that a ridiculous statement. Are you a boat insurance rep?

It’s a simple process if your Going to sell a product ie boat insurance stop putting lipstick on a pig