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

[longjonsilver]

Not about Pantaenius in particular but insurance companies in general. Mr. Denninger states it far better than i ever could, so i will post his comment

Originally Posted by Kark Denninger

Since insurance firms are regulated as to their maximum profit margin the only way they can make more money is for the total amount spent through them to increase. This is the essence of Rick Scott's statement and it's absolutely true no matter the form of insurance. As another example while car insurance companies will never tell you this (because you might burn the building to the ground and eat your insurance agent for lunch) they want you to buy more cars with more expensive collision repair costs -- more often. They're even happier when you have more crashes so long as they're survivable. The insurance industry loved both seatbelts and airbags -- and lobbied heavily to make both mandatory (along with passing mandatory seatbelt use laws in the states) because they made more-severe crashes survivable and thus not only did the amount of money that went through the insurance company go up on the present crash you would continue to be their customer after the crash and buy another car instead of being dead and never buying car insurance again.

IIHS crash-tests vehicles. They rate them on survivability. In point of fact the way they advocate reducing the force vectors for the people inside is to absorb more of it in the vehicle and they're perfectly fine with the entire vehicle being destroyed. In crashes that would not be lethal (either with or without "modern" vehicle design) this greatly increases the monetary damage to the car. They're very open about this ("the car gave its life for the people") but not about why, and it has nothing to do with you. The economic incentives are for crashes to continually be more and more expensive -- in fact insurance companies want even modest crashes to be "totals" -- so the amount of money that flows through the auto insurance companies continually goes up. Likewise the automakers don't care because the more vehicles are totaled in collisions the more money they make. The only thing neither wants is dead people because dead people don't buy any more cars -- or insurance.

These entities all say they want more auto safety but the facts are that to grow their business they must have more cash-flow that goes through them, which means they either need more crashes, more expensive crashes or both -- so long as the operator survives. Therefore the more damage the vehicle takes the better -- so long as you live.

This is part of a longer essay and the relevant part - this part - is about 1/3 of the way down. Read the whole essay to understand why it pertains to the racketeering part of my previous comment.

Here is the whole essay:

In-Your-Face Felonies, Willfully Ignored in [Market-Ticker]

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by longjonsilver

Not about Pantaenius in particular but insurance companies in general. Mr. Denninger states it far better than i ever could, so i will post his comment



This is part of a longer essay and the relevant part - this part - is about 1/3 of the way down. Read the whole essay to understand why it pertains to the racketeering part of my previous comment.

Here is the whole essay:

In-Your-Face Felonies, Willfully Ignored in [Market-Ticker]

How does this apply to marine insurance? His statement that insurance company profits are regulated may apply to US health and auto insurance. It does not apply to marine insurance.

[hellosailor]

singularity-
"I swear that the insurance companies, et al, have figured out the metric "how often we (the insurance company) have to pay out claims in a glorious fashion so that the supermajority of people who have never filed a claim will hear the glory stories and side with [Goliath]."
It is not your imagination. Maybe 20 years ago the New York Times, that scandalous source of inflammatory false news [sic] ran a series about the medical insurance industry in the US. And a former claims rep for one of the largest insurers told them, on the record, that at least in their office, they had been specifically instructed to simply reject every fifth claim they received, without looking into it.
That would automatically give them an extra 20% profit. But, the insurer also told the reps, they did this because they knew that only one in three rejections would ever be appealed, so they were still making over a 13% profit this way, no matter how those appeals eventually went. And of course, earning money by paying out in 90 days instead of 30.
I don't say this is true of all insurers, but they certainly have the same options and incentives both pro and con. "Mutual assurance companies" as opposed to "insurance companies" used to be fully owned by their policy holders and in theory were fairer because of this. These days? Nope. The executives are the only ones who call the shots, the shareholders (policy holders) are just rubes.

I've always wondered about the "acts of God" exclusions. Does that mean the insurer KNOWS there is only one God? Which one? As if it couldn't be Satan or a band of evil angels or just some po'd elves that cut the lines? Or should the Pope call Zeus to find out whether he lost a lightning bolt?
"acts of God" just seems to be so vague that it has to be unenforceable if anyone applies logic to it. Unless there's some weaselwording in the contract that says "shall be defined as...and includes all deities, preternatural entities, and disruptions in The Force".

[Paul L]

An Act of God has nothing to do with a religous god, but you knew that.

Wex
ALL PAGESARTICLESESPAÑOLINBOX PROJECTSEARCHFAQ
Act of God
At common law, an overwhelming event caused exclusively by natural forces whose effects could not possibly be prevented (e.g., flood, earthquake, tornado). In modern jurisdictions, "act of God" is often broadened by statute to include all natural phenomena whose effects could not be prevented by the exercise of reasonable care and foresight.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/act_of_god

In legal usage throughout the English-speaking world, an act of God[1] is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible. An act of God may amount to an exception to liability in contracts (as under the Hague–Visby Rules);[2] or it may be an "insured peril" in an insurance policy.[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

[ArmyDaveNY]

Would it help if we used force majeure instead?