posting to forums may invalidate your insurance

[ozsailer]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I am skeptical of this story as described.


1) Replacing a relay "incorrectly" is ordinarily not something that leads to significant risk of fire.
2) Many if not most cruisers perform minor electrical work themselves; few are "qualified marine electricians"



I would imagine than there is much more to the story.


That said, insurance helps mitigate certain losses; the protection it provides is never absolute. Nowhere is this more true than with boats. It is my observation that unfair practices and outright fraud are rampant on he part of insurance companies and boat owners alike.

You stated "replacing a relay incorrectly ordinarily does not cause a fire". I am glad you used the word ordinarily. A relay replaced incorrectly or wired incorrectly can most definitely lead to a fire. Obviously there are many situations that can lead to such an event and way to numerous to mention. I believe you are right on the mark in regard to insurance fraud on both sides.


Ozsailer

[ozsailer]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

That's what warnings, caution statements and disclaimers are for, like "Not for use in actual navigation."

At the end of a post, you simply write something like "The preceding is not intended as advice for anyone under any circumstances ever."

Best to use an all-encompassing statement. Otherwise you could end up like the Italian motorcycle manufacturer Aprilia, who [at one time] actually included the following in the manual for their 250cc racing bike:

"Warning: Do not eat motorcycle parts."

Unfortunatley Sean, a warning on a product is not normally worth the paper it is written on here in Oz. I have seen a sign on a battery which stated "Dont drink the battery fluid" go figure

Ozsailer

[ebs001]

Originally Posted by Dogscout

So the dude replaced the relay incorrectly, it caught fire and he does not want to take responsibility for his screwup and wants his insurance to pay out for his shoddy work. Is that what I read?

The OP was unclear who replaced the relay. It is also unclear if the relay was improperly wired or that it really was the cause of the fire. The whole story is second hand and there are a lot of unanswered questions. The OP's original point was that asking questions in an online forum can lead to insurance companies denying your claim.

[moseriw]

Originally Posted by PaulCrawhorn

Who uses their IRL name to post online?

Stupid

Because a few people want to bind themselfes in honor for the things they say?

[Seapig]

EBS001 is exactly correct, the only point of all this is that asking for advice online can lead to insurance refusing to pay out.


Many people use their real names on forums or can be identified by their boat names. Several in this thread alone. Anyone doing this should probably change it. Facebook postings in particular are mostly real names.



My understanding is that the relay had been replaced long before the incident and had worked fine. It was simply being used as an excuse by the insurance company.



The insured did eventually get his money from the company but he had to hire a lawyer to get it.
If the story is made up then the person who told me is a very good story teller. There were many consistent details and there was no obvious benefit to him in telling me.

[SeanPatrick]

Wouldn't do me much good to change my name here. It's all over my website and spreadsheet, which are linked below. I did that for copyright purposes [obviously]. And this website is the biggest source of traffic for me. (44% YTD) Not that it really matters, I'm literally not making any money from it.

Besides that, I try hard not to say anything I'd regret saying on any forum. Or in public ... or in private, for that matter. I make mistakes, probably more often than most. But it's never something I wouldn't own up to. As others have suggested: if we all used our real names, it might make more people think harder before hitting "Submit Reply". Especially if they're thinking of cashing in on a questionable insurance claim. IDK.

The views and opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of Cook Navigation™ or its subsidiaries.

PS
Thank you, Adelie and whoever else was involved in fixing the http linking problem! The link to NavList in my sig works now!

[Dogscout]

In the insurance policy for my boat.

Listed in What Is Not Covered.

The cost of replacing or repairing any part due to Hidden Defects, faulty design or
construction or faulty workmanship.

Under Meaning of Words
Hidden Defects
A hidden flaw in the construction or material of the Craft or part of the Craft that is not
discoverable by using reasonable care. "I include this just for reference."

Your duty of care
You must take all reasonable precautions to:
– Maintain the Craft and equipment in a proper state of repair and seaworthiness;
and
– Safeguard the Craft from loss or damage

g) Other Exclusions
– Damage caused by wear and tear.
– Faulty workmanship, design or materials or Hidden Defects.
– Gradual deterioration, marine life, electrolysis, osmosis.
– Corrosion, rust, dampness, normal wetting.
– Mechanical or electrical breakdown.
– Loss or damage due to ice, freezing or extremes of temperature.
– Damage which existed prior to the effective date of this insurance.
– Any consequential damages or loss of use.
– The Policy is void if Your Craft is used for any illegal purposes.
– Any fines or penalties.
– Any damage, loss or liability deliberately caused by the wrongful acts or wilful
mis-conduct of any insured person.
– Theft, unless followed by forcible and violent entry.


My point is that it would be easy to determine Faulty Workmanship if non standard parts were used in a repair. EX. UL or CE listed and especially parts or equipment installed by someone who is not a professional. Lets just say a fire caused by a Chinese diesel heater that was installed by the owner. or a improperly sized electrical component like a switch or fuse.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by billgewater

Insurance. Its intention is to guarantee the survival and prosperity of the insurers. Consider: -
If you make a successful claim, generally the repair agents (boat yard etc.) will lift the quote cost as they know the insurers usually have no competent assessors – or they pass on these other costs to you anyway. That increase in repair costs means that your premiums will go up. You have made a claim, been naughty, so you cop a whack.

If there is a major claims event (cyclone, flooding, marina fire) then due to the sudden extra demand for scarce qualified repair staff, the overall quality of the repairs must go down. Or you wait for ages to get anything done. Anecdotes don’t count here.

The more items you have insured (house, car, boat, health, income, family jewels etc.) then from a simple mathematical stance the less chance you have of overall justification for any insurance. That’s why the insurance companies survive and pay eye watering bonus handouts to management and work from grandiose buildings. It is the insurance companies that are assured of survival, not you.
Wonder why insurance companies never advertise their “return” rates to the insured? 3%, 10% ? Who knows? Probably an embarrassing %.

Some claim that they invest the premiums carefully and use the income from that source to cover the outgoing claim costs. Just ask what happened to AIG during the GFC and who bailed them out. Greed and really bad ethics has no bounds.

What insurance companies are really good at is market manipulation. E.g. cornering those who want/need insurance into a corner where they can’t act collectively and undercut the insurance companies. (Divide and conquer.)

In the marina I use there are about 100 boats. Probably paying about $2000 pa each for insurance - extremely rough conservative estimate. So over the 12 years I have been here that is about 100x2000x12 dollars $2 400 000. During that time one boat required assistance when it sprung a plank. Probably cost about $50 000 to $100000.Two or three boats had lightening hits and one of those really had big costs, but today, lightening cover, costs extra, and many owners select to not have it so it’s hard to include. Not a bad business, eh?

That’s a return to the insured community of about 2.4%. Even if I am out by a factor of 10 it’s still only 24%. So, the insurance company gets to keep over three quarters or more of the premiums. OK. This is not what happens when a cyclone hits a marina, but cyclones are, overall, a rarity. (Oh yes, many policies now exclude named storms anyway!)

Yes, they have costs and tax to pay (unless operating from the Caymans) but it still sounds like a rather juicy little earner to me.

Funnily therefore that fewer and fewer companies are writing sailing boat policies, around here it’s shrunk in recent years to a handful of companies.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Funnily therefore that fewer and fewer companies are writing sailing boat policies, around here it’s shrunk in recent years to a handful of companies.

"Unprecedented Losses
Boat owners across the Atlantic seaboard and inland to the Great Lakes were helpless to save their boats from Hurricane Sandy’s wrath, with an unprecedented number of boats ripped from their moorings or where they were kept ashore. The havoc wreaked by Sandy’s high winds – causing significant coastal and inland flooding – is expected to produce more than $6 billion in insurance claims."

Katrina, Matthew, Irma, Wilma, Dorian ........
Sounds like a risky business to me.

[sailingchiro]

So, if I run into another car or boat do to my stupidity, they don't have to pay?
Or, if I forget to put the oil cap back on the airplane and ruins the engine due to my negligence, they don't have to pay. Interesting.
I want to start my own insurance company. Anyone need insurance?

[TrentePieds]

I don't think these things are complicated enough to warrant long debates about details :-)!

There has been a trend in recent years to accommodate people whose language skills may be less than sterling. Thus the "wordings" - the terms of the contract - have been simplified so the section of the policy that covers what used to be headed "Risks" or "Coverage" is now headed by simple words such as "What we cover". The section that used to be headed "Exclusions" is now headed by simple words such as "What we DON'T cover".

Each section will set out in point form the "risks" (possible misfortunes) that either are or are not covered. These are the contractual terms on which the insured and the insurer make the bet. The paper "contract" is called "the policy", and that is where these things are found.

It is obviously the insured's (as well as the insurer's) responsibility to understand and comply with these contractual terms. If an insured is unsure about the meaning of any such contractual term, all he has to do is ask his insurance AGENT, i.e. the "betting shop" where he made the bet, of the office of the Insurer, what is meant by the term.

In addition to the Policy, there will be an "Insurance Certificate". That document is merely evidence that a Policy exists and is in force.

Someone made reference to Home Owner's Insurance, I think in New Zealand. That has no more relevance to yacht insurance in the U.S. than has the fact that automobile insurance in British Columbia is, by law, made available to all applicants by a Crown Corporation which was created years ago to protect "the common man" from the vagaries of having to deal with U.S based private sector "underwriters".

In response to the comment "...if I run into another car or boat do to my stupidity, they don't have to pay?" let's just give a nod to the difference between liability insurance what is commonly called "hull insurance". Liability insurance is the kind of insurance that "covers stupid" :-)!

Cheers

TrentePieds

[Shrew]

I'm calling BS on the story as told to the OP. I'm sure that the story of the insurance company is one this person is telling, I'm just not convinced.

The insurance company took the time to surf through hundreds of forums (which are designed to foster anonymity). They then were able to identifiably correlate a user name with a name and an account number.

When I went to High School there were three of us with the same First and Last name. Two of us spelled our first names the same. The guy who spelled his first name differently had the same middle initial as I did. Just google your first and last name and look how many hits you get on LinkedIn or Facebook or just plain Google.

Even if the insurance company had a name that matched a screenname, there is no way to guarantee it is the same person. They would have to somehow get the court to subpoena the user records from the forum to conclusively match the user name with the policy holder (if there was enough in the forum's user database to do so).

That whole thing sounds like an idiots conspiracy theory. I call BS.

[chasfgr]

Oh dear, insurers are being excoriated for the very basis on whixch insurance is based.


1. That the insured will take every effort to avoid the risk.
2. That all ACTs of God are excluded, like storms, and other natural events,



If you don't read the terms of insurance, don't blame insurers.
You can request a policy covereing all events - I doubt you'll get a reasonable quote.


If you don't like the terms, save your money and cover your own risks.
In view of the fact that insures mak a living out of offering cover, covering your own risks will IN THR LONG RUN, be chaepest.
The long run is probaly to be measured in centuries - expectation of which we cannot accept.


What does happen is that insures will use avery artifice to evade their responsibility and make you pay.
After all ythey are answerable to their shareholders - not their policyholders.

[Bycrick]

I guess I’ve just been blessed by good fortune. In every case that I’ve made an insurance claim for myself since 1960, I’ve had nothing but quick and fair settlements. The two claims for lightning damage were paid, in full, within 10 days of filing the final paperwork. In one case, the told me that my math was wrong, and paid me more than I’d asked for. In the several cases that I helped repair significant (over $50k) lightning damage, we filed the claim with a list of the damaged items and our proposed solutions. This list was updated every week as we made changes or progress. On several occasions, the insurance company asked why we were doing one thing instead of another. They accepted the justifications essentially without argument. All the claims were paid in full.

I don’t like writing a good-sized check for something I might never need. But I’ve never had to fight with an insurance company to get them to pay a legitimate claim.

[Marathon1150]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Someone made reference to Home Owner's Insurance, I think in New Zealand. That has no more relevance to yacht insurance in the U.S. than has the fact that automobile insurance in British Columbia is, by law, made available to all applicants by a Crown Corporation which was created years ago to protect "the common man" from the vagaries of having to deal with U.S based private sector "underwriters".


TrentePieds

Apologies for not being clear. My point re government intervention was in response to the notion that insurance companies bet with their clients, as do clients when they buy insurance. It is a gamble on both sides but the the companies hold a distinct advantage provided by the armies of actuaries that provide well quantified risk analysis of the gamble. When the risk is too high, or the profit associated with a given policy is too low, the insurance company declines the wager. This is the case in New Zealand with respect to earthquake insurance. The risk is high and the profits are marginal so government has to fill the void created by insurance companies reluctant to wager on an absence of EQs.

In 2019 it was very challenging to buy offshore boat insurance because of too many weather related marine losses caused by hurricanes and the like. Our "low value" boat was not of much interest to any insurance company to cover a Pacific crossing. We did find one eventually, that doubled the previous year's premium and imposed various restrictions regarding number and names of crew, distance from land in French Polynesia. The additional premium made the company's bet and its associated risk acceptable. Some people would have bet that insurance was unnecessary and travelled without it. We to pay and the company won the bet.