can insurance companies endanger lives?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I don't know what you're disagreeing with.

My point isnt' that you can't have a good experience with an insurance company. It's that when people frivolously sue insurance companies "just bacause", they aren't hurting the insurance companies, they're just raising the cost of insurance for others.

The point is that there is no "man". The man is just other people.

Oh I agree the OP has no basis for a claim anyway. He’s arguing from an entirely incorrect basis which I was arguing my point .

[the dude abides]

The surveyor as you pointed out is there to ascertain the condition of the boat. He told the insurance company I need 2 experts for that. That never happened so they never did ascertain the condition of the boat. They could have informed me. I asked repeatedly for the survey which under the insurance code they have a duty to supply, instead they had a meeting and decided not to tell me what their expert said. They kept it a secret and then offered me full insurance. They should have informed me or told me they cannot give me full insurance as these items have not been checked off or examined by an expert as our surveyor told us they need to be.

[the dude abides]

There is an Insurance Code that Pantaenius has signed up to. You can see it on the website front page clearly advertised. Both parties, the insurer and the insured have a duty to disclose all risks that are known to be associated with the insurable item in order to ascertain those risks. You think it is ok to offer someone full insurance when your own expert has said that 2 other experts are needed to complete the condition of the boat and they decide not to tell their client. They actually have a meeting and decide not to disclose the survey and not inform him. From a moral point of view do you think thats good business? Enough for the head of Pantaenius to state we are no1 for bluewater cruisers as we have experts all over the globe to support you?

[ItDepends]

Originally Posted by the dude abides

There is an Insurance Code that Pantaenius has signed up to. You can see it on the website front page clearly advertised. Both parties, the insurer and the insured have a duty to disclose all risks that are known to be associated with the insurable item in order to ascertain those risks. You think it is ok to offer someone full insurance when your own expert has said that 2 other experts are needed to complete the condition of the boat and they decide not to tell their client. They actually have a meeting and decide not to disclose the survey and not inform him. From a moral point of view do you think thats good business? Enough for the head of Pantaenius to state we are no1 for bluewater cruisers as we have experts all over the globe to support you?

Sorry you are not finding the validation you crave. You posted a question, most people disagree with you. You are not willing to listen. You might be right, but…

YOU alone are responsible for the safety of your boat on the ocean. If that is not acceptable, stay on shore and let a nanny keep you safe.

[the dude abides]

it is not about validation. It is about an experience I had that happened which there are lessons to be learned about insurance interactions particularly from my region which may be helpful to other people. I don't believe this to be common practice so it may aid people in an insurance claim. There are no doubt some people who have had great interactions, mine not so but it can be hard to know if you have never had any experience with insurance. I am not after validation, I am actually after 316L bolts. Cheers

[StuM]

Originally Posted by the dude abides

As much as I could since they would not reply to if they were liable for marina costs.

Did you read your policy? Either it says they will cover marina costs or it doesn't. If it does, it will be explicit as to how long for and under what circumstances it will pay them. If it doesn't, it is not covered by your insurance.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by the dude abides

There is an Insurance Code that Pantaenius has signed up to. You can see it on the website front page clearly advertised.

Which website front page is that? URL?


The front page I see just asks which country you are in and has no other information.

[the dude abides]

It is on the Australian site. That is my region. Different jurisdictions may have slightly different legal instruments but basically as in any agreement both parties are to come to the table with their hands clean and disclose relevant information, which of course is reasonable behaviour. That is signing up to the agreement and any agreement afterwards. I believe they were liable for marina fees. I did ask but received no reply. There were 6 other boats in the marina fixing from lightning strikes under their insurance, although those 6 all got hit in the same marina in the same storm. A bad night for lightning

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by the dude abides

The surveyor as you pointed out is there to ascertain the condition of the boat. He told the insurance company I need 2 experts for that. That never happened so they never did ascertain the condition of the boat. They could have informed me. I asked repeatedly for the survey which under the insurance code they have a duty to supply, instead they had a meeting and decided not to tell me what their expert said. They kept it a secret and then offered me full insurance. They should have informed me or told me they cannot give me full insurance as these items have not been checked off or examined by an expert as our surveyor told us they need to be.

We already have more than enough incidental costs associated with insuring a boat without you making it worse.

If you go the expert route we would need; a rigging expert to check the rig, a fibreglass fabrication expert to check the hull, an electrical expert the check the wiring, an instrumentation expert to check the instrumentation, an engine and gearbox expert etc. Just getting the survey done would cost a fortune.

An insurance policy is just an agreement between yourself and another party for the other party to assume some of the risks of boat ownership. The insurer needs to know what is being insured and whether or not it is in reasonable condition to fulfill it's purpose. It's not in the insurers interest to have the survey used to ascertain the relevant facts used for any other purpose nor to assume any liabilities which might attach to their allowing it to be used for other purposes.

[JPA Cate]

I have not read the preceding comments, and I apologize because of that inconssiderateness.

However, the incident is so fresh in my mind. A tiny little grandma lady on her Vancouver 27 boat was told by her insurance co, whilst in Fiji, that she would would not be insured if she did not get to NZ by x date, her insurance would be cancelled, a big deal for her. So, she felt she must leave to the insurance company's schedule. The weather at the time was quite unsettled and it was a pretty hazardous trip, they did not arrive in good nick, but she felt she had to do what the ins. co. said.

Ann

[Mike 440]

the dude abides
We have a lot in common, Pantaenius, lightning and underhanded tactics. I sustained a lightning strike in 2020 whilst insured with Pantaenius. When i rang and advised the Sydney office of the event the first comment they made was “the mast and rigging wont be damaged”. They agreed to send an assessor to inspect the boat and report findings. Little did i know this would be the beginning of an epic saga which is ongoing and moving to the next level.
I was insured with Pantaenius for several years prior to the claim. Initially through the European office which i found very accommodating and helpful, the problem is, well I believe the problem is confined to the Sydney office.

If you would like to PM me i can disclose details you will find very helpful.

[Rumrace]

I’ve had 3 total losses at no fault. Two boats in marina fires and a classic car rear ended by a drunk. All three the insurance company attempted to screw me out of large $$$. They failed all three cases and paid legal costs to force them into it. It’s up to you but half your payment to them is commission. The motivation on a local scale to screw you is massive.
Lloyd’s sold suckers shares on their high risk accounts. Fools thought they plugged into Lloyd’s returns record but they bought into the losses. It’s a bottom feeder industry. They use non company front men to deflect accountability.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

We already have more than enough incidental costs associated with insuring a boat without you making it worse.

If you go the expert route we would need; a rigging expert to check the rig, a fibreglass fabrication expert to check the hull, an electrical expert the check the wiring, an instrumentation expert to check the instrumentation, an engine and gearbox expert etc. Just getting the survey done would cost a fortune.

Curiously every single one of those items could be damaged by a lightning strike. Do you not think they should be inspected ? Do you not think the insured should be made aware of the results of inspection ?

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

I have not read the preceding comments, and I apologize because of that inconssiderateness.

However, the incident is so fresh in my mind. A tiny little grandma lady on her Vancouver 27 boat was told by her insurance co, whilst in Fiji, that she would would not be insured if she did not get to NZ by x date, her insurance would be cancelled, a big deal for her. So, she felt she must leave to the insurance company's schedule. The weather at the time was quite unsettled and it was a pretty hazardous trip, they did not arrive in good nick, but she felt she had to do what the ins. co. said.

Ann

There are two assumptions which I don't think I accept, or at least not without limitation:

1. They could have left earlier. I doubt the coverage date was not known far in advance.
2. They could have sailed without insurance or waited until the season passed.

The "felt" they had to go, but the insurance company did not tell them to. The insurance company only told them that their coverage would be interrupted, not what to do.


Do we decide to sail based on insurance (someone else will pay) or based on seamanship? It should always be the latter, as though there were no insurance. If it is not safe for the boat, it is not safe for you and not fair to place that financial burden on another.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Curiously every single one of those items could be damaged by a lightning strike. Do you not think they should be inspected ? Do you not think the insured should be made aware of the results of inspection ?

Yes and no.

For Example Pantenious Europe do not cover rigging failures due to bad maintenance. Hence the onus is on the owner to ensure a mast rigging failure is not due to poor maintenance. The insurer will use its surveyor to determine if the rig fails due to poor maintenance.

Hence for example Pantenious Europe don’t ask for boat or rigging condition surveys , if a claim is made and the results are maintenance related no claim will be paid.


Hence Pantenious have no interest in any survey you do. That’s purely for you the owner. They simply accept your signed statement that that boat is in good condition and complies with other undertakings your agree it has so compiled.