can insurance companies endanger lives?

[fxykty]

Maybe this is a question of language? The OP wrote that the insurance company sent a “surveyor” on board. My limited experience with claims that we’ve lodged suggest that this person is an “assessor” working for the insurance company. Their job is only to verify the facts in your statement of claim - they are not establishing a list of damages to be claimed. Any report that they produce is the property of the insurance company and is used to confirm the validity and extent of your claim.

It is your responsibility as the claimant to hire your own surveyor(s) to check your boat and establish the extent of damages for which you are claiming redress. Then you get service providers to give you quotes for the required works to repair the damage that your survey found, including costs for hauling and hardstand. How else are you supposed to know what you need fixed and what to claim for? Then you lodge your claim and the insurance company assigns an assessor to check the validity of your claim. And if in the course of repairs more damage is found, that can be added to the claim - by you. It is not the insurance company’s job to increase the size of your claim - it is yours.

In the OP’s case it sounds like they didn’t do any of their own investigation, leaving it all to the insurance company’s assessor. It seems that the assessor found further damages that the OP didn’t know about. As others have pointed out, there is certainly no moral compulsion on the insurance company to disclose information that they developed. You, or your broker, can ask the insurance company for the results of their assessment, but I’m not sure there is any legal requirement for them to disclose.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by fxykty

You, or your broker, can ask the insurance company for the results of their assessment, but I’m not sure there is any legal requirement for them to disclose.

A few decades in the business and this is the first time I've ever heard of an underwriters surveyors report being denied to the insured.

[the dude abides]

my getting struck by lightning makes your incidental costs go up? SO your concern is the bottom line and how it affects you? Thats fine. You are being honest with that

I am not going the full expert route. it was the insurance appointed surveyor who stated that to investigate the full extent of potential damage it was needed, the insurance expert not me.

Imagine I am with an insurance company that has one product for blue water cruisers. That product is to be able to enter the marina and go on the hard for works which they sell in a month block. Lets call it ** Insurance and they advertise themselves as the cheapest insurance ever and only good for one thing, going on the hard and they state dont bother calling we will tell you to f - off. SO I have my ** hard insurance and I am in the marina and my boat blows up and I think to myself, "Im calling **". Now there would hardly be any point me on this forum saying "I can't believe it, I rung ** and they told me to F - off". In fact I would be saying they are 100% true to their word. Maybe the most honest company in the world for telling me to f - off. I am not with **. I am with Pantaenius who pride themselves on being No1 for blue water cruisers due to their network of experts around the world that are there for you to give you support and advice when you need it. Thats who I am with. Now I had enquired about costs for sailing across the Indian Ocean. They know that was the plan. They also had a meeting about releasing a survey when I am under a approved insurance claim which was supposed to detail the extent of damage and they decided to keep it a secret, and that exposes people to real danger. Something which concerns the safety of a vessel and the people on board. it would be nice to see some moral sensibility at least, some common decency as it affects the safety of people lives. It would be nice if it does what it says on the box for once.

Now Raymond I know you dont care about things like this, you are about your wallet, and thats your right, I don't agree but at least you had the decency to tell me up front and be honest and I appreciate that. Cheers

[the dude abides]

it was a surveyor. I am in a a place with limited resources. Pantaenius are party to the Insurance Council of Australia – the policyholder, the insurer and a third party beneficiary (a person who is entitled to the benefits of the insurance policy) – must act with fairness, decency and fair dealing as well as honesty in their dealings with one another. Full disclosure by both parties is a requirement. It is actually an example on their website

The duty of utmost good faith is central to and regulates all aspects of the contract of insurance, from inception through to the terms of the contract, to each party’s responsibilities in the event of a claim under the contract of insurance. One of the reasons why the duty of utmost good faith was developed under the common law is because often information of vital importance to the insurance contract is only known to one party, for example, an existing structural defect in a building for which the owner occupier wants to purchase home insurance. Under this duty the party possessing the knowledge must disclose all material and relevant facts to the other party to the contract so that the other party can make an accurate assessment of what they are undertaking.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by the dude abides

Under this duty the party possessing the knowledge must disclose all material and relevant facts to the other party to the contract so that the other party can make an accurate assessment of what they are undertaking.

Every underwriter I've ever worked with followed that rule.
I would not deal with any that didn't

[RaymondR]

I am a self supported retiree and consequently need to be careful with the money I have left.

One of the problems immoral insurance companies have is that they are not dealing with a moral public.

Looking at it that way, the playing field may be more level than we perceive at first glance.

[the dude abides]

well thats understandable. I am too and also concerned about money, thats one of the reasons I signed with Pantaenius is for global support as I was going around the world and now feel like I have been conned. If I was with ** insurance at least it quite clear what I am getting with them. SFA, but I can get my anti foul and bottom work done. I would actually be quite happy with a product like that now. Most of the Aussies where I am dont have any insurance whatsoever now. Some of that though is to do with covid and no one could move their boat for sometime but I am suprised the amount of bluewater sailors from Aussie without any. Is that reflective of the industry? It could well be just be reflective of blue water sailors getting by and having spent their money. Cheers

[the dude abides]

Pants are party to the Insurance Council of Australia code – the policyholder, the insurer and a third party beneficiary (a person who is entitled to the benefits of the insurance policy) – must act with fairness, decency and fair dealing as well as honesty in their dealings with one another. The duty of utmost good faith is central to and regulates all aspects of the contract of insurance, from inception through to the terms of the contract, to each party’s responsibilities in the event of a claim under the contract of insurance. One of the reasons why the duty of utmost good faith was developed under the common law is because often information of vital importance to the insurance contract is only known to one party, for example, an existing structural defect in a building for which the owner occupier wants to purchase home insurance. Under this duty the party possessing the knowledge must disclose all material and relevant facts to the other party to the contract so that the other party can make an accurate assessment of what they are undertaking.

[Fore and Aft]

the dude abides I would like to hear Pantaenius side of the story. I have dealt with them lots of times here in Australia and they have always been professional and fair to my clients. Maybe you are the exception to the rule?
I once made a claim to Suncorp (Thats a big Australian insurer) when my vehicle was written off by an uninsured driver. It was just bad luck that the lady handling my claim must have been having a bad day or did not like me. So she personally went out of her way to try and get my claimed denied. She even lied in her emails. I let it ride thinking the little guy will win. In the end after 63 days of her BS I did some serious googling and found a contact email for someone way higher up the Suncorp insurance chain. I emailed the whole file to him, highlighting some of her lies. Within hours of the email being sent I had an apology and a payment being sorted ASAP. The lady even rung me personally apologised for being a B*tch and then asked if I wished to take the complaint further regarding her conduct. She was pretty upset so I let it go. The point I am making is how high did you go with your complaint?
Cheers

[the dude abides]

you bring up a good point Fore and Aft. Sometimes people have bad days and things get compounded and blow up. Humans are good at that. So I met a German couple here who have a classic boat and they were with Pantaenius for 20 years but then relocated to Australia. They were only with them for a short while there and there were not happy. I dont know the details but it may be something simple, they have an unusual boat. She came from the same area as Martin Baum the head of Pantaenius and had spoken to him a few times in Germany. She basically made me ring him there and then so I spoke to him and he just basically put me through to complaints which was a dead end and rung out, so I sent documentation explaining but no one gets back to me. So I went to the top but maybe it was too top. Although once in London I was without a landline for 3 months and BT kept cancelling and I managed to get the chairman's email so I sent him a line showing him how many times they cancelled and I was also doing a degree at the time so it was frustrating. Next day guys turned up and fixed it. I could have sent him flowers for that

[the dude abides]

so there have been a lot of questions and chat about roles and responsibilities but no one has brought up this. Say they don't have to disclose anything or really investigate anything, the bare minimum of responsibility. When its time to renew your insurance, should an insurer be renewing with the same insurance when they are in knowledge from their surveyor that this vessel has not been examined fully as he suggested when under a insurance claim?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by the dude abides

The surveyor as you pointed out is there to ascertain the condition of the boat.

NO, the insurance company hired a 3rd party to determine how much they should pay out.

Anything beyond that is incidental and a bonus. The only reason they would have to share is if there is disagreement and you are arguing for a higher payout. Even then, it's about the payout not the specific issues that count.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

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

I don't see how this is relevant.

The insurance company wasn't forcing her to depart. They were detailing the consequences.

At that point, it's up to her, as the responsible in charge, to determine the best course of action.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

ok, i'm sure this is gonna bring some heat but ....

I quit doing insurance claims surveys years ago out of sheer disgust.

.............

One letter from the claimants lawyer got him a $40k cheque. It was cheaper to write the cheque than fight it. We all pay for this nonsense and it is rampant.

Reminds me of a scummy friend of a friend.

I never had any direct contact with him but every couple years his fishing boat would sink, catch fire, etc... They guy either had the worst luck ever or he was scamming.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

One of the problems immoral insurance companies have is that they are not dealing with a moral public.

Yep, before we call out the evil insurance companies, if everyone was dead honest, they would just take your word for it and send a check the next day. It's only because people milk the system that it becomes an adversarial relationship.