How often is your insurer requesting a survey

[NYSail]

[QUOTE=hpeer;2806727]Every time I get a survey the surveyor asks me “So how much do you want me to say the value is?” I’ve had this from several surveyors. Obviously not verbatium, but close enough.

If you are surveying a common boat then it’s pretty easy to come up with an approximate value off of Yachtworld. If you have a rather unique or unusual boat then not so easy at all. Not saying what you do, but what I have experienced.[/QUOTE

Integrity!

I’ve never had a surveyor ask that.

[hpeer]

[QUOTE=NYSail;2806738]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Every time I get a survey the surveyor asks me “So how much do you want me to say the value is?” I’ve had this from several surveyors. Obviously not verbatium, but close enough.

If you are surveying a common boat then it’s pretty easy to come up with an approximate value off of Yachtworld. If you have a rather unique or unusual boat then not so easy at all. Not saying what you do, but what I have experienced.[/QUOTE

Integrity!

I’ve never had a surveyor ask that.

But you also own a very common boat. A Bene 423. I’ve a 1985 custom build Alan Pape steel cutter. So that’s what I would expect from your situation.

[casual]

My insurance co does not require continuing surveys.
Foremost a sub of Farmers.

[EngNate]

My recent survey came in well above the value I expected and feel is realistic, which had a likewise effect on my insurance quote. I told the agent how much I would like to have it covered for and he said I would have to get the surveyor to lower the value. It is an Agreed Value policy. I had to make a run with the boat and had the weather window and didn't have time to wait, so my boat is currently insured for definitely more than I think I could sell it for.

[Mike OReilly]

[QUOTE=hpeer;2806751]

Originally Posted by NYSail

But you also own a very common boat. A Bene 423. I’ve a 1985 custom build Alan Pape steel cutter. So that’s what I would expect from your situation.

For some boats, there is essentially no functioning market. I’m sure some statistician-economist could give a specific answer, but there must be a certain number of transactions in a given set of conditions to be a normal capitalist market. There must be enough feedback and information for buyers and sellers to make (somewhat) informed choices. That’s how markets are supposed to work.

Boats like Howard’s, and even mine to a lesser extent, have no functioning markets. There’s too few selling, and too few interested. So how does a surveyor provide anything other than an informed guesstimate?

When I was shopping for quotes one broker asked me what I wanted to value, and hence insure, my boat at. I gave him the answer to fit what I wanted to pay in premiums. So at least for non-market boats, this doesn’t seem that uncommon.

MS — how do you handle this situation? I’m honestly curious. Is there any standard approach in the surveyor world?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It’s just that I thought we moved past that point (MS and I). I accept the concern about fraud. I said so. And I also accept his data that 80% of claims are fraudulent. I remain dubious, but he is the expert, not I.

But it's not just fraud. A boat in horrible shape is a much bigger risk...faulty wiring, corroded seacocks, engines failing at key times, etc...

PS: I think the 80% is a bit overstated though might be technically true. A surveyor fudging the numbers so the value is 10-20% high...maybe even 30% is fraud but much more difficult for the insurance company to detect.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But the core point I’m raising is the way survey’s are foisted upon boat owners when it should be the companies that manage them. They want them. It’s their tool, not the boat owners, so they should manage and pay for them.

Of course this becomes a cost of doing business. That’s fine. Pass the cost on. I think there is good reason to think this will reduce cost and improve the actual survey’s produced.

If you want your insurance company to manage the survey, tell them to just do it and tack on the costs including their time at fully burdened rates (including overhead and profit margin). Once you explain it to them, I'm sure they will love to handle it for you. Make sure to explain to them that you are fine with whatever the cost is and if it disrupts a planned trip, that's fine with you.

I personally would rather manage it myself as I can shop around for a cheaper survey and schedule it at my convenience.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

PS: I think the 80% is a bit overstated though might be technically true. A surveyor fudging the numbers so the value is 10-20% high...maybe even 30% is fraud but much more difficult for the insurance company to detect.

You misunderstand, I never suggested hat the 80% was due to faked survey reports. Yes, that happens but it's rare..

The vast majority of fraud is grossly overinflated claims.

Example 1 ... One fella claimed he picked up a plastic bag on each of his intakes and blew his engines, that's right two plastic bags at the same time. I proved that this 15yr old boat was running the original impellers and they had disintegrated. I recommended claim be denied. The underwriter says we're goning to give him the 35k to rebuild the engines because it would cost us a lot more than that to fight him so we'll pay then cancel his insurance.

Example 2 Fella takes the impeller out for winter storage on the hard. Boat is launched, put in the slip, fella immediately leaves, boat goes to bottom. He claims a hose let go but could not explain the missing impeller and cover plate. Son lets it slip that dad removed it. $65k claim approved.

Example 3 Boat runs into another boat which is tied up in the slip. Some gunwhale, gelcoat and glass damage approximately $3k. Owner claimed $20k inclusing interior damage which was clearly caused by years of leaking ports. Guess what, he got the $20k

I can go on all night with examples like this. You and I pay for this nonsense.

[Fore and Aft]

I have seen plenty of that nonsense as well Boatpoker. After Cyclone Yasi the Australian insurers really tightened up. Some of the claims back then were just crazy.
Cheers

[daletournier]

Well after long deliberation i finally decided to go liability only. The final straw was when the insurance company (besides 28% price rise) asked me to redo the antifoul. This request was based on a 2 year old survey that noted some anti foul was coming off (BTW the surveyor was a complete idiot that was to big to actually survey the boat correctly but noted stupid non important stuff like above).

I dive on my hull regularly, im fit and i dive therefore stretch my haulouts to 3 years. When a poorly done survey combined with pen pushing insurance guy decides my antifoul needs to be done........im done with dealing with them.

Ive made this comment here before, Im completely underwhelmed with the surveyors ive used in the past (Australia).

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by daletournier

The final straw was when the insurance company (besides 28% price rise) asked me to redo the antifoul.

I've seen a lot of that too, mostly from insurance brokers with no marine training or experience working for companies that are not marine specific

[Rachel Sloan]

Originally Posted by Sailor647

We have not been asked to get another survey since we purchased the boat and bought our Markel Jackline policy in 2013. However, the policy wording was changed last renewal period. This is from our most recent 2019 policy.

***
3.1 Exclusions
Nevertheless, there are exclusions that apply in addition to those appearing in Section 2, General Conditions and Exclusions, those being:

3.1.1 Occurrences caused or contributed to by normal wear and tear, corrosion or other gradual deterioration including but not limited to marring, denting, scratching, weathering, rotting, molding, mildewing, rusting, electrolysis, galvanic action, osmotic blistering and infestations of marine growth, insects and vermin. However, resulting Hull loss to the Vessel caused by fire, explosion, sinking, collision or stranding is covered.

We will also pay for a resulting Hull loss to the Vessel for a dismasting if a professional rig inspection was completed within 24 months from the date of the occurrence and any deficiencies that were identified with the standing rigging or chain plates were remedied as recommended and the work was completed by a professional rigger.
***
So, unless we have the rig inspected every two years, they won't cover a hull loss due to a dismasting. (The rig itself is covered - unless the loss occurs when the boat is involved in a race.)

Rigging and hull damage due to a dismasting have never been covered by Markel Jackline (& most, if not all, yacht policies) IF the damage is found to have been caused by one of the policy exclusions such as normal wear & tear, corrosion, etc. The new Jackline policy language is actually an upgrade to still allow coverage for any consequential hull damage from a dismasting with a satisfactory rigging inspection <2 years old. Also an enhancement is that the policy used to entirely exclude coverage for the failure of rigging over 15 years of age - that exclusion has been deleted. The new consequential damage enhancement also applies to other types of losses not involving the rigging. For example, coverage for an engine failure may be excluded due to normal wear and tear. However, if the engine failure causes you to suffer a collision, any resulting damage to the yacht is going to be covered. These are important coverage's that you’d be hard pressed to find an any other cruising policies.
~Rachel Sloan, Jackline Account Manager @ Gowrie Group

[hpeer]

Rachel,

Thanks for the input. It’s always interesting to hear from the folks we are bashing. LOL.

[hpeer]

Speaking of bashing, I was just reading on another forum where a surveyor told the Owner he should attach his furling Genoa to the mast head so he could use his halyard for other things.

This reminded me of the surveyor who strongly suggested I replace my two 6 volt golf cart batteries with a single 12 volt batteries because “split batteries systems are really bad for a steel boat.” He had some other doozies also. He claimed to be a steel boat expert because he owned one at one time.

So this brought up the idea that the surveyour professional organizations are really falling flat for not policing their own ranks. The purpose of having some professional organization is to assure some minimum level of competence. If you can’t do that then you have no meaningful, to the client base, reason for existing.

Riffing on Mikes suggestion that the insurance agency pay for the survey maybe a slightly different approach is in order. Make the insurance companies responsible for the adequacy of the surveyors. If fraud is anywhere near as prevelant as has been insinuated then the surveyors are assisting in the perpetration of the fraud by not doing adequate surveys. And I don’t mean idiotic adherence to ABYC standards. I mean doing real surveys that look at how the boat is put together and functions and how sound the systems are.

I have some specific gripes I won’t air here. But to me it seems clear that pretty terrible surveys are rampant. That should stop. Maybe some owners organization like Boat US could team with a few insurance companies to come up with a way to police and meaningfully rate surveyors, or at least decertify the worst offenders. We owners are in no position to do that.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hpeer

...Riffing on Mikes suggestion that the insurance agency pay for the survey maybe a slightly different approach is in order. Make the insurance companies responsible for the adequacy of the surveyors. If fraud is anywhere near as prevelant as has been insinuated then the surveyors are assisting in the perpetration of the fraud by not doing adequate surveys. And I don’t mean idiotic adherence to ABYC standards. I mean doing real surveys that look at how the boat is put together and functions and how sound the systems are.

If insurance companies managed and paid directly for the surveys THEY want, then it would be easier to control for quality and fraud. And it makes little logical sense that it would drive up costs.

Right now we have 10s of thousands of individual boat owners contracting with hundreds or thousands of surveyors. The vast majority of us boat owners have little skill in dealing with surveyors b/c we do it so infrequently. We have little information on quality and costs. AND we are usually under pressure to get the thing done. None of this promotes economic efficiency, and is wide open to abuse.

A few large single buyers of survey services would lower cost (just like any large buyer, for example Walmart), and it could provide better oversight.