Visit our Popular Forums

Windcall · 10-12-2018, 12:06

I have two installations maybe more done by supposed professionals on the boat I bought.
Balmar Alternator the bottom bolt into the mount is just jammed into split sleeve. The bow thruster supposed to be 24 volt and installed with a zinc. No zinc almost corroded through. There was a dead battery going to a 12 v to 12v charger to an on off switch installed new batt and zap!!! Still running on 12v the previous owner paid over $6000 to install. There are good yard birds but more crooks taking advantage of no mechanical Customers.

thinwater · 10-12-2018, 12:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcruz99801

A few years ago I asked my Florida-based agent -- for a London underwriter -- to up the value of my boat as we had purchased a fixer-upper and added significant work and equipment. He told me I would need a new survey, and I agreed to have it done as soon as I could move the boat from La Paz, Mexico to Guaymas, a 300 mile trip. There it could be hauled (25' wide tri). On our first attempted move I was injured, returned to La Paz and went to the US for surgery.
While recovering my premium came due, and the agent informed me that he had forgotten to pass on that they wanted to cancel for lack of said survey. I explained the boat was "parked" and I could not move it, so I paid for a non-op policy at nearly 75% of full coverage. When I returned to La Paz to move the boat, and asked for a rider to cover the trip, I was informed they were dropping me, again for lack of survey. He implied they were trying to get out of multihulls anyhow, nothing personal, thanks for the extra year of premiums.
Rust never sleeps. In addition to weasel-wording and (almost automatic) claim denial, the industry puts much more effort into influencing the commissions and courts than the public, but it sounds like fighting the system is a young (Florida) man's game.

BTW, who hijacked a boat discussion to talk ACA politics?!

The boat was a fixer-upper with no survey. I can see why they would not insure it. I would not. Would you? Probably not.

So why not just make the trip on your own risk, if you believe it is safe? If it is not, then you have your answer.

The delayed cancelling was a bit d___. They should have just said no.

hellosailor · 10-12-2018, 12:56

thinwater, really?
"So why not just make the trip on your own risk, if you believe it is safe?"

Because, as they say in every Navy in the world, and aboard most commercial shipping in the world, "**** happens."

Your vessel can be perfectly safe, you crew perfectly able, and yet, still, **** happens.

That's what we buy insurance for, to help spread the odds.

Or perhaps you've never seen a photo of someone's home, on land, after a piece of a meteroid, or a chunk of blue ice from a jetliner, or a chunk of a metal part from a jetliner, punched a hole in their living room roof?

That's what insurance is for.

(Oooh, I see the forum nannies won't allow merde or excrement to be translated into Anglo-Saxon, even though our own FCC says that's acceptable these days. I sail, I don't say "asterisks happen." Blame to forum for that.)

boatpoker · 10-12-2018, 13:40

Everybody slams the insurance companies (me included) by as stated I have a contrarian opinion that they pay out too easily and this costs us all in the long run. How about we drift this a little further and hear about your experiences with claims denied and why.

thinwater · 10-12-2018, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

thinwater, really?
"So why not just make the trip on your own risk, if you believe it is safe?"

Because, as they say in every Navy in the world, and aboard most commercial shipping in the world, "**** happens."

Your vessel can be perfectly safe, you crew perfectly able, and yet, still, **** happens.

That's what we buy insurance for, to help spread the odds.

Or perhaps you've never seen a photo of someone's home, on land, after a piece of a meteroid, or a chunk of blue ice from a jetliner, or a chunk of a metal part from a jetliner, punched a hole in their living room roof?

That's what insurance is for.

(Oooh, I see the forum nannies won't allow merde or excrement to be translated into Anglo-Saxon, even though our own FCC says that's acceptable these days. I sail, I don't say "asterisks happen." Blame to forum for that.)

Your not understanding me. As the insurer (you personally), would you insure a boat that has not been surveyed that is a known fixer-upper? No, you would not. Nor is it reasonable to ask anyone to take on an unknown risk.

In this case, since the risk is undefined, an insurance company has two choices; charge ridiculous or say "no think you." So I'm not surprised they said no. They should have said no from the outset.

I understand spreading risk, but if I can't define the risk to the insurer, I can't very well expect them to accept it.

44'cruisingcat · 10-12-2018, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Everybody slams the insurance companies (me included) by as stated I have a contrarian opinion that they pay out too easily and this costs us all in the long run. How about we drift this a little further and hear about your experiences with claims denied and why.

I did read some quite nasty stories after TC Debbie. Offers of payments around 1/3 of the insured value, because "The boat's not worth as much today as it was yesterday."

hellosailor · 10-12-2018, 14:03

John-
A state insurance commission has whatever jurisdiction they have been granted by statute. So, the might have jurisdiction based upon where the insured object (the boat) is kept, OR by the residency of the insured party, i.e. "Where was the insurance sold?" since an insurer must be registered in every state in which the "operate" i.e. sell insurance.
I would say that given 62 separate jurisdictions (ignoring the sovereign tribal lands) you'd really need to check with the IC's in both particular states, to see if they think they have a dog in the fight. Could be both of them do. Definitely will vary by the state.

And to complicate things, "insurers" don't do anything, or have any standards on payouts, unless you're appealing. The first go-round is always with an adjuster, and sometimes that's a newbie who is being an idiot and trying to prove THEY can be the adjuster of the year (no payouts) even if what they're doing is illegal. Sometimes, there are verbal corporate policies that the executives swear are not corporate policies--but over aggressive managers. Like the folks who told the NYTimes some years ago that they rejected one out of every five (medical) claims filed with them, simply because they knew that 1/3 of those people would never bother appealing, and if the rest had a case, that still bought them an extra 30 days before they had to pay out on it.
Corporate policies, yes, corporate culture. Subject to employees trying to play their own games.

hellosailor · 10-12-2018, 14:40

thinwater-
I understood what you wrote, but that's two separate points you're talking about now.
One point being, would I expect an insurer to insure an unsurveyed fixer-upper.
My answer: Hell no. But that wasn't the point I was responding to.

You were asking (presumably the boat owner, the insuree) why they didn't just make the trip themselves if they had faith in the boat. And to *that* point only, my response was and is "Sh|t happens" and that's why I wouldn't make a significant trip, on a vessel of any value, without it being insured. If I thought that insurance on the boat was what I generally wanted at all.

I see no conflict or contradiction in those two. The owner is saying "gee, cut me some slack, I got stuck...it will cost a fortune to fly in a surveyor" and my take on that is, once again, "[ahem] happens" and sometimes, you get into a hard place. That's not the insurer's problem, however. If they were willing to grant a one-year extension and forgivence...that's enough time for someone to bring up the boat, bring down a surveyor, or for the keel to fall off. More than that...Business is business.

john61ct · 10-12-2018, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

A state insurance commission has whatever jurisdiction they have been granted by statute. So, the might have jurisdiction based upon where the insured object (the boat) is kept, OR by the residency of the insured party, i.e. "Where was the insurance sold?" since an insurer must be registered in every state in which the "operate" i.e. sell insurance

Great, makes sense, but of course not straightforward. Gives some options for "jurisdiction shopping" where the IC takes its role more seriously.

thinwater · 10-12-2018, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

thinwater-
I understood what you wrote, but that's two separate points you're talking about now.
One point being, would I expect an insurer to insure an unsurveyed fixer-upper.
My answer: Hell no. But that wasn't the point I was responding to.

You were asking (presumably the boat owner, the insuree) why they didn't just make the trip themselves if they had faith in the boat. And to *that* point only, my response was and is "Sh|t happens" and that's why I wouldn't make a significant trip, on a vessel of any value, without it being insured. If I thought that insurance on the boat was what I generally wanted at all.

I see no conflict or contradiction in those two. The owner is saying "gee, cut me some slack, I got stuck...it will cost a fortune to fly in a surveyor" and my take on that is, once again, "[ahem] happens" and sometimes, you get into a hard place. That's not the insurer's problem, however. If they were willing to grant a one-year extension and forgiven...that's enough time for someone to bring up the boat, bring down a surveyor, or for the keel to fall off. More than that...Business is business.

Sure, try some other insurers. For the sake of argument, let's say they all say "no." It seems you're down to two possibilities; pay for travel for the surveyor or go bare. If the boat is of material value, travel won't be that much. Of course, as I understand it, the boat can't be hauled.

I wouldn't feel so odd about going bare, personally. I'm in the best position to judge the risk. I might well decide the boat needed work first.

No, I see no reason they should offer a grace period.

ErnestV · 11-12-2018, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lippe

Why denied? Because batteries are in bilge?

Probably because of this: "10.7.9 A vent system or other means shall be provided to permit the discharge from the boat of hydrogen gas released by the battery"

ErnestV · 11-12-2018, 15:54

As for the ABYC standards, they offer a 5-day trial subscription for free. I'm in my 2nd day and have already d/l'ed the standards that are essential for me (mainly electric).

GrowleyMonster · 11-12-2018, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErnestV

As for the ABYC standards, they offer a 5-day trial subscription for free. I'm in my 2nd day and have already d/l'ed the standards that are essential for me (mainly electric).

Well, that definitely takes the sting out of it. I think I will do that when I get home in Feb. I, too, am mostly concerned with the electrical parts, but I might have to wait on upgrading to diesel cooking and so I probably need to see the standards for propane stoves and piping, as well. The boat comes to me with what looks like a pretty nice gas stove/oven but no shutoff solenoid or tanks, and tank location is right there in the galley. I wouldn't use that on a bet. I hate propane anyway. HATE it, yes. Only good for outdoor use, IMHO. Sorry, propane fans, just how I feel. But I may be stuck with the evil gas for a little while.

Darn... going off topic a little. Anyway I didn't know about the trial membership. Nice of them to throw the peasants a bone from the table. I intend to take advantage of it. Full membership when I buy my own shipyard LOL.