Insuring a boat: NIGHTMARE!
Howie
I have a 24' plymouth pilot GRP vessel, moored on a swing-mooring
in Brixham Harbour.
I want to use the boat all year round some years and lay-up some
others. Also I do not really want to pay for a dry survey because
the boat is only worth £7000.
This vessel is 21 years old. I cannot find an insurer who will
provide a policy to suit my simple requirements.
Can ANYONE suggest a company?
I would really appreciate any/all help!
Regards,
Howard.
--
Howard Coakley
e-mail... howard<dot}coakleyatcoakley<dot].codotuk
ICQ:4502837. (Try ICQ at www.icq.com)
Duncan Heenan
"Howie" <to.reply.p...@end.of.message.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbqp51t9o8hslmjfb...@4ax.com...
You can insure anything at a price. How much are you willing to pay and what
are your 'simple requirements'?
Guy Fawkes
> Hi all. Hoping someone here might help...
>
> I have a 24' plymouth pilot GRP vessel, moored on a swing-mooring
> in Brixham Harbour.
>
> I want to use the boat all year round some years and lay-up some
> others. Also I do not really want to pay for a dry survey because
> the boat is only worth £7000.
>
> This vessel is 21 years old. I cannot find an insurer who will
> provide a policy to suit my simple requirements.
>
> Can ANYONE suggest a company?
>
> I would really appreciate any/all help!
>
> Regards,
>
> Howard.
>
Lloyds, seriously...
--
Lithium ion internal and external batteries.
Internal from £30 External from £75 (trade)
All batteries factory new and guaranteed.
http://www.surfbaud.co.uk/
e-mail qnir...@oyhrlbaqre.pb.hx (www.rot13.com)
Sandy Morton
> Can ANYONE suggest a company?
Try Cuthbert, Service and Jackson in Glasgow - insured Ar Bata for
years and she was worth a fair bit less that yours.
--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net
MJ
may be an option.
Rgds
MJ
"Howie" <to.reply.p...@end.of.message.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbqp51t9o8hslmjfb...@4ax.com...
Matthew Torkington
"MJ" <Mal...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d3jjj6$t73$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Marshall Rice
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>insurance company. Navigators & General might not insist.
They also might not pay out in the event of a claim.
--
Marshall Rice
Ian Petrie
http://www.basic-boat.com
I get 3,000,000 GBP liabilty cover for any european waters, sea and
inland, for 89 GBP pa.
No survey.
Ian
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:06:46 +0000 (UTC), MJ <Mal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Why not insure it third party ?, depending on how yhou value your craft
> this
> may be an option.
>
> Rgds
>
--
Remove nospam from address to reply
Chrisssssss.........
> inland, for 89 GBP pa.
> No survey.
> Ian
You are not referring to boat insurance but Public Liability cover.
Chrisss.....
TonyB
"Matthew Torkington" <m.tork...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d3jlcm$2er$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> Noble Marine are very good
Or St Margarets?
TonyB
Graham Frankland
news:hbqp51t9o8hslmjfb...@4ax.com...
>
> I have a 24' plymouth pilot GRP vessel, moored on a swing-mooring
> in Brixham Harbour.
>
> I want to use the boat all year round some years and lay-up some
> others. Also I do not really want to pay for a dry survey because
> the boat is only worth £7000.
>
> This vessel is 21 years old. I cannot find an insurer who will
> provide a policy to suit my simple requirements.
>
> Can ANYONE suggest a company?
>
> I would really appreciate any/all help!
>
particularly 12 months in service. Nautical have just infomed a mate that
they will no longer cover him anytime on a swing mooring in Conwy and some
other companies are starting to withdraw cover afloat in winter, insisting
on lift out. They are getting fed up of paying out to idiots who don't
check their strops and it has a knock on effect on everyone - 11 boats broke
loose during the last northerly gale and some of them damaged other boats on
their way to the rocks!
Graham.
PyroJames
<to.reply.p...@end.of.message.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi all. Hoping someone here might help...
>
>I have a 24' plymouth pilot GRP vessel, moored on a swing-mooring
>in Brixham Harbour.
>
>I want to use the boat all year round some years and lay-up some
>others. Also I do not really want to pay for a dry survey because
>the boat is only worth £7000.
>
>This vessel is 21 years old. I cannot find an insurer who will
>provide a policy to suit my simple requirements.
>
>Can ANYONE suggest a company?
Kendall Becker Ltd4, Bracklesham Lane, Bracklesham Bay, Chichester,
West Sussex PO20 8HP
Were the only ones IIRC correctly who would offer me a renewal for DW
witout any survey. Underwritten by a South African company, I think.
I used someone else, as it all seemed a bit too vague.
PyroJames
Would arsonists please try to control themselves for the duration of the emergency.
Howie
<drpyr...@gmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
|>
|>Can ANYONE suggest a company?
|
|Kendall Becker Ltd4, Bracklesham Lane, Bracklesham Bay, Chichester,
|West Sussex PO20 8HP
|
|Were the only ones IIRC correctly who would offer me a renewal for DW
|witout any survey. Underwritten by a South African company, I think.
|
|I used someone else, as it all seemed a bit too vague.
Hi again everyone. I thought I would post my results here.
Thanks to everyone who suggested possible companies. The only one
who allowed for year-round use was Kendall Becker (above).
However, the insurance company (Northernreef, Spain) who provide
the policy is very 'iffy'. A FSA report warns that the guy who
owns it has run other insurance companies and went bust leaving a
trail of unpaid claims in each case.
Anyway, eventually, I found a good quote from GJW direct,
ins...@gjwltd.co.uk . (0151 473 8000). They provide a policy
allowing for older boats to be insured on swing moorings with
just an owners condition statement. However, the vessel must be
laid up from 1st Nov until 31st March. Still, - the best
compromise I could find and the policy is underwritten by a
Lloyds syndicate called Watkins.
Hope this helps others too.
H.
Ronald Raygun
> Anyway, eventually, I found a good quote from GJW direct,
> ins...@gjwltd.co.uk . (0151 473 8000). They provide a policy
> allowing for older boats to be insured on swing moorings with
> just an owners condition statement. However, the vessel must be
> laid up from 1st Nov until 31st March.
If necessary they can be flexible about this. I have a GJW policy
for 12 months in commission on a swinging mooring, and in Scotland
to boot. GJW's usual terms provide that if in Scotland, the boat must
for the winter months be either marina based or laid up ashore, but
I asked for, and obtained, approval for my particular mooring to
be deemed equivalent to being marina based. The company sought their
(locally based) surveyor's opinion, he knew how solid the moorings
are and who laid and maintains them, and gave them the all-clear,
with the proviso that, during the winter months at least, the boat
must be attached to the mooring using all chain and no rope.
Which I took to mean no rope in series. I normally have one rope
in parallel with one chain, and for the winter I added a second
chain (but kept the rope as well).
Marshall Rice
<to.reply.p...@end.of.message.com.invalid> writes
I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
concerns GJW. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional confidentiality.
--
Marshall Rice
ChrisR
"Marshall Rice" <Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2N9c6Jvr...@marshallricebin.co.uk...
Pete Verdon
> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
> concerns GJW. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional confidentiality.
Or not bound, it seems. Good job you don't know any of my secrets.
Pete
Marshall Rice
<ne...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> writes
Some secrets rest more easily than others.
--
Marshall Rice
PyroJames
<to.reply.p...@end.of.message.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:39:09 +0100, PyroJames
><drpyr...@gmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>|Kendall Becker Ltd4, Bracklesham Lane, Bracklesham Bay, Chichester,
>|West Sussex PO20 8HP
>|
>|Were the only ones IIRC correctly who would offer me a renewal for DW
>|witout any survey. Underwritten by a South African company, I think.
>|
>|I used someone else, as it all seemed a bit too vague.
>
>Hi again everyone. I thought I would post my results here.
>
>Thanks to everyone who suggested possible companies. The only one
>who allowed for year-round use was Kendall Becker (above).
>However, the insurance company (Northernreef, Spain) who provide
>the policy is very 'iffy'. A FSA report warns that the guy who
>owns it has run other insurance companies and went bust leaving a
>trail of unpaid claims in each case.
Thanks for that. I didn't feel comfortable with them at the time and
cancelled my policy and moved elsewhere. Now, I am very glad that I
did.
Ian.u...@talk21.com
Marshall Rice wrote:
> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
> concerns [...]. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional
confidentiality.
So you just give a bit of vague and unsubstantiated defamation instead,
eh?
I'd like to see your definition of "confidentiality" ... not to mention
"professional" ...
Ian
Marshall Rice
Ian.u...@talk21.com writes
>
>Marshall Rice wrote:
>
>> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
>> concerns [...]. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional
>confidentiality.
>
>So you just give a bit of vague and unsubstantiated defamation instead,
>eh?
I suppose the short time I've been around this newsgroup should have
been enough for me to anticipate the way that comment would be received
in certain quarters.
>I'd like to see your definition of "confidentiality" ... not to mention
>"professional" ...
I'd like to know just how bad you think a horror story ought to be
before someone sidesteps their contractual or professional constraints
and blows the whistle.
Incidentally, if we're going to start bandying defamation law around, it
is itself defamatory to accuse another of defamation unjustifiably. I
can justify everything I say. What makes you think you can?
--
Marshall Rice
Pete Verdon
>>> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
>>> concerns [...]. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional confidentiality.
>> So you just give a bit of vague and unsubstantiated defamation instead,
>> eh?
> Incidentally, if we're going to start bandying defamation law around, it
> is itself defamatory to accuse another of defamation unjustifiably. I
> can justify everything I say. What makes you think you can?
I don't really want to get involved in the sort of protracted
nit-picking that this could easily turn into, so in this branch of the
thread this message is going to be my first and final one. I will merely
point out the following:
What Ian accused you of was, effectively, "saying bad things about
others without backing them up". Whether you *could* provide evidence
for what you say is immaterial; that's not the question. It is a fact
that you did not provide anything to substantiate your allegation that
"I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers.
The worst concerns GJW."
and hence Ian is quite correct in referring to it as "vague and
unsubstantiated defamation". You might be *able* to substantiate it, but
you didn't.
Pete
Pete Verdon
>>> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
>>> concerns [...]. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional confidentiality.
>> So you just give a bit of vague and unsubstantiated defamation instead,
>> eh? I'd like to see your definition of "confidentiality" ... not to mention
>> "professional" ...
> I'd like to know just how bad you think a horror story ought to be
> before someone sidesteps their contractual or professional constraints
> and blows the whistle.
But you haven't done that either. What you've said won't help anyone, or
cause any wrong-doers to get their comeuppance. All you've really said
is a more grown-up version of "I know something you don't know!",
together with a small amount of "Look at me! I'm a _professional_!".
You can't have it both ways. Either
a) you have an obligation to keep whatever-it-is secret, in which case
you shouldn't be mouthing off on the Net about its existence (if not its
substance), or
b) it's such a serious issue that people need to be warned regardless of
confidentiality agreements, in which case you should actually say
something substantial rather than just show off the fact that you have
been trusted (somewhat ill-advisedly, it seems) with their secrets.
Pete
Ian Sandell
<Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote:
>I'd like to know just how bad you think a horror story ought to be
>before someone sidesteps their contractual or professional constraints
>and blows the whistle.
Seems to me that you have done neither. You have not maintained
confidentaility nor have you blown a whistle in any meaningful sense,
Ian
Ian Johnston
<Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote:
: In message <1115401794....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
: Ian.u...@talk21.com writes
: >
: >Marshall Rice wrote:
: >
: >> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
: >> concerns [...]. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional
: >confidentiality.
: >
: >So you just give a bit of vague and unsubstantiated defamation instead,
: >eh?
:
: I suppose the short time I've been around this newsgroup should have
: been enough for me to anticipate the way that comment would be received
: in certain quarters.
Yes, indeed. It's not a good place to come over all pompous and say "I
won't give any proof, but I'm right and you must accept it". We have
slightly higher standards here, I'm glas to say.
: >I'd like to see your definition of "confidentiality" ... not to mention
: >"professional" ...
:
: I'd like to know just how bad you think a horror story ought to be
: before someone sidesteps their contractual or professional constraints
: and blows the whistle.
Why?
: Incidentally, if we're going to start bandying defamation law around, it
: is itself defamatory to accuse another of defamation unjustifiably. I
: can justify everything I say. What makes you think you can?
You reckon that "I could tell you one or two horror stories about
insurers. The worst concerns [...]. " isn't defamatory. Must be the
same dictionary as the one with "professional" and "confidentiality",
eh?
Love and kisses,
Ian
--
Ian Johnston
<ne...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote:
: You can't have it both ways. Either
:
: a) you have an obligation to keep whatever-it-is secret, in which case
: you shouldn't be mouthing off on the Net about its existence (if not its
: substance), or
: b) it's such a serious issue that people need to be warned regardless of
: confidentiality agreements, in which case you should actually say
: something substantial rather than just show off the fact that you have
: been trusted (somewhat ill-advisedly, it seems) with their secrets.
Beautifully put.
Ian
--
Marshall Rice
<ne...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> writes
>Marshall Rice wrote:
>> Ian.u...@talk21.com writes
>>> Marshall Rice wrote:
>
>>>> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
>>>> concerns [...]. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional confidentiality.
>
>>> So you just give a bit of vague and unsubstantiated defamation instead,
>>> eh? I'd like to see your definition of "confidentiality" ... not to mention
>>> "professional" ...
>
>> I'd like to know just how bad you think a horror story ought to be
>>before someone sidesteps their contractual or professional constraints
>>and blows the whistle.
>
>But you haven't done that either. What you've said won't help anyone,
>or cause any wrong-doers to get their comeuppance.
If, having seen my comments, anyone chooses to buy marine insurance from
*any* underwriter without making at least cursory enquiries into their
claims-handling history (particularly in the case of large claims), then
they probably deserve what they get.
You can lead a horse to water, etc.
>All you've really said is a more grown-up version of "I know something
>you don't know!", together with a small amount of "Look at me! I'm a
>_professional_!".
Take it as you will. Something about it is obviously getting into your
pants but I really couldn't be bothered to try to find out what.
>You can't have it both ways. Either
>
>a) you have an obligation to keep whatever-it-is secret, in which case
>you shouldn't be mouthing off on the Net about its existence (if not
>its substance), or
>b) it's such a serious issue that people need to be warned regardless
>of confidentiality agreements, in which case you should actually say
>something substantial rather than just show off
There are other possibilities, of course. One is that I consider the
spirit of the rules to have already been broken by others so have said
as much as I can within the letter of them.
>the fact that you have been trusted (somewhat ill-advisedly, it seems)
>with their secrets.
Not by them, as it happens.
Tell you what. As you're clearly so outraged by what you see as a breach
of confidence, don't listen, eh? Better still, go and buy the most
expensive policy you can, by basing your decision solely on what's in
the underwriter's brochure.
Er... You haven't done that already, by any chance?
--
Marshall Rice
Marshall Rice
<NOianSPAM.N...@btinternet.com> writes
>On Fri, 6 May 2005 18:30:15 UTC, Marshall Rice
><Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: In message <1115401794....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>: Ian.u...@talk21.com writes
>: >
>: >Marshall Rice wrote:
>: >
>: >> I could tell you one or two horror stories about insurers. The worst
>: >> concerns [...]. Unfortunately I'm bound by professional
>: >confidentiality.
>: >
>: >So you just give a bit of vague and unsubstantiated defamation instead,
>: >eh?
>:
>: I suppose the short time I've been around this newsgroup should have
>: been enough for me to anticipate the way that comment would be received
>: in certain quarters.
>
>Yes, indeed. It's not a good place to come over all pompous and say "I
>won't give any proof, but I'm right and you must accept it".
No, what I said amounted to "take care". There's no "must" about
accepting it; I couldn't care less whether you do or not.
>We have
>slightly higher standards here, I'm glas to say.
The people who like to erect mobile phone masts next to schools and
hospitals and re-settle pedophiles in the midst of family housing just
love standards of that kind.
>: >I'd like to see your definition of "confidentiality" ... not to mention
>: >"professional" ...
>:
>: I'd like to know just how bad you think a horror story ought to be
>: before someone sidesteps their contractual or professional constraints
>: and blows the whistle.
>
>Why?
If you need to ask, then I probably can't explain the answer to you.
>: Incidentally, if we're going to start bandying defamation law around, it
>: is itself defamatory to accuse another of defamation unjustifiably. I
>: can justify everything I say. What makes you think you can?
>
>You reckon that "I could tell you one or two horror stories about
>insurers. The worst concerns [...]. " isn't defamatory.
That's right.
>Must be the
>same dictionary as the one with "professional" and "confidentiality",
>eh?
We're clearly using different ones. The definitions of 'standards' are
obviously pretty far apart too.
--
Marshall Rice
Pete Verdon
> In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-U9vUbdqHIPZg@localhost>, Ian Johnston writes
>> Yes, indeed. It's not a good place to come over all pompous and say "I
>> won't give any proof, but I'm right and you must accept it".
>> We have slightly higher standards here, I'm glas to say.
> The people who like to erect mobile phone masts next to schools and
> hospitals and re-settle pedophiles in the midst of family housing just
> love standards of that kind.
I'm ...confused... by that one. There must be somewhere I can submit it
as a prime example of its type; AHBOU first sprung to mind, but it's not
really their area. Does anyone know of a collection of really bizarre
Usenet non-sequiteurs that might like a copy of this?
Pete
Marshall Rice
<ne...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> writes
>Marshall Rice wrote:
>> In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-U9vUbdqHIPZg@localhost>, Ian Johnston writes
>
>>> Yes, indeed. It's not a good place to come over all pompous and say "I
>>> won't give any proof, but I'm right and you must accept it".
>>> We have slightly higher standards here, I'm glas to say.
>
>> The people who like to erect mobile phone masts next to schools and
>>hospitals and re-settle pedophiles in the midst of family housing just
>>love standards of that kind.
>
>I'm ...confused... by that one.
Were you confused before you re-edited the posting or did it only come
on afterwards? Either way, I'd say it's your problem.
--
Marshall Rice
Pete Verdon
> In message <d5j1er$nj5$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, Pete Verdon writes
>> Marshall Rice wrote:
>>> Ian Johnston writes
>>>> Yes, indeed. It's not a good place to come over all pompous and say "I
>>>> won't give any proof, but I'm right and you must accept it".
>>>> We have slightly higher standards here, I'm glas to say.
>>> The people who like to erect mobile phone masts next to schools and
>>> hospitals and re-settle pedophiles in the midst of family housing
>>> just love standards of that kind.
>> I'm ...confused... by that one.
> Were you confused before you re-edited the posting or did it only come
> on afterwards? Either way, I'd say it's your problem.
I cut all messages down to their essentials to save space and improve
readability. Since I was only replying to one of your comments I removed
the other; I couldn't see any link between them that necessitated
keeping it. If I've misrepresented you then I apologise.
As for my failure to understand your point, in one sense it is indeed my
problem. On the other hand, the purpose of writing anything here is
surely to communicate. With that in mind, it behooves you to make your
points as clearly as possible, and explain them when your readers cannot
understand them.
Pete
Ian Johnston
<Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote:
: >You reckon that "I could tell you one or two horror stories about
: >insurers. The worst concerns [...]. " isn't defamatory.
:
: That's right.
Blimey.
Ian
Ronald Raygun
I could imagine two possible explanations here.
One is "I could tell you a defamatory story about insurers but I won't".
So no defamation here yet because no story has even been told, never mind
represented as being true.
Here's another. X could tell a story which, if told, would defame an
insurer. If XYZ are brokers, then even if the story were to defame an
insurer, it could not defame XYZ directly, because they're not insurers.
The story might still "concern" XYZ if the insurer in question were one
of the ones XYZ sometimes place business with. Would that be indirect
defamation? Difficult to say, unless complicity is also alleged, e.g.
that XYZ deliberately place business with an insurer they full well
know to be dodgy.
Ian Johnston
<no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
: Ian Johnston wrote:
:
: > On Sat, 7 May 2005 18:06:25 UTC, Marshall Rice
: > <Mars...@marshallrice.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > : >You reckon that "I could tell you one or two horror stories about
: > : >insurers. The worst concerns [...]. " isn't defamatory.
: > :
: > : That's right.
: >
: > Blimey.
:
: I could imagine two possible explanations here.
:
: One is "I could tell you a defamatory story about insurers but I won't".
: So no defamation here yet because no story has even been told, never mind
: represented as being true.
Except that in this case he has named a specific insurer, and said
that they feature in the worst horror stories he knows about marine
inusrance.
: Here's another. X could tell a story which, if told, would defame an
: insurer. If XYZ are brokers, then even if the story were to defame an
: insurer, it could not defame XYZ directly, because they're not insurers.
Hmm. That sounds a bit hairsplitting. I think most of us would think
of brokers as insurers, perhaps as well as underwriters.
So with respect, I think you're wrong here. He's trying do the dirty
on one particular company without offering any proof whatsoever, save
an appeal to his own unproven authority.
Ian