Haven knox-johnston. Useless insurance.

[Ex-SolentBoy]

So if a mechanical part of the boat breaks, like a forestay, the mast falls down and kills someone then you aren't covered either. Normally that's just a third party claim.

What an absurd policy!

I am insured with Admiral. no such silliness there.

[SimbaDog]

Have you checked your new insurers keel clause

[photodog]

Yeah, or your coming out of the river deben with 4 knots of tide, the motor packs it in and before you can lay down the hook your swept onto another boat... Or onto the hard...

[photodog]

Have you checked your new insurers keel clause

Yeah! I bought the platinum policy.. If it falls off i just have the normal excess...

[Boomshanka]

If that is the case (and I'm always cautious in these legalese Ts&Cs), then it seems crazy... imagine a car insurance (fully comp) and you're driving along when the steering rack packs up (for example) going round a corner, you run off the road before you can stop and totally write your car off... the insurance won't pay out due to a mechanical failure Well done for spotting the clause, would be interesting for someone from the company to come on here and explain it.

[skipper_stu]

If that is the case (and I'm always cautious in these legalese Ts&Cs), then it seems crazy... imagine a car insurance (fully comp) and you're driving along when the steering rack packs up (for example) going round a corner, you run off the road before you can stop and totally write your car off... the insurance won't pay out due to a mechanical failure Well done for spotting the clause, would be interesting for someone from the company to come on here and explain it.

Ive emailed them a link, and asked for an explanation because Im insured with them.
Stu

[savageseadog]

Doesn't it usually mean they don't pay out for the actual item that failed but do pay for the other losses? For instance, forestay breaks and mast falls down, they pay for everything but the forestay?

[Georgio]

Ive emailed them a link, and asked for an explanation because Im insured with them.
Stu

As am I so I'm very interested in their explanation. There is no way that I would renew with them knowing that this cause exists.

To be fair I did have a reasonably large calim with HKJ last year and they were pretty good about it in the end.

[photodog]

I would sure be interstd in other peeps calling them up and seeing what explanation they get... I was told they were aware of the issue, and it was under review... But the clause means what it says.... If you have a mechanical breakdown then losses are not covered...

[Phoenix of Hamble]

I would sure be interstd in other peeps calling them up and seeing what explanation they get... I was told they were aware of the issue, and it was under review... But the clause means what it says.... If you have a mechanical breakdown then losses are not covered...

And regardless of the intention of the clause, my experience with insurance/legal professions is that if a way of getting out of a claim exists, then generally it will be deployed.

If they really don't want this clause to mean what it actually says, then they better change it pronto, as they are clearly losing business because of it.

When I didn't renew with them, they called up for a reason and when I mentioned the clause, they didn't seek to ask me to explain, as it clearly wasn't the first time it had been raised.