Stay away from Pantaenius Yacht Insurance Why? read below..

[TabbyCat]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Puzzling? You bet! And the fact that it is generally accepted as a reasonable means of denying accountability is scary to me.

Jim

All the Pantaenius offices fall under the Pantaenius umbrella, but each individual office does have a different policy form due to different insurance regulations in each county. I've just done a search for the word God in a few of the Pantaenius Policy wordings.
The US policy does not include the word "god" anywhere.
The EU (Monaco) policy says that "Acts of God" are a covered loss (as well as other tangible things like sinking, fire, explosion, etc)
So Pantaenius is not excluding acts of god.
If a claims adjuster were even to mention such a phrase, I'm sure that what they were trying to say is that it was a "no-fault" situation, which is often the case when one boat drags and hits another in a storm. In a no fault situation, each boat claims against its own policy. I suspect the poster was uninsured and had no policy of his own to claim against, so tried to get compensation from the other boat. And the claims adjuster for the other boat might have said something along the lines of "Sorry, it was an act of god, things happen, so file against your own insurance." Thus the rant. That's just my theory, as I have absolutely no knowledge of the parties involved.

[TabbyCat]

Originally Posted by careka

we had Pant.. on our tripp from northen Europa to Carib and back, our davits cracked on our way home and we had to return to BVI for repairs, welding, they did not cover it. boat is from 2011. and davits where not overloaded, Make sure to read the text what they cover. we will not use them again. read it well, and you will find a lot of holes where they will not cover.

Without knowing the exact details, I'm going to suggest that your davit issue sounds like gradual wear and tear .....
For any marine insurance policy to pay out, there must be an OCCURRENCE. An occurrence is an accident - something sudden and accidental that caused the damage. Equipment on boats does wear out and you have to replace it or maintain it. Sometimes I think that people get health insurance mixed up with boat insurance - Boat insurance is NOT a maintenance plan, (but health insurance is.)

[Ferrari]

The boat beside me came loose and did $5,000 damage to my boat.
So who paid for your damage?


Insurance companies are regulated and are not basically dishonest or fraudulent or dodgy!.
Essentially if you are covered they will pay!
Where things get tricky is when there's a third party involved who are allegedly to blame for loss or damage.
If your claim is to a third party not covered by your own insurance its highly unlikely they will sue on your behalf.
This is because maritime law is so vague and poorly written by today's standards that obtaining a judgment in your favour is almost impossible and the associated costs, far more than the property damage.
Since you're not aware of others insurance details, do not assume "someone's property" damaging your vessels by accident or carelessness is automatically covered by their insurance policy.
I use pantaenius who use a "no fine print" approach for their clients. Clearly showing what is covered by their policy without the need for "readers" and a half a day to understand.
I'm fully confident they'll step up if required.

[SV Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I conducted an insurance survey here on CF (and on SN) last year. The vast majority of people had never made a claim.

Hey Mike, my WAG was spot on then! Thanks!

[Ferrari]

Stay away from Pantaenius Why?
Most Insured people don’t need to make claims.

That’s why insurance works!

We had $12,000 of tools, gear and personal stuff including scuba (they left the tank) from a berth in a well known Mediterranean Marina with 24hr Armed Security. Lights and Cameras. The whole deal.
Shortly after submitting a police report with my claim to Pantaenius, I received a check for the full amount, no deductible on theft.
Since then my premiums have certainly put them back in the “black” at least with my account.
But with a total loss of our vessel it would need the premiums of many many unused policies to settle our preset value.F

[unbusted67]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Hell of a first post, mate. You make a lot of pretty strong statements condemning this company but do not include ANY information to support your claims of terrible and unfair service. If you want us to believe that you have been so abused, some supporting facts would help your cause. Without them, my reaction isn't in your favour.

Pantaneous has been around for a long time and has a reasonable reputation in the cruising world. You are asking us to ignore that... why should we?

Jim

Come on man, in this day and age of corporate abdication you are really going to be incredulous that someone got screwed over by an insurance company?! Way to side with goliath there buddy. Jesus internet. Way to show some compassion.

Sorry for your loss Jeff. That really sucks. Also welcome to the forum dude. It used to be full of nice, helpful cruisers.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

Come on man, in this day and age of corporate abdication you are really going to be incredulous that someone got screwed over by an insurance company?! Way to side with goliath there buddy. Jesus internet. Way to show some compassion.

Sorry for your loss Jeff. That really sucks. Also welcome to the forum dude. It used to be full of nice, helpful cruisers.

Want to explain how the OP was screwed by their insurance company? I doubt it, as the facts aren't in this thread and it sounds like the OP is upset about someone elses insurance.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

Come on man, in this day and age of corporate abdication you are really going to be incredulous that someone got screwed over by an insurance company?! Way to side with goliath there buddy. Jesus internet. Way to show some compassion.

Sorry for your loss Jeff. That really sucks. Also welcome to the forum dude. It used to be full of nice, helpful cruisers.

ummm, Ben, just why should I show compassion for an event that is not supported by ANY details? When he shows with facts that Pantaneous has screwed him, then I'll show compassion. Until then, it is just someone mouthing off... that's "Jesus Internet" for ya.

And you must show me where I sided with Goliath, or anybody else. Other posters have said that P treated them well when a claim was made. I guess Goliath is kinda two faced, or maybe you are off base with your condemnation.

Jim

[Capt Gill]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

Come on man, in this day and age of corporate abdication you are really going to be incredulous that someone got screwed over by an insurance company?! Way to side with goliath there buddy. Jesus internet. Way to show some compassion.

Sorry for your loss Jeff. That really sucks. Also welcome to the forum dude. It used to be full of nice, helpful cruisers.

Well Ben, it appears to me that your support for the OP is "Faith based" as no details, data or facts were presented for me to presume the OP "got screwed over by an insurance company", however if that's your belief I will not argue with you anymore than I would argue the virgin birth of Jesus with one who held that belief.

[RichandHelen]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

It is my observation that the insurance world is changing. Going or gone are the days of insurance companies with customer care and integrity.

I sadly had a bad experience with well respected Amica. I was shocked when they played the minutiae and vague game.

Policies seem to be changing to the benefit of th insurance companies. I dropped Chubb because of this. And look at what happened when BoatUS switched to Geico.

Insurance coverage is becoming a commodity with little differentiation. These days the standard response is to avoid a payout. Get used to it.

Not so fast Our boat got clobbered at the hull-to-deck point in hurricane Irma. GEICO had an emergency team in our yard faster than we were allowed back in. Although their initial estimate was way lower than the actual repairs, they honored the actual repair costs to the last dime. And we had the boat done at a very meticulous high-end yard that fixes mega-yachts! The bought us a brand new dinghy ($5000) and even replaced all of our home and travel dock lines (ruined in the storm as well ). They were easy to contact and always sympathetic, helpful and cooperative. We felt absolutely greatful to have them as our insurer. And, based on our experience, would highly recommend them.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by thinwater

a. If insurance does not cover carelessness it is not much good. Gross negligence is a different matter. The latter implies that you either knew or were responsible for knowing.

b. If it was an act of god, your insurance should cover it. It is being blamed on nature rather than a person, which should still be covered, but not by the same party. If your insurance excludes acts of god... pretty useless. If it were home or vehicle insurance, I believe it is illegal in most states to offer such insurance. Boats I can't say.

I wonder if the OP does not understand insurance.

(I've used State Farm an Liberty Mutual and never had a problem with any claim. All of the boat or house claims were acts of god.)

No, actually, what the OP wrote makes sense.

And what he says the insurance company said, makes sense.

The Other Guy has insurance for damage to his own boat caused by his own negligence, and caused by acts of God -- which are indeed a "thing" -- it means, nobody's fault.

The Other Guy has insurance for damage to other people's boats caused by the Other Guy's negligence.

The Other Guy does NOT have insurance for damage to other people's boats which are not caused by his negligence. Nobody has insurance like this -- it's not how insurance works.

It means that if the real cause of the damage was the storm -- an Act of God -- the OP has no claim against the Other Guy, and so he needs to call on his own insurance company to pay for it, not the insurance of the Other Guy.

There is nothing whatsoever unreasonable about this. Why should the Other Guy have insurance to cover your boat for accidents which were not his fault? If my boat is properly tied up and a massive storms breaks her from her mooring, and she blows away and smashes into your boat and sinks her -- I don't pay for that, nor will my insurance. That's between you and your own insurance company. That's the law not only in the U.S. but in Europe as well.

However, if the real cause of the damage was the Other Guy's stupidity in not changing his rotten dock lines, then the Other Guy's insurance must cover it.

The whole question is what was the real cause, and I bet it's debatable under the facts. The OP should calmly and factually explain to Pantaenius that other boats did not break loose in this storm, and give all evidence he has that the real cause of the damage was not the storm, but the negligence of the Other Guy, and threaten to sue. Or simply turn to his own insurance company.


My own experience with Pantaenius -- which is only one data point -- is that they are very good. I had an accident caused by an uninsured fisherman which caused $20,000 of damage. Pantaenius covered it, and out of nothing else but pure kindness, didn't go after the fisherman, who would have lost his boat as he didn't have any other property. They invented an excuse not to go after him -- that the accident happened because he was trying to help, or something. They didn't even charge me my deductible, and they even preserved my huge no-claims discount. They were extremely courteous, helpful, and efficient throughout the whole process. I have nothing but highest praise for "Pants", as we call them here, but that's just one sailor's experience, so YMMV.

[double u]

"...The Other Guy does NOT have insurance for damage to other people's boats which are not caused by his negligence. Nobody has insurance like this -- it's not how insurance works..."
I beg to differ: hereabouts car-3rd-party-insurance does work like this. if there is a technical defect & 3rd party gets "damaged" - insurance pays. even if it's not negligence that caused it, just "wear", unforseeable brakage, act-of "god". They always pay the 3rd party, but may demand their money back from the insured if e.g. it was wilful, under-the-influence, gross negligence, driving without license...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by double u

"...The Other Guy does NOT have insurance for damage to other people's boats which are not caused by his negligence. Nobody has insurance like this -- it's not how insurance works..."
I beg to differ: hereabouts car-3rd-party-insurance does work like this. if there is a technical defect & 3rd party gets "damaged" - insurance pays. even if it's not negligence that caused it, just "wear", unforseeable brakage, act-of "god". They always pay the 3rd party, but may demand their money back from the insured if e.g. it was wilful, under-the-influence, gross negligence, driving without license...

I suggest you read your policy. This is not correct. Liability insurance only pays if you have legal liability. It might cover you in case some technical defect causes an accident but only if you are somehow at fault for the technical defect -- like failing to maintain your car properly, or failing to properly inspect it, or if you knew about the defect and drove the car anyway. In the analogous situation -- say, a tornado picks up your car and drops it on someone else's car, destroying it -- your insurance will not pay for that, nor will you be liable to pay anything.

Liability insurance is not for the benefit of third parties. It is for your benefit - to protect you from liability in some case where you will be legally obligated to compensate someone for an accident.

No-fault works a little differently, but that's not at issue here.

My policy has this clause in it:

SECTION B:
LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES / 0915
§1. Cover


We will cover you, up to the limit(s) specified in the Schedule, for damages which you are legally liable to pay to a third party as a result of your ownership, operation and use of the yacht, arising out of an accident during the Policy Period which causes injury, illness, death or damage to property, subject to the exclusions and conditions in this Section and in Section D.

This illustrates the basic principles of liability insurance:

1. The beneficiary of liability coverage is the person who bought the insurance, not third parties (and why would you pay out your own money to insure third parties for things you are not legally responsible for?).

2. The coverage is only for something the insured person is legally liable for.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

… There is nothing whatsoever unreasonable about this. Why should the Other Guy have insurance to cover your boat for accidents which were not his fault? If my boat is properly tied up and a massive storms breaks her from her mooring, and she blows away and smashes into your boat and sinks her -- I don't pay for that, nor will my insurance. That's between you and your own insurance company. That's the law not only in the U.S. but in Europe as well. ...

I agree with your assessment DH. Do you apply the same logic to anchoring?

Scenario: The Other Guy (call him ‘me’) anchors properly and appropriately upwind of your boat. Proper gear, proper distance, proper technique. A storm breaks the anchor out and my boat hits yours, causing considerable damage. Who, if anyone, is responsible to cover the damages?

[double u]

" car-3rd-party-insurance" - I am absolutely positive about that. the principle would translate into " costs-by-cause principle" not the " fault-based liability" (sorry, I'm not versed in german legalese, much less in english.
definitely: the other guy's tyre blows up & he runs you down: his insurance pays
not so with boats, I know!