Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Probably Bunged up with cordage Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You guys are Knot being Knice! Link to post Share on other sites
Tim C 23 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Opua Marina Shop has insured 'Pulse' for years, and will look at offshore coverage. They have always been helpful to me. I've never claimed so I can't report on that. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Yer Dave and Melita at Opua Marine Shop are worth talking to, especially for cruising... not sure about multi race cover. I got them to put together a quote for us to go up to Fiji this winter. They came back with a package through the UK. As I was un familiar with the company I had a friendly multi marine lawyer look over the proposal and backing... All good.. very good apparently. They will cover us for the year - inshore waters in NZ and Pacific Islands and for the Blue water while on the way to the islands (and between). This one was especially good as thay do allow us to sail 2 up (need to show good offshore experience). Price wise, very reasonable. Note: I have heard talk of an opua based broker that sells a dodgy package for cruisers with only bad support or none at all with claims. I checked and it is definately not Opua Marine Shop.. Just bear it in mind. Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Squid - would you mind tagging this to the top. I field quite a few questions via the club on this and it would be good to point to this discussion. There's a few others in the past as well IIRC. Link to post Share on other sites
Megwyn 2 Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Opua Marina Shop has insured 'Pulse' for years, and will look at offshore coverage. They have always been helpful to me. I've never claimed so I can't report on that. Thanks TC - I will try them on Monday. Saw you in Schoolhouse Bay on Sunday afternoon. Unfortunately couldn't convince the skipper (not the boss) to stop by. LOL - been trying to be in the same place at the same time for 4 years. Finally see you out there, and can't stop by. Caught up with Cookie and Pam in Harris Bay. M Link to post Share on other sites
Tim C 23 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You're always welcome to drop by! I had a nice evening with team Krisis too. So we must have just missed each other! Link to post Share on other sites
Megwyn 2 Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Tim I just spoke with a lady at Opua Marine Shop, and she said she knows you Also said she would love to help us out, but could only cover the new to be yatchit if it was in a marina, and with a whole heap of other conditions. Then they would not cover under sail. Apparently even Lloyds will not underwrite a multi with more than 2 hulls! Seems they think 2 hulls are safer than three - and who am I to argue. Luckily we can get continued cover from Baileys who currently cover the above mentioned multi. M Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 We the public of this world have supported Insurance companies for hundreds of years. We have financed their hi rise buildings, Funded their corporate buy outs and Paid their salaries. When disaster strikes we then find we have to beg and plead to get some recompense. Christchurch has become a no go zone for the mighty insurance company. Insurance is an industry built by fear, our fear of our loss, now we see fear in the eyes of the insurance companies. Insurance companies basically take a gamble that we will not suffer that loss or that enough of us will not suffer all at once, Perhaps it is time for us the public to gamble and say to those companies in their high rise buildings, Go, Go and have self stimulating personal intercourse with yourself somewhere over the great divide. Fortunately not all companies are tared with the same brush and I thank Baileys for stepping up and finding at least some cover for RO. I would bet that on any Wednesday evening in Auckland there are enough claims created to nullify anything I may have done with my Three hulled Beauty in six years of ownership. It Is time, Time for the public of this world to pitch a figurative tent in the figurative lobbies of insurance companies and say enough, we want better cover, sadly most of you will think I am talking about leaky tents and so my whole protest will just go up in figurative smoke. And so as I wander off into the sunset another rant just fades with the dying light of day. Hey Megwyn just insure the middle bit and starboard float this year and swap sides each year that way you will have an average of full cover every four years. Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Why not insure the middle bit for three times its value? Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Well, the middle bit has all the expensive stuff in it, so maybe insuring that bit makes sense. The amas are the cheaper bits of the boat. Wonder if the insurance companies would buy that? Link to post Share on other sites
Megwyn 2 Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 LOL - the "boss" reckons to insure it as a catamaran, with a central pod that touches the water! Reckon it might work? Offender - thanks for your support in our frustration. I do not understand why the third hull, which I would have considered more stabilising than destabilising becomes a problem. Of course, the boss did say that most trimarans are originally designed as racers, whereas there are alot of catamarans designed and built world wide that are pure cruisers with their huge bridgedecks windage and weight, they go nowhere very fast under sail It seems, from the information I have garnered from the insurance professionals, that trimarans are more likely to be pushed harder than cats, so therefore more likely to pitchpole, thereby resulting in insurance claims. Go figure. Looking at the multihulls available for sale in NZ at the moment and in the last few years that we have been watching, I would presume to put forward my opinion that many of the cats offered for sale were not intended as cruising vessels . However, looking at the designs of most (not all) of the trimarans, I would believe they are intended as cruisers. (In fact, most were such cruising vessels that they were discarded as too slow by 'the boss' ) Just glad I don't have to put up with the smell of epoxy for the next two years while being unable to get out there and enjoy the fabulous sailing that our glorious country has to offer. M Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Well in the 8.5 class alone I think the theory of tri's going over more than cats has been debunked? But I guess if I was an insurance company I wouldn't take on a bad risk, and I guess somewhere in their archives they have "facts" & figures that prove multihulls are a bad risk. So what you got then M? Have we come out and fessed up yet? I might have missed that bit Link to post Share on other sites
Megwyn 2 Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Waiting till the deal is done, then the cat will come out of the bag I am sure . . . if it hasn't already Watch my sig Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I have never understood why an insurance company refuses to issue a policy on anything. Yes, the perceived risks may be higher, but instead of saying "no, we won't insure that", why do they not say "yeah, sure we'll insure it, but we consider it a large risk so your premiums will have to reflect that"? Maybe insurance companies don't actually like risk at all??? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Maybe insurance companies don't actually like risk at all??? They are gamblers who only gamble on a sure thing. If they put the price of the insurance way up there and let us make the choice that would be aceptable but then some would call them burglers and they don't like being called burglers. So I gues we just have to stick with calling them @#$% @#&^% ols. Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 343 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Come on now. insurance companies are a business, not a charity. They can do what they like. They have no obligation to insure you if they don't want to. Bitching about it does nothing but make us look pathetic and whiney Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I understand that insurance is a business, not a charity and while I may not like paying premiums, there's a certain comfort in having an insurance policy when something does go wrong (assuming that whatever went wrong is covered by your policy). I'm just saying that a "refusal to insure" approach seems a little odd, when its possible to take on higher levels of risk if the premiums are elevated to be able to cover that risk. There's actually a potential to make more money .... isn't there? In terms of a PR nightmare, one could argue that insurance companies already have a bit of a reputation (rightly or wrongly) amongst the punters, so charging more for higher levels of risk is kinda what you'd expect rather than a flat refusal. You'd think there'd be a niche in the insurance market to take on risk that other companies don't want to take on and to charge accordingly. Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Waiting till the deal is done, then the cat will come out of the bag I am sure . . . if it hasn't already Watch my sig Cat is out... CAT??? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Bitching about it does nothing but make us look pathetic and whiney Quite right, and if nobody bitched or moaned about things that are not quite right in the world there would be no forty hour working week, no ban on child labour and Hitler would have done whatever the heck he wanted without opposition. What you are saying is that it is okay for a business to do what ever the heck it wants and we should not have an opinion. Well I am pathetic and whiney and it has served me well all these years i would rather be this way than exist as a god dam sheep. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.