Well silence from the powers at Royal Sun Alliance who underwrite the Towergate Mardon Insurance policies.
I thought it polite to write to RS&A to seek their response before lodging a formal complaint about the wording and guidance that I have received and now that the 14 days is up, it is, I think, quite reasonable that you see the points that I was trying to get across to them. Whatever views they may have have not been shared with us so we will all have to make our own minds up.
More as always as it (doesn't) happens.
Oh and I have today pulled the company PI insurance from RS&A as well, but more importantly had a good day on the Revo at the weekend. There you are ...balance as always
Royal Sun Alliance
New Zealand House
160-162 Abbey Foregate
Shropshire. SY2 6AL
Mr Simon Lee[i][i]By recorded post & e-mail
5th June 2013
Dear Mr Lee
Clarity of Cover for Kayaks in particular Hobie Tandem Island models - Towergate Mardon ref:*********
I appreciate that you are not in day to day contact with the issues of policy holders however I would appreciate your assistance in resolving what is rapidly becoming a concern people who insure certain types of small watercraft with you.
I am hoping that by writing to you that I can seek clarification of the requirements of the owners of the above craft as to what exactly is covered, what practically (in the real world) one needs to do for the craft to be insured.
The reason for my letter is that following the theft of parts of my craft, for which I am now told that I am not insured, I have failed to find clarity in the policy documentation that supports the advice that I have been given by the brokers, Towergate Mardon. There appears to be a certain level of ambiguity with these particular craft that requires value judgements to be made as to which parts are covered and which are not.
I hope that you agree, that as owners of these boats, it is important that any subjectivity is avoided from the outset so that we can do what is necessary to ensure that our insurance is valid and our possessions protected. The we in this instance is both Myself and my wife but also all of the other interested Kayak fishermen and Hobie boat owners who are following the debate on this and are keen to receive guidance.
I am sure that if you wish, the full correspondence with Towergate can be provided and I will précis the position as I see it.
1 The fact is that the Hobie is a modular boat with bits that plug into it to allow it to operate in varying configurations. Some of these parts are big and some not so big.
2 This means that either to follow the letter of the policy every one of these parts would have to be removed from the boat, thus rendering the cover essentially meaningless as you would have to take 75% of the boat with you.
3 When asked about this Towergate say
“They have commented that with regards to the components that make up the craft, except the actual hull, these would be similar to mast and sails so wherever possible, and if the craft is being left for any period, these need to be removed. Items such as outriggers, as they form the basis of the boat, would be difficult and inconvenient to keep removing each time. Ideally if any items are to be left, then a wire cable with a padlock can be thread around them so that if they are stolen at least there is a sign of forcible removal”
4 The above paragraph, presumably from RS&A, adds considerable doubt into what and what is not covered, but if taken at face value leads to a conclusion that the craft could not be left, anywhere, for any period of time, without the majority of it being removed and taken somewhere else. (The outriggers are not integral to the boat in certain configurations). If this is the case it should have been made clear from the outset.
5 Terms such as difficult and inconvenient are not helpful and open to interpretation. What is inconvenient to someone who cycles down to his Tandem Island to go sailing (as one person at our yard does) is different from someone who has a trailer, (for some of the parts that are removable could only be trailed or carried on a roof rack)
I contend that because of this lack of clarity in the policy documentation, and the advice that I was given by Towergate Mardon, I could reasonably have believed that the items removed from my craft were covered by my insurance policy.
I further contend that because of your application of the subjective nature of the policy wording, in this case, that the Hobie Tandem Island, Adventure Island and to a great extent the mirage drive kayak range are not covered by the insurance policy that I have been sold. Nor could they reasonably, in real world terms, ever be covered and that either I have been sold a policy that could never cover a boat that everybody involved confirms they are familiar with, or in this instance your application of the subjective parts of the policy are rather harsh.
I have not copied this letter to Towergate Mardon at this stage to formalise a complaint but, that I think is the next step if you do not think my reading of the situation is correct. So could I please ask you to review the points that I have made, I hope politely, and let me know if you think I have a valid point in the next couple of weeks.
May the odds be ever in your favor..