That's been my experience with USAA. They also wouldn't issue an umbrella liability policy for me if they didn't insure the boat, but they wouldn't insure the boat because of size and value. Maybe they have changed their policy in the past 20 years.
Survey before insurance will renew?
- Thread starter Justin_NSA
- Start date
Most surveyors charge by the foot. I had a surveyor from JAX that charged less than that for my 36' boat. And he had to travel to Brunswick GA to do the survey. It was an in water survey, so he didn't have to sound the hull.
I switched from Geico/Boat US in 2021. I had no claims for over 12 years with Boat US, but then Geico tried to make unacceptable changes to my policy language and substantially reduce my agreed value without even asking for a new survey. A new survey would have clearly proven the market value and excellent condition of the boat but they weren’t interested in that, or apparently in having a customer who actually reads the policy language.
If you have an older boat insured with Geico/Boat US, and probably other insurers too, watch out for a sneaky paragraph titled “Partial Loss Depreciation”. It basically means you don’t have nearly the coverage you think you have on an older boat. I worked with an independent broker and was able to get a much better policy with Chubb at the same cost. Without the slippery language. I did have to spend around $640 ($20/ft + $40 for travel) for a new survey on my 30 foot boat, but it was well worth it.
The best advice on any kind of insurance is to actually READ the policy. You need to shop coverage; not just premium. Too many people just look at the premium and then find out they don’t have nearly the coverage they thought they had when they actually have a claim.
If you have an older boat insured with Geico/Boat US, and probably other insurers too, watch out for a sneaky paragraph titled “Partial Loss Depreciation”. It basically means you don’t have nearly the coverage you think you have on an older boat. I worked with an independent broker and was able to get a much better policy with Chubb at the same cost. Without the slippery language. I did have to spend around $640 ($20/ft + $40 for travel) for a new survey on my 30 foot boat, but it was well worth it.
The best advice on any kind of insurance is to actually READ the policy. You need to shop coverage; not just premium. Too many people just look at the premium and then find out they don’t have nearly the coverage they thought they had when they actually have a claim.
Last edited:
I used Progressive Insurance Company for my 1982 Catalina 30. Easy as pie! All over the internet. They didn't ask for a survey, but I have one anyway.
‘Partial Loss Depreciation’ means the insurance company will not pay replacement cost on a partial loss. For example, your mast was destroyed & you need a new one. The insurance company will depreciate the value of the mast based on its age. They won’t pay the full replacement cost of a new mast. This is called “actual cash value” or ACV. Many insurance companies use this. Ideally, you want a full replacement cost policy but the only company I believe that does this anymore is Chubb. Chubb is actually a very good insurance company. I once went up against their homeowners insurance policy & couldn’t compare. But usually you will pay a higher premium for them so I was surprised to see you got it at around the same cost. Kudos to you my friend, you got a really good boat policy.
That really frosts me. The concept is that a policyholder should not be "bettered" by the action of a claim. In fact, it used to be called "betterment". So, how are you "bettered" by having a hole in your hull repaired? Or, a new boom, or mast, or port light. Total nonsense in my opinion.
a. I'm sure we have all seen 30-year boats that we would not insure at any price. Unlike cars, there is no regular safety inspection requirement.
b. IME the survey requirement will not be annual or anything like it. Maybe again in 10 years.
c. An insurance survey is usually simpler than a sale survey. The surveyor should know this. It is more about safety than establishing a value, although not 100%.
d. The surveyor might save you grief by finding something that you should fix, but either would not find or would not fix on your own. This is not a bad thing. Sometimes we need a nudge. Do review the survey for recommendations that have nothing to do with safety. The varnish is bad. It could use a compounding and wax. The refrigerator is wonky.
b. IME the survey requirement will not be annual or anything like it. Maybe again in 10 years.
c. An insurance survey is usually simpler than a sale survey. The surveyor should know this. It is more about safety than establishing a value, although not 100%.
d. The surveyor might save you grief by finding something that you should fix, but either would not find or would not fix on your own. This is not a bad thing. Sometimes we need a nudge. Do review the survey for recommendations that have nothing to do with safety. The varnish is bad. It could use a compounding and wax. The refrigerator is wonky.
https://forums.sailboatowners.com/members/thinwater.103071/report
thinwater,
Your section C and section D seem to be in conflict. Varnish and compounding are not safety related.
As to cost, a $10,000 boat and a required $1200 survey cost seems out of sync.
If the Insurance company requires it for coverage, they should establish the criteria in writing,
(which they refuse to do btw), so that the boat owner can negotiate a fair price with the surveyor.
thinwater,
Your section C and section D seem to be in conflict. Varnish and compounding are not safety related.
As to cost, a $10,000 boat and a required $1200 survey cost seems out of sync.
If the Insurance company requires it for coverage, they should establish the criteria in writing,
(which they refuse to do btw), so that the boat owner can negotiate a fair price with the surveyor.
One of the objectives of a survey may be to discourage owners of less expensive boats to give up hull insurance and only have liability. It does not take much damage to declare a low value boat a total constructive loss. Once they pay the claim they are stuck with a boat they need to get rid of.
I think it helps to remember that no insurance company has a policy handbook section titled "Things that Make Sense" or "Things that Serve Our Customers Well".
In other words, insurance companies are incentived to sell as many low-risk policies and pay out as little as possible on those policies. This puts them directly at odds with what its customers want and need.
They are most concerned with their bottom line and the bottom line is best served by selling you something you will never need.
They have no incentive to take any risks on your behalf. Most insurers have no idea how to accurately assess recreational maritime risks. So, they tend to approach it as conservatively as possible - with a bunch of requirements, restrictions, and limitations - even if those don't make much real-world sense.
From their perspective, it is better to not have you as a customer than to have you as a risk they cannot calculate. It would be like a casino allowing you to play a game that they are unfamiliar with - they cannot be sure the odds are stacked in the house's favor.
I am not defending insurance companies. I think the industry is broken. But, I think it is important to understand why they act the way they do.
In other words, insurance companies are incentived to sell as many low-risk policies and pay out as little as possible on those policies. This puts them directly at odds with what its customers want and need.
They are most concerned with their bottom line and the bottom line is best served by selling you something you will never need.
They have no incentive to take any risks on your behalf. Most insurers have no idea how to accurately assess recreational maritime risks. So, they tend to approach it as conservatively as possible - with a bunch of requirements, restrictions, and limitations - even if those don't make much real-world sense.
From their perspective, it is better to not have you as a customer than to have you as a risk they cannot calculate. It would be like a casino allowing you to play a game that they are unfamiliar with - they cannot be sure the odds are stacked in the house's favor.
I am not defending insurance companies. I think the industry is broken. But, I think it is important to understand why they act the way they do.
I bought a 1981 Hunter 30 recently for $8,000. It’s a wonderful boat, solid and in good shape—not perfect, but definitely not going to sink. I’m handy and working on fixing her up and keeping her well maintained.
I’ve had GEICO for my auto insurance and initially planned to go with them for the boat, too. But they insisted I get a survey before they’d insure it—even for just liability coverage. The cost of a survey felt ridiculous considering it’s a big chunk of my boat’s purchase price.
I told GEICO I wasn’t even looking for hull insurance at first. Just liability. But they still refused to insure me without a survey.
So I tried Progressive. And I have to say, they really came through. They insured my boat without requiring a survey and offered not only liability but also hull coverage, hurricane haul-out, personal property coverage, wreck removal, and all the bells and whistles.
I ended up buying the more comprehensive coverage with all the extras. Progressive probably made a pretty penny on me since I’m unlikely to ever file a claim, but it gives me peace of mind knowing I’m fully covered.
Meanwhile, GEICO wouldn’t even sell me basic liability insurance without a survey. So, for anyone in a similar boat (pun intended), Progressive might be worth checking out.
I’ve had GEICO for my auto insurance and initially planned to go with them for the boat, too. But they insisted I get a survey before they’d insure it—even for just liability coverage. The cost of a survey felt ridiculous considering it’s a big chunk of my boat’s purchase price.
I told GEICO I wasn’t even looking for hull insurance at first. Just liability. But they still refused to insure me without a survey.
So I tried Progressive. And I have to say, they really came through. They insured my boat without requiring a survey and offered not only liability but also hull coverage, hurricane haul-out, personal property coverage, wreck removal, and all the bells and whistles.
I ended up buying the more comprehensive coverage with all the extras. Progressive probably made a pretty penny on me since I’m unlikely to ever file a claim, but it gives me peace of mind knowing I’m fully covered.
Meanwhile, GEICO wouldn’t even sell me basic liability insurance without a survey. So, for anyone in a similar boat (pun intended), Progressive might be worth checking out.
The origins of insurance come from marine policies covering goods on ships bound for London from all parts of the world. So in actuality, insurance companies have hundreds of years of marine experience from which to determine boat premiums. The truth is that insurance companies are constantly fighting insurance fraud. As much as 20% (probably more) of all property insurance claims are fraudulent in some way. Padded claims (adding additional damage), & fake claims are rampant. Everyone figures it’s ok to cheat the big insurance company after all. They can afford it. But we all pay the price. Climate change isn’t helping either. It’s just the truth folks.
If you were your insurer, wouldn't you want a survey occasionally, on a boat that hadn't (apparently) ever had a proper survey? Just because you assume your boat is in good condition, doesn't mean it would be a good bet for an insurance company, unsurveyed.
This is really good point. The insurance company needs to assess the risk it is taking on, in addition to the survey and perhaps unknown to you, they also checked the database of all claims filed, your credit score, and your driving record. Boat condition is a factor in assessing liability. Is this a boat that is well maintained and safe, is the owner experienced? Rest assured they are not going to just take your word for it when they are potentially on the hook for large sums of money.
Progressive appears to have undertaken a marketing plan to grab a bigger share of the recreational marine insurance market. It will be interesting to watch over the next few years how they respond as the company gets more experience with this market.
No conflict. I agree. Those are examples of things that do not belong on an insurance survey.
Yeah, a survey is expensive for a small boat. On the other hand, a car that was 30 years old would have been inspected 30 times for $25. The net present value of that would be just about the same (inspection rates were lower in the past), so not that different. Perhaps you can negotiate with the surveyor if the boat is very simple. If the boat is not simple, then for $10,000 it is old and I can see why they want a serious survey. Try negotiating the interval (it should be at least 5 years).
Talk to surveyors about a simple insurance survey. The last time I needed one it was about 1/2 price.
Not marine related, but I had a camper insured through progressive that was recently stolen. It was quite a complicated claim due to a number of issues that I'm not going to go into.
But Progressive was fantastic! So much so, when I'm back from my current sailing trip to Nova Scotia I am seriously thinking to switch all of my insurances over to Progressive.
dj
I first noticed this when they became a title sponsor of the New York Boat Show. I'd say they moved pretty aggressively into the marine recreational market. I'm not sure why. I think the risks for a major loss (Environmental damage, death and personal injury) are large and the premiums are market limited. But one thing INSCO's are good at is experience rating of risk and limiting losses.
I think it's important not to conflate the discussion of liability insurance with hull insurance. For liability insurance, the value of the boat is almost irrelevant and the condition isn't much more relevant.
For liability insurance, in certain situations, it might be appropriate to require a targeted survey of a boat to assess specific risks - such as environmental damage from leaks, propane systems, etc. But beyond this, a general marine survey, even a so-called "insurance survey" does very little to inform the insurance company of their actual risks. Because there’s no regulatory or industry-wide standard, the term “insurance survey” is informal and variable. It is only meaningful if the requesting insurer is specific about what they want to assess (which they rarely are) and the surveyor limits their survey to just those issues (which they rarely do - though most will if asked).
This lack of clarity strongly suggests that insurers are not using granular actuarial data - but are instead relying simply on heuristics or industry norms. It is like avoiding all snakes because some snakes are venomous, rather than being specific about which are and which aren't. True, you won't die of a snake bite if you avoid all snakes ... and that is approach taken by most insurance companies.
Hull insurance is another story. In that case, it is important that the insurer has a pretty complete picture of what it is they are insuring.
I'm tempted to say that liability insurance is more about who you are insuring and hull insurance is more about what you are insuring. But, admittedly, it isn't quite that simple.