First mention of nuclear war. The 144 Tomahawk missiles carried on submarines are not nuclear. Others indeed are. Just as well we move on, as this is an insurance thread.

I now have a quote from IMIS for 4% less than last year's BoatUS premium. So instead of a 26% increase, I'd have a 4% decrease. The company is Markel America. Do you guys have any comments about their response to claims? According to the paperwork that I have, PO of my boat used them and made a few claims. They apparently paid up and didn't cancel him, so that seems like a good sign.

I also have been pursuing several specific questions with BoatUS about my risk category. A week ago they told me they'd get back to me early this week. No call, so I called back today and got a similar runaround. I'm about ready to pull the plug on them, just want to hear from you guys about Markel first.

We have had a lot of hailstorms in northern Colorado the past decade. I have not had to file a claim for any of them with any of my properties. My insurance costs went up for all of my properties, including my new brick home with supposed damage resistant shingles. Given the amount of money that all of the insurance companies have had to pay out I don't think they are being unreasonable at all. I guess some of you must think that all are equal except for some.

I agree with you to an extent and had even braced myself for an inevitable increase on my boat policy for as much as 5-10% this year. But 20% was shocking. I'm no insurance expert, but it seems an insurance company hiking rates by 20-30% in an area that wasn't even impacted by last year's major storms represents a failure in adequately assessing the level of risk associated with the customers who received payouts over the past couple of years.

I'm sure they would love to build in coverage on their balance sheet for these less common, but significant events. That would require larger premiums, over a longer period. The problem is, they will have a competitor that doesn't and will look like their premiums are better, because the 20% increase only comes every 5 or 10 years. In the meantime, they captured everyone else's clients with lower premiums.

Insurance is an interesting concept. At it's core, no one needs to profit. You just need a group of people that all agree to pay the entire groups losses each year. No premium payments, no profit, just shared loss. The Amish do this. I also know of a uber high end club that does this. No dues, the members just get a bill for their portion of the clubs costs.

When you change the deal from sharing all losses, large and small, to paying a fixed premium and the insurance company has to take all the risk that it's sufficient, you change the game entirely. Yes, they try to recover their big losses, after the fact, but as you can see from the OP, that far from assured, as clients move. Indeed, it doesn't take a hurricane, some insurance companies take the hit uniquely, due to a local loss. Therefore, can't raise their rates because their competitors are still whole and have more competitive premiums.

At the risk of opening a can of worms let me challenge a few assumptions

Why if an individual has had a payout on insurance assuming that neither incident was for fault does that statistically make them more of a risk to insure and therefore pay higher rates.? In my case both incidents were no fault .

It seems o have seen a number of my friends on here assume because they have perfect records they will continue to. Not sure why they look ONLY at this factor and keep harping about it

Second , do you not think a statistical analysis of risk is done by the insurance company on where you keep your boat as far as payout for claims. I am not taking just about a general one like large geographical area , but a more address specific one.

Again at the risk. St my risk of of aggravating a few of my friends on here Let’s look at an actual scenario. I keep my boat in an Uber protected basin with virtually no open fetch from winds . Rock Hall Harbor to me is far more exposed and therefore on risk analysis may incur greater numbers of wind or insurance claims that are weather nonfault related.

I am not sure but want to assume when it comes to lightening strikes ( non fault) and may occur at the dock as that’s where a boat spends the majority of its time. . Again I would venture to bet Rock Hall being far more exposed with less protection has received far more lightening hits. Only statistics none of us may know may bear that out and again be one of the algorithms determining number of claims in an area and therefore greater risk. Car insurance in an area takes this into account so it’s sage to assume that boat insurance may have a far more specific algorithm built into their premium models ( insurance in Baltimore City is greater than in the country in Baltimore county where I live and premiums are higher.

I always believe rates were a conglomerate of many risk factors. Location, weather, even facility specific data should be / may be used. Not just specific ....how many claims have you processed data.

I am not sure what justifies a sudden 20% jump in premiums. However I would not just focus on your record of claims.

When we shopped for insurance on our house / car/ boat there were a lot of factors. One was how was the companies reputation in dealing with claims. Did they challenge every buckle and dime? Asking SN is good , but we actually asked a few local surveyors. After all they are the ones usually sent by the insurance company to access damage . They all know the easiest and best companies to deal with. I can tell you hands down in the Annapolis area. A number I talked to said Boat US Geico was far easier that others to deal with. I my personal experience I found that so also.

You may save a few dollars in cost, but is it worth it when there is a claim to have everything challenged ? Price is only one factor in what insurance company I picked. BTW this goes the same for our house and other insurance we have.

The biggest underlying macro factor is the realization that what once were uncommon extreme weather events are becoming much more frequent and less predictable.

I am very surprised how low the increases are, doubling would have been more rational IMO.

I think 20% increases every year will perhaps be a more strategic move, but in the end keeping your boat in the zone will be only for the self-insuring wealthy and the foolhardy poor forced to be uninsured.

Asking again, does anyone know what's currently happening with the big-fleet charter operations? I think very much the canary in the coal mine.

As well as the actuary working out the cost of claims a company must work out its profit.
If they don't want to be in an area of insurance they probably jack that rate up.

Insurance used to be non-profit. A mutual group of owners pooling together to hedge risk. Now it's a profit making business.

Finally there's the aggression of the owners to make back their premiums by claims.

Except for some laws I would not have insurance but take the risk upon myself.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding of what a nonprofit corporation actually entails. I had a nonprofit corporation to operate the Bicycle Motocross track my wife and I sponsored for 6 years so the local kids had a place to safely learn and compete. The nonprofit status simply means that the owners cannot take possession of any of the assets when the corporation is dissolved. Those employed by the nonprofit can have completely ridiculous salaries and benefits (such has been exposed in the Red Cross and other such "charities") so individuals can still be completely greedy and selfish.

Concerning corporations in general: Are you willing to invest your money in a company that guarantees to never pay you back any interest, dividends, or other gains on your original investment? If so, you guys are as ignorant as you have revealed.

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to Americans.

I don't mean non-profit like you mean.

I meant mutual group/fund/society.

Profits are given back in cash or reduced premiums annually.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance