Marine Insurance for a 1973 38' boat?

I've heard this complaint numerous times! You have two things going against you in obtaining insurance... the age and (I'm assuming)... wood. Right? I've had the same problem too!

Let's see if we can get you some help... I'm going to move this thread over to the Roamer Club. Some of these guys (a very astute group!) may have encountered similar insurance problems with older Roamers, or may know some Connie owners with answers.

Good Luck!

Try Jack Martin + Associates. They got me a quote and acceptance from Marine Underwriters. This was on a 1968 56' roamer and at that time I had limited experience with larger boats. Make sure and take a safe boating course also.

D. Hill

They do me...

..., and I have '67 Roamer 37' (AL)
National Marine Underwriters
http://www.nmu.com/default.aspx
Pretty good bunch = $approx 700/year.

Insurance Questions.

If there are any insurance questions, please do not hesitate to email me at jcwilson@nmu.com and I will make sure they are directed to the appropriate party.

Jeff Wilson
National Marine Underwriters, Inc.

old boat ins,

hagererty ins a 38 foot roamer offshore

Haggerty and Heritage do old wooden boats, but lack of experience might be a challenge.

National Marine Underwriters had the best rates and an excellent reputation, but weren't interested in my 52' Connie. Maybe I'll try them again for this Roamer.

btw, my Connie insurance is $2k/year. After thousands of years afloat, insurance rates are killing wooden boats.

Hi,

That's not because of what they are made of its called (risk) and not the board game or a similar sounding name.

Insurance is all about risk and it's reduction.

The majority of folks dealing with insurance have no idea about the product they are dealing with, given the world wide national aversion to swimming, the history of old wooden boats "Noahs Arc" springs to mind here no wonder you can't get insurance when you add this to the fact that the folks you are no undoubtedly taking to aren't as old as your boat.

It's all ancient to them and not something they could possible offer a risk based premium on at a price any normal old and wooden boat owner should reasonably be expected to be able to afford for any or the afore mentioned reasons.

I have risk based Public Liability insurance, the annual premiums seem to vary dis proportionately to the risk when the contract starts I have a lot of fiscal responsibility, at the end it is reduced because the boat is a tangible asset with at least some value.

Each annual renewal my premium rises based upon what the Co sees as the agreed risk regardless of whether the project they have covered me for has gone forward and increased in value.

Potato...Potahtoe

When you call a US marine insurer and tell them you have a perfectly restored old woody, most of them politely tell you to go elsewhere. Here in the US, it is the hull material, in fact, that is considered too risky. It doesn't matter if you just found a new-old-stock Connie in a climate-controlled barn that never, ever saw water before...it's uninsurable through most carriers because it's wood (ie too risky).

Ironically, as the unloved pieces of junk have gone away (with fabulous payouts from the insurers that were not then requiring regular surveys), what remains are mostly nice wooden boats with owners who take care of them. Unfortunately, the junk wooden boat legacy remains and those of us who own woodies now and into the future get stuck for it.

Look at BoatUS to see why boats sink: broken thru-hull clamps, bad hoses, poor exhaust and other installs...sprung planks aren't even on the list. If your risk argument held water as well as my old wooden boat does, rates should drop and companies should welcome us nicely maintained woodies back into the fold again because old wooden boats in nice condition represent no more risk than fiberglass, steel, or aluminum boats. I might even suggest that we represent even less risk because we don't have that "maintenance free" mindset. But it's not gonna happen because we've got the wrong hull material.

Even more ironically is that in the last three years, there have been numerous boats that have sank in marinas around my yacht club. All have been fiberglass. All had seacocks freeze. All were newer than 1985. And I'd bet one wooden nickel that all of them were insured through common carriers who don't see as much risk in newer fiberglass boats.

Here's one I never got--if insurance companies are all about lowering risk, then why do many companies operating in the US refuse to insure (or insure at a higher rate) liveaboards? Statistically, courtesy of BoatUS, boats attended to by their owners sink much less often than those with absentee owners. Yet I've heard BoatUS gets nasty if you mention that you liveaboard.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the question posted at the top of this thread...