DO NOT INSURE YOUR BOAT WITH PROGRESSIVE

MonacoMike said:

Where is GFC? He taught me this years ago here. LOL

First off what does the review say? Best for small boat owners. Is the OP's vessel a small boat? No it is not.

If you have your "yacht certified" insured as a boat, no matter the company, you are doing it WRONG! Get yourself insured with a yacht policy ASAP. There is an enormous difference between boat and yacht policies.

Click to expand...

Yachts are classified as 36 or larger I believe I know chub won’t give a boat under 36 feet as a yacht policy only a boat policy

Stee6043 said:

That was a fascinating read. Initially upon reading the report it's hard to not agree with the surveyor on the work you've had done, to some extent. The mismatched clamps, the unusual/misaligned exhaust setup, the not so marine looking fuel filter, it all feels a bit shade tree mechanic? Low hanging fruit for the insurance company backed surveyor no doubt.

Your assumption on the stresses and location of the fracture is not entirely accurate though. The load/stress must initially be greatest at the prop/propshaft connection if the prop were to impact something solid. The load/stress/strain then travels up the shaft to the hub/transmission end. There's no physical way for the load/stress to be greater at the transmission end than the prop end upon impact. How the loads are transferred to the keyway/shaft are probably quite different between the two ends but it's not because the loads are different.

Last thought - sell that boat! Now that the insurance company has documented (whether real or otherwise) electrical, fuel and raw water system risks I feel like you'd never be able to make a total loss claim on that thing. Shoot, based on your current experience even if you were run over by another boat they'd say it sank because of the poor clamping job on the exhaust tubes

Click to expand...

This boat originally came with the log style exhaust, which had all of the water inversion problems. The next model year came with the waterlift mufflers. Unfortunately, all of the new engines are ECT in California. The ECT engines have a much larger manifold set up. While the engine is designed to replace a 7.4 or 8.1, you have to modify the exhaust to account for the larger manifolds. This was done by an authorized Mercury shop with over 40 years of experience. The waterlift mufflers and exhaust components were all purchased new. Now, the shop in MDR--also Mercury authorized with 40 years of experience--that put it back together post shaft break clearly did not put the clamps back on correctly. I'll have to address that with them.

I added the fuel filter on the genny, and at least the inline is coast guard approved. Anyone who has one of these older westerbeke 4.5 kw generators with the Weber carbs knows they are incredibly sensitive. You can't have enough pre-filters on these things.

I have not followed every single post in this thread, so if I missed something that renders my comments inaccurate, let me know.

I would make sure I let my attorney who is filing the suit know that you have discussed this extensively on a public forum. Just my take...

FootballFan said:

I have not followed every single post in this thread, so if I missed something that renders my comments inaccurate, let me know.

I would make sure I let my attorney who is filing the suit know that you have discussed this extensively on a public forum. Just my take...

Click to expand...

Third sentence in the original post he states “as a lawyer....”

Anyway—fascinating read on both accounts. Keep us posted!

I am a lawyer, but I haven't shared anything that I wouldn't testify to if deposed. I'm also a longtime boater and a mechanically inclined one at that.

Let me add some further background. I purchased this 340 Sundancer in February 2019. The prior owner purchased it new in 2001 ($190,000--won't ever see that pricing again for a new, 34' SeaRay). He was in his sixties at the time. The boat sat at the dock, where the owner would go sit on it at the dock and idle the engines. The microwave still had the Styrofoam insert in it to keep the rotating glass plate from moving around. All of the exterior carpeting was rolled up in the original plastic bags, never used. The engines had 180 hours and the generator 25. He passed away in late 2018 and his grandkids were looking to get rid of the boat quick.

I sort of did what Dale did with his 340, but had a certified Mercury mechanic do all of the engine stuff. Though they had only 180 hours and looked brand new on the outside, the insides of the 7.4l MPIs were eaten alive. We pulled the engines and old exhaust and replaced them with brand new 8.2 Mercury big blocks and brand new exhaust. The generator was also pulled, refurbished and reinstalled. All of the electronics were pulled and replaced (with the exception of the Raymarine tridata). New bottom paint, pin striping, an inverter, sound system, etc. We splashed her in February 2020. She ran perfectly for 90 hours. So, all told, I have 90 hours on the new engines and 270 hours total on the 'drivetrain'.

I experience a prop strike, which tears up the propeller, breaks the shaft, and screws up the port transmission. The yard, shaft supplier, mechanic, all concur. When the boat was hauled post shaft break, the yard manager commented that the boat looked 'brand new'.

The insurer sends out an adjuster, who spends 4 minutes looking at the shaft, interviews no one (other than me), sees some 'beach marks' and concludes metal fatigue.

I then retain my own surveyor, who goes through everything and concludes that it was clearly a prop strike.

The insurer then hires a hack out of Michigan, who spends the first 10 pages of his report trashing the boat--admitting in the end that none of it pertains to the issue at hand, then reaffirms the metal fatigue theory, not even bothering to address the propeller damage nor bothering to interview any of the professionals who actually disassembled the boat on haul out and observed the damage first hand.

Mind you, this isn't an effort to get a bunch of unnecessary work done on the insurance company's back either. I had the propeller and rudder refurbished, rather than replaced. I sourced the transmission out of Florida because it was cheaper, and I didn't have to pay the sales tax. The work done was necessary to fix the problem, and that's it.

This insurer's playbook is to default to 'metal fatigue' or 'wear and tear' to avoid paying claims. I have little doubt that their final denial letter is going to cite the allegedly poor overall mechanical condition of the vessel, as a further basis to deny the claim. I can't wait.

PS I am now having the fuel fill lines replaced, and am changing out the fuel/water separator with one approved for gasoline engine compartments.

At time of purchase in 2019. Right off the showroom floor...

Been following this post because my boat is insured with Progressive. Some of you may have seen my other post about freeze damage in Texas. My boat had minimal damage (replacing strainers) but the boat next to me (39 foot Mainship) took on two feet of water in engine room and cabin. He's also insured with Progressive so I'm interested to see what happens with his boat. Will keep you posted

Any updates?

douglee25 said:

Any updates?

Click to expand...

Yes. While I was promised a detailed response from Progressive, I received a couple of sentences informing me that the claim decision had not changed. I've been in the process of inspecting and if necessary remedying the issues pointed out in Progressive's surveyor's report. An insurance survey has been scheduled so that I can change carriers.

In the interim, I've been contemplating my next move, which I shall not share here until after it's done.

Rest assured, win, lose or draw, I'll let everyone know what I did, why and how it all ended up.

bfernald0 said:

"........

PS I am now having the fuel fill lines replaced, and am changing out the fuel/water separator with one approved for gasoline engine compartments.

Click to expand...

The reason I believe the fuel filter is not ER worthy is because the drain on the bottom. I have the same one BUT they sell a different lower cap of aluminum with no drain. I did this and it uses the same filter. I think you should be able to switch it and be good. Check with your mechanic.

boatrboy said:

The reason I believe the fuel filter is not ER worthy is because the drain on the bottom. I have the same one BUT they sell a different lower cap of aluminum with no drain. I did this and it uses the same filter. I think you should be able to switch it and be good. Check with your mechanic.

Click to expand...

Definitely NOT USCG approved. Anything with a plastic or glass bowl is not approved for gasoline. I replaced it with this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B085FT6WJZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

bfernald0 said:

Progressive claim decision and response.

Click to expand...

I’m surprised anyone would buy insurance that excludes losses caused by wear and tear, or mechanical or electrical failures. My insurance company began offering these policies year ago as a cheap alternative to losses that were not excluded by the contract. The savings over the better policy was a few hundred dollars. When you think about it, mechanical and electrical failure can lead to a total loss of a boat so why eliminate that coverage? You get what you pay for, and it pays to buy insurance that actually provides you some measure of protection in the event of a problem.

sbw1 said:

I’m surprised anyone would buy insurance that excludes losses caused by wear and tear

Click to expand...

I guess I don't follow that logic.

If you keep your boat out in the sun and weather and your canvas top finally falls apart in the wind, would you expect the insurance company to buy you new canvas?

GypsmJim said:

I guess I don't follow that logic.

If you keep your boat out in the sun and weather and your canvas top finally falls apart in the wind, would you expect the insurance company to buy you new canvas?

Click to expand...

in process of new bimini, $1400, guess i should call progressive. too bad i cant get BoatShield. Like CarShield.
"They put a motor and a transmission in it, who does that"
"You dont have to be a detective to know we all need our cars".
"When you want to reach the end zone, you need to call in special teams, like CarShield".
If you dont work from home all day, you wont get it. Its the Miracle Spring Water of daytime tv.

GypsmJim said:

I guess I don't follow that logic.

If you keep your boat out in the sun and weather and your canvas top finally falls apart in the wind, would you expect the insurance company to buy you new canvas?

Click to expand...

Wear and tear is covered by a depreciation schedule. Many losses can happen through a mechanical or electrical failure when you have done everything right and have kept a boat ship shape. Bad stuff sometimes just happens and you want coverage when it does. This policy has so many weasel words in it, the successful denial rate must be very favorable for the company. All I’m saying is you can expect problems when buying a policy with that language. Better policies exist. That is the logic.

Equipment failures (mech and elec) SHOULD be covered. But that's not wear and tear.

My Lincoln comes with a 4 year bumper to bumper warranty. It covers everything and they even give me a loaner car for free. But if I drive 80K miles and the tires wear out, that's wear and tear.

There are after-market warranties to cover that, but who in their right mind pays the big dollars to get their tires replaced for free....LOL. Its not cost effective.

My policies cover replacement cost, not depreciation.

Regardless, preaching to the choir here. If you got Progressive, shame on you. I knew about them years ago.

bfernald0 said:

Definitely NOT USCG approved. Anything with a plastic or glass bowl is not approved for gasoline. I replaced it with this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B085FT6WJZ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Click to expand...

This is what I said in my post - they sell a bottom that replaces the plastic bowl- I was just trying to save you the effort of changing the whole thing by just unscrewing the plastic bowl and changing it. Oh well - you changed it already so point is mute. Good luck on the rest.

Currently shopping for boat insurance. Chubb about 3k and Travelers is $2,900. Higher than I was expecting but I guess thats the going rate.

bfernald0 said:

Yes. While I was promised a detailed response from Progressive, I received a couple of sentences informing me that the claim decision had not changed. I've been in the process of inspecting and if necessary remedying the issues pointed out in Progressive's surveyor's report. An insurance survey has been scheduled so that I can change carriers.

In the interim, I've been contemplating my next move, which I shall not share here until after it's done.

Rest assured, win, lose or draw, I'll let everyone know what I did, why and how it all ended up.

Click to expand...

I wish you the best. It seems that the amount of money being debated is de minimis. While your story makes sense.....the damage does paint a different view. I have seen a lot of prop strikes and yours looks a lot more like a shaft failure than the prop hitting something at cruise. If you look at the prop, typically a prop strike catches debris rotates it against the hull, rudder or strut causing a really loud noise as the debris locks the prop up. Just the prop alone hitting something isn't usually enough to cause the shaft to break .....especially at the hub. I just don't see anywhere near enough damage to the prop.

Maybe they will go along with the story that a prop strike caused the remaining part of the shaft to fail. That said, expert metallurgists will show you 1,000s of fractures which support the theory that your shaft was compromised before said strike.

Additionally, I don't know why either party is making a big deal about the transmission. Clearly it was worn which appears unrelated to a prop strike. I believe it was a good idea to replace it but without something broken .....burnt plates and worn clutch packs are normal in a well used transmission. I suppose they could be building a "worn out and poorly maintained" argument but given the circumstances......the transmission did not cause the actual failure and likely wasn't materially damaged by it.

Hopefully it works out in your favor.

GypsmJim said:

Equipment failures (mech and elec) SHOULD be covered. But that's not wear and tear.

Click to expand...

This is not shoulda, woulda, coulda. This is a legal contract for very specific coverage. You want mechanical and electrical failure with normal wear and tear coverage. Without that coverage, you have very little protection from loss. Of course you still have to deal with the guy who has the rubber stamp that says your claim is not covered. Remember there are two departments in every insurance company. One sells and tells you you will have great coverage for a great price. The other reviews claims and tells you it is not covered by your contract.