I have an insurance company requiring seacocks on all thru hulls above the waterline.
I have to admit that I have never even looked at the connection for the engine exhaust. The most convenient way to do that I assume would be to pull the instrument panel?
For those of you who have dutifully inspected that thru hull, is their room for a seacock?
Engine Exhaust Thru Hull CD 28
Moderator: Jim Walsh
-
Roger McManus
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Feb 14th, '05, 20:50
- Location: Boat: s/v "Cocos"CD 28' Sloop, Hull #71 Annapolis, Maryland
-
The Patriot
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Mar 14th, '05, 09:14
Re: Engine Exhaust Thru Hull CD 28
I don't mean to treat this lightly, but it may be better to change insurance companies rather than change the exhaust profile. On my CD28 the through hull is probably at least 2 inches, and you are going to drop hundreds for the part. Next comes changing the wire-reinforced hose, messing with the engine panel, crawling around in there, etc. BTW I don't believe there is a marine standard on this thing, and your company is perhaps overzealous.Roger McManus wrote:I have an insurance company requiring seacocks on all thru hulls above the waterline ...
Sorry for the bad news.
exhaust seacock
Roger,
I am curious. What insurance company is it? Oh by the way, that is not an ABYC recommendation. You may want to mention that to them. I can also send you a copy of the standard if that would help. ABYC, NFPA, and CFR are the accepted standards used by surveyors etc in this country.
I am curious. What insurance company is it? Oh by the way, that is not an ABYC recommendation. You may want to mention that to them. I can also send you a copy of the standard if that would help. ABYC, NFPA, and CFR are the accepted standards used by surveyors etc in this country.
Lee
S/V Solomon Lee
S/V Solomon Lee
?
Sounds like there's a misunderstanding somewhere. I can't imagine an insurance company requiring a seacock on the engine exhaust too, never heard of such a thing. It would be much easier to find another insurance company than to install and use such a seacock.
John
John
Sailing involves the courage to cherish adventure and the wisdom to fear danger. Knowing where one ends, and the other begins, makes all the difference.
-
Roger McManus
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Feb 14th, '05, 20:50
- Location: Boat: s/v "Cocos"CD 28' Sloop, Hull #71 Annapolis, Maryland
This requirement came after a routine survey for insurance renewal. The surveyor did a good job recommending a minor alternation for one of the thu hulls that was loose. I was thankful for the recommendation, and have no problem with the proposed fix.
Recognizing the standards issue for above water line thru hulls, he did suggest that it would be a good idea to put seacocks on the other thru hulls. (The hoses are all looped up, and attached to remain so, but they don't have vents.) He noted that all the of them, with the exception of the issue above, were in good shape with properly fastened hoses in good shape. In my subsequent reading, I noted that a concern was that these thru hulls could be underwater on a heel or rough weather, but of course three of them have to do with manual and electric bilge pumps, so there is that.
The insurance company, Windsor Mount Joy, came back requiring all of his requirements, some of his observation, and all of his recommendations. They also want me to sign a document stating that all of their conditions have been met, and if there is a claim on the insurance that claim is invalid of any of the conditions were unmet, even if the claim is unrelated to the conditions indicated for correction or upgrade. I realized there was not a clear exception for the engine exhaust, which neither the surveyor or I addressed.
I am looking for a different company. However in thinking about their condition, I realized I had never inspected the engine exhaust thru hull. Notwithstanding the wisdom of doing so given that it probably is original, I recognized it would probably be difficult to install anything else in that space. Hence my inquiry to the Board.
Roger
Recognizing the standards issue for above water line thru hulls, he did suggest that it would be a good idea to put seacocks on the other thru hulls. (The hoses are all looped up, and attached to remain so, but they don't have vents.) He noted that all the of them, with the exception of the issue above, were in good shape with properly fastened hoses in good shape. In my subsequent reading, I noted that a concern was that these thru hulls could be underwater on a heel or rough weather, but of course three of them have to do with manual and electric bilge pumps, so there is that.
The insurance company, Windsor Mount Joy, came back requiring all of his requirements, some of his observation, and all of his recommendations. They also want me to sign a document stating that all of their conditions have been met, and if there is a claim on the insurance that claim is invalid of any of the conditions were unmet, even if the claim is unrelated to the conditions indicated for correction or upgrade. I realized there was not a clear exception for the engine exhaust, which neither the surveyor or I addressed.
I am looking for a different company. However in thinking about their condition, I realized I had never inspected the engine exhaust thru hull. Notwithstanding the wisdom of doing so given that it probably is original, I recognized it would probably be difficult to install anything else in that space. Hence my inquiry to the Board.
Roger
Exhaust seacock
Roger,
Have the surveyor call them and discuss it with the underwriter. It sounds unusual. I would also consider looking for another underwriter though preferably a marine underwriter like Boat US, Ace Inamar, etc. Yeah, if you don't met the stipulations of underwriting such as corrections and a related claim is filed, refusal is normal. However, as long as a thru hull that could be below the waterline is fitted with reinforced hose a seacock is no longer recommended by ABYC. Is it a good practice, YES. But that is like blanket advising that all below waterline hoses be double clamped. It is not required by recommendations except in a few limited areas and sometimes it is inappropriate and can cause a problem. Yes, antisiphon loops and vented loops are a great thing, but a blanket requirement for it would not be prudent. For instance, a vented loop in the exhaust hose or gas tank vent hose. Oh boy, what a great idea. (just being sarcastic). Good luck.
Have the surveyor call them and discuss it with the underwriter. It sounds unusual. I would also consider looking for another underwriter though preferably a marine underwriter like Boat US, Ace Inamar, etc. Yeah, if you don't met the stipulations of underwriting such as corrections and a related claim is filed, refusal is normal. However, as long as a thru hull that could be below the waterline is fitted with reinforced hose a seacock is no longer recommended by ABYC. Is it a good practice, YES. But that is like blanket advising that all below waterline hoses be double clamped. It is not required by recommendations except in a few limited areas and sometimes it is inappropriate and can cause a problem. Yes, antisiphon loops and vented loops are a great thing, but a blanket requirement for it would not be prudent. For instance, a vented loop in the exhaust hose or gas tank vent hose. Oh boy, what a great idea. (just being sarcastic). Good luck.
Lee
S/V Solomon Lee
S/V Solomon Lee
-
Roger McManus
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Feb 14th, '05, 20:50
- Location: Boat: s/v "Cocos"CD 28' Sloop, Hull #71 Annapolis, Maryland
Lee,
Key points on the exhaust and vent hoses!
We already have been through several communications with all three. The surveyor is frustrated as I am.
I am basically going to another insurance company. One observation was that fewer companies are dealing with older boats, and are just looking for ways to cover themselves or get rid of business they don't want.
In any case, if there is anybody out there that has actually looked at that exhaust hose connection to the thru hull, I would like to hear from them.
Thanks,
Roger
Key points on the exhaust and vent hoses!
We already have been through several communications with all three. The surveyor is frustrated as I am.
I am basically going to another insurance company. One observation was that fewer companies are dealing with older boats, and are just looking for ways to cover themselves or get rid of business they don't want.
In any case, if there is anybody out there that has actually looked at that exhaust hose connection to the thru hull, I would like to hear from them.
Thanks,
Roger
Exhaust thru hull
Roger,
On my 33 there is no way to attach a seacock or ball valve to the fitting since it is barbed to accept the hose. Seacocks are sometimes recommended for bluewater work due to the possibility of large following seas. I have experience large seas in my 33 and have not had that issue though knock on wood. If your's is the same as mine, you will have to replace the skin fitting in order to install a valve.
By the by, I am not affiliated with them other than a custom but over the years I have noticed that Boat US is very very good at handling claims and doing it fast. They are a bit pricer than some but I have been very happy with them and they have actually reduced my rates for being claim free. Also, they don't have a problem with age as long as it has a current survey. I had to go through the complying with recommendations with them when I bought this boat, but they used what looked like common sense with it.
On my 33 there is no way to attach a seacock or ball valve to the fitting since it is barbed to accept the hose. Seacocks are sometimes recommended for bluewater work due to the possibility of large following seas. I have experience large seas in my 33 and have not had that issue though knock on wood. If your's is the same as mine, you will have to replace the skin fitting in order to install a valve.
By the by, I am not affiliated with them other than a custom but over the years I have noticed that Boat US is very very good at handling claims and doing it fast. They are a bit pricer than some but I have been very happy with them and they have actually reduced my rates for being claim free. Also, they don't have a problem with age as long as it has a current survey. I had to go through the complying with recommendations with them when I bought this boat, but they used what looked like common sense with it.
Lee
S/V Solomon Lee
S/V Solomon Lee
Marine Insurance Advocate........not, but.
I have my vessel insured with Windsor and have no issues with them. I haven't made a claim either. They do require an insurance survey, at 7 year intervals for older boats, that's not unusual. A survey for this purpose is not as expensive nor as involved as a survey for purchase but draws down the kitty nevertheless. The only requirement they stipulated was installation of a co2 detector and a fire detector. They were satisfied of my having had done so with a photo and signed affidavit. I think your surveyor did you a disservice, opening a can of worms by mentioning this issue in his report......he should know better, of course they would go by his recommendation, anything that would give further limit to their exposure. I would certainly mention that to him.
As has been stated a seacock on the exhaust is not standard practice, the loop up is. I had considered doing this but thought better of it as it would be a pain to install and difficult to access should the need arise.
Good luck
________
Stocks To Buy Now
As has been stated a seacock on the exhaust is not standard practice, the loop up is. I had considered doing this but thought better of it as it would be a pain to install and difficult to access should the need arise.
Good luck
________
Stocks To Buy Now
Last edited by Ron M. on Feb 11th, '11, 06:19, edited 1 time in total.
-
Roger McManus
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Feb 14th, '05, 20:50
- Location: Boat: s/v "Cocos"CD 28' Sloop, Hull #71 Annapolis, Maryland
You have a point Ron, however, I have always had surveyors divide up their observations into things that have to be corrected, should be corrected at some time, and would be good things to do..., or something like that. My previous experience was that insurance companies focused on the things that had to be corrected, in this case I needed to have part of my push pit rewelded, and I did. In this case, Windsor basically required all of the last category, among other things, including the requirement for the seacocks. They did not specify the engine exhaust, but the plainest reading was that it was a thru hull, and they said the policy would be void if I had any claim and all thru hulls and other conditions had not been met. I prepared a detailed written communication to them about why I felt some of their conditions were appropriate for "Cocos," and not others. They did not alter one of their conditions.
Given the experience that insurance companies only have required repairs and upgrades on items that pose safety and operational risks in the past, I would prefer to get more comprehensive observations from the surveyors. Not all but most of his observations are on my to do list, whether or not they are required by a new insurance carrier.
Roger
Given the experience that insurance companies only have required repairs and upgrades on items that pose safety and operational risks in the past, I would prefer to get more comprehensive observations from the surveyors. Not all but most of his observations are on my to do list, whether or not they are required by a new insurance carrier.
Roger