zurich insurance yacht pool

Privacy Guaranteed - your email is never shared with anyone, opt out any time.

• Contact & Services
• Report Claim
• Zurich One Login

Marine insurance

More details, freight forwarders liability and carriers liability.

• Freight forwarders and carriers are insured against property damage or financial loss if the goods entrusted to them get lost or damaged (including during loading and unloading).
• They are also covered in the event of late or incorrect delivery, or customs clearance errors.
• Zurich also covers the costs arising in connection with loss prevention, salvaging and the destruction of damaged goods.
• Warehouse keepers are insured against the loss of and damage to stored goods within the scope of their statutory and/or contractual liability.
• Special solutions: The combined freight forwarder's and warehouse keeper's liability insurance covers the transport of own goods such as personal effects and business equipment carried in the vehicle.
• With Zurich you benefit from proven risk analysis expertise and a worldwide network of representatives in over 30 countries.

Specie insurance

Cargo insurance.

• Owners of raw materials and production goods are protected against financial risks if their property is damaged or disappears in transit.
• Thanks to individual risk analysis, you get customized solutions including insurance certificates (universal coverage or limited insurance).
• You benefit from Zurich's worldwide network, with representatives in over 30 countries.
• Coverage can be extended to include, for example, damage caused while moving the goods by forklift, indoor crane, pallet trolley, etc. or during trade fairs or luggage.
• Contract penalties or business interruption caused by transport damage can also be insured.

You are here :

Monday to Friday from 09:00 to 12:00 and from 13:00 to 17:00

• +49 (0) 89 /7467 34 90
• Latest news

Yacht hull insurance

Is comprehensive cover for total loss and partial damage to your own yacht/boat as a result of unforeseen events.

The solution: yacht hull insurance from YACHT-POOL!

Yacht-Pool’s yacht hull insurance provides comprehensive cover specifically designed to offer yacht owners protection and security. It covers total loss as well as partial damage to your own yacht. Yacht hull insurance offers protection against financial losses caused by unforeseen events such as collisions, theft, vandalism, fire or natural disasters. In the event of a total loss, where the yacht can no longer be repaired or is completely lost, yacht hull insurance covers the cost of replacing the yacht. In the event of partial damage affecting certain parts or components, the repair or replacement costs are covered by the insurance.

With YACHT-POOL’s yacht hull insurance, the value of the vessel is defined in a clear and customer-oriented form as a “fixed rate”, which ensures that underinsurance is excluded. All-risk cover is another important aspect that ensures that a wide range of risks are covered unless they are explicitly excluded in the policy conditions.

The advantages of YACHT-POOL yacht hull insurance at a glance:

• YACHT-POOL ensures the value of the vessel in a clear and customer-oriented form as all-risk cover. It was introduced by YACHT-POOL in 1976 as one of its pioneering services in yacht insurance and was gradually adopted by its competitors. The last to do so was the market leader in 2018, 42 years later. Today, this innovation is market. And it means that all risks and events that are not explicitly excluded are insured. There are no unclear exclusions with this clause, such as inadequate mooring, inadequate manning or similar.
• This means that many risks that you might not think of are also insured, such as short circuits, overvoltage, glass breakage, scorch damage or damage caused by force majeure or by others, such as storms or fires that spread from ship to ship.
• Damage caused by riots, vandalism, looting or strikes are also insured, as are the regatta risk or consequential damage from construction and material defects.
• Damage caused by rodents - think of mice and rats in winter storage - or by vermin can cause considerable costs. Most insurers exclude this damage, but YACHT-POOL covers it.
• Loss minimization costs (salvage costs) and wreck removal costs are insured over and above the sum insured, even unlimited depending on the tariff.
• The insurance cover is valid 365 days a year, around the clock. Of course, transportation, slipping, craning, winter, shipyard or repair periods are also insured.
• The most important thing is that all-risk cover reverses the burden of proof. This means that the insurer must prove that an excluded event has occurred. With individual risk cover, the burden of proof and therefore the litigation risk lies with the insured person.
• "Fixed rate". Underinsurance is excluded. It is unlimited in time and is valid until you request a different insurance value.
• Depending on the tariff, the benefits of comprehensive insurance are supplemented by extensive assistance services that offer you personal service and valuable additional benefits worldwide.
• In many cases, the tariff excess is reduced (e.g. for dinghies and trailers) or there is no excess at all: e.g. for the comprehensive assistance services, total loss, burglary, damage to effects and visual inspections after grounding.
• In the event of total loss, only the residual value actually achieved will be deducted from the refund.

Further insurance for boats and yachts

Yacht liability insurance

Yacht liability insurance from YACHT-POOL is essential cover for yacht owners and protects you from financial consequences if you culpably cause personal injury or property damage.

Yacht passenger insurance

YACHT-POOL’s yacht passenger accident insurance is a special form of insurance that aims to provide comprehensive protection for people on board a yacht. This insurance covers accident risks

Yacht confiscation insurance

In the event of actual or alleged liability claims, it can very easily happen that the ship is put on a chain by the authorities until the claims have been clarified.

• + 49 (0) 89 7467 34 90
• Email: [email protected]
• YACHT-POOL Versicherungs-Service GmbH Zimmerauweg 47 A-6370 Reith bei Kitzbühel Austria

Important links

• Legal notice
• Privacy policy
• Cookie settings

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Google Maps . To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

Search form

On 7 September 2022, a fire broke out on the Big Kahuna at a marina in Corfu. The fire spread to other vessels in the marina, three of which sank, including the Halcyon . On 15 November 2022, the owners and English insurers of the Big Kahuna commenced a limitation claim in the English Admiralty Court pursuant to the LLMC 1976 (incorporated into English law by s 185 and Sch 7 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995). On 14 December 2023, the owners of the Halcyon issued proceedings against the owners of the Big Kahuna in the Court of First Instance of Piraeus, Greece, seeking compensation for the loss and damage caused by the fire.

There is a significant difference between the limitation regimes in the two countries. Pursuant to art 15.2.b of the Convention, the regime governing limitation claims in England and Wales incorporates a small craft limit for vessels of less than 300 tons. This limit of 500,000 SDRs (about GBP 530,000) applies to the Big Kahuna . Greece incorporated the same limit from 1 May 2023, but not retrospectively. Thus, the relevant Greek limit would be calculated in accordance with art 6 of the Convention, and would be 1,510,000 SDRs (about GBP 1.6m).

Halcyon Yacht Charter LLP applied for an order staying the English proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens because 'the courts of Greece are clearly and distinctly more appropriate as the forum for resolution of both limitation and the underlying substantive claims'.

Held: The application for a stay is dismissed.

It is true that the natural forum for the underlying claims is Greece. But the limitation claim is a separate and distinct claim. In a limitation claim there are usually just two issues: (1) the amount of the limitation fund; and (2) an art 4 defence, if raised. The first is an arithmetical calculation, which rarely gives rise to a dispute. The second is a defence which, since the introduction of the more tightly-drawn wording of art 4 of the LLMC 1976, is notoriously difficult to make out, is therefore seldom raised, and for which there is in this case no support. The cause of the fire is unknown. Eighteen months have elapsed and no evidence has emerged to suggest that it was started deliberately or recklessly. A speculative and improbable art 4 defence is no basis upon which to find England an inappropriate forum.

It is common for the limitation claim and the underlying claims to be tried (or arbitrated) separately and in separate jurisdictions. Examples include Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 461 ( CMI2371 ); and The Volvox Hollandia [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 361, 370 ( CMI2407 ). If the proper forum for a limitation claim were to default to the jurisdiction of the tort, a defendant could always trump the claimant’s choice of forum. But it has been emphasised that 'a shipowner is at liberty to choose his domiciliary court as the forum in which to set up his limitation fund and establish his right to limit his liability': The Volvox Hollandia 379. English courts 'should be exceedingly slow to interfere with such a settled practice which has international ramifications'. The first claimant is the English insurer and the second claimant is the English beneficial owner of the vessel in respect of which a decree is sought. There is nothing sinister or untoward in them (together with the registered owner) bringing this claim against a Welsh company, of whom at least one of the beneficial owners is Welsh, in England. Although the insurer of the Halcyon is not a defendant, that insurer is also an English company. Of other potential claimants against the fund, with the exception of the marina itself, not one is Greek. On the contrary, they represent a variety of different nationalities and flags, including Germany, Malaysia, Italy, and the Cayman Islands.

The availability in England of a single, unitary limitation claim (as opposed to the need to raise limitation as a defence to each substantive claim) allows the orderly management and ranking of a full cohort of claims against the limitation fund. Even if limitation is raised in Greece, an English court cannot be deterred from proceeding with a limitation claim here by the prospect that a court in another jurisdiction may not recognise its limitation decree. That would be no basis to conclude that that other court was the more appropriate forum. Finally, the claimants cannot fairly be accused of forum shopping. Given the primacy afforded to the shipowner as to choice of jurisdiction, it is hard to see how that can have frustrated the expectations of other potential claimants. The defendant’s real complaint is that a limitation fund established here will be one third the size of a limitation fund established in Greece. But if England is a forum where the limitation claim may be tried 'suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice' (a phrase originating from the judgment of Lord Kinnear in Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665) a juridical advantage such as this is not relevant.

In The Herceg Novi [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 454 ( CMI770 ), the application of these principles led the English Court of Appeal to stay an English action in favour of Singapore, even though the English claimants were thereby deprived of the higher limits of the 1976 Convention (in force in England) in favour of the lower limits of the 1957 Convention (then in force in Singapore). The Court of Appeal held that 'in terms of abstract justice' neither Convention was 'objectively more just than the other'. Therefore the only question was whether substantial justice would be done in Singapore, which the Judge below (Clarke J) had already found to be clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum. The Court of Appeal held that substantial justice would indeed be done in Singapore and therefore granted a stay of the English proceedings. The facts of The Herceg Novi have resonance in this case.

• United Kingdom

• MyNewMarkets.com
• Claims Journal
• Insurance Journal TV
• Academy of Insurance
• Carrier Management

Featured Stories

• Francine to Cause $9B in Damages, $1.5B Insured
• Personal Lines Fuel US P/C Underwriting Gains

Current Magazine

• Read Online

Zurich Insurance to Sell Russian Business to Local Team

Zurich Insurance has agreed to sell its Russian business to members of the local team, it said on Friday, as the Swiss insurer became the latest Western firm to exit Russia.

It joins a list of companies that have quit the market in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with some handing these businesses over to local partners. Those quitting range from McDonald’s and Dutch brewer AB Inbev ABI.BR to carmaker Renault RENA.PA and French lender Societe General.

Finding a suitable exit plan has been a challenge, with some businesses saying they are maintaining their Russian businesses to keep assets out of the hands of the state.

Zurich Insurance said the sale, which remains subject to regulatory approval, would hand its rebranded Russian operations — which accounts for a tiny fraction of its overall business — to 11 members of the unit’s team.

“Under its new owners, the business will operate independently under a different brand, while Zurich will no longer conduct business operations in Russia,” it said.

“The transaction will allow the new company to retain a professional team with accumulated insurance expertise and to continue serving the Russian market,” Zurich Insurance said.

The Swiss insurance company, which conducts property and casualty insurance in Russia primarily for international customers, said it held about 0.3% of Russia’s non-life insurance market.

Zurich, which has removed its Z logo from social media after the letter became a symbol of support in Russia for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, said in March it no longer took on new domestic customers in Russia and would not renew existing local business.

It said when releasing first-quarter data this month that its direct exposure to Russia and Ukraine through its property and casualty operations and investment portfolio was expected to be “immaterial.”

It had gross written premiums of roughly $34 million in Russia in 2021, it said on Friday, accounting for less than 0.1% of the $40.1 billion in gross written premiums its property and casualty business recorded for the year.

The vast majority of these were from international customers, it said, with only $3 million related to domestic Russian customers.

(Reporting by Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi; additional reporting by Michael Shields; editing by Lisa Shumaker and Edmund Blair)

Topics Russia

Was this article valuable?

Thank you! Please tell us what we can do to improve this article.

Thank you! % of people found this article valuable. Please tell us what you liked about it.

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

Written By Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi

The most important insurance news, in your inbox every business day..

Get the insurance industry's trusted newsletter

• Categories: International & Reinsurance News Topics: Business Moves & Mergers , Russia sanctions , Russia Ukraine war , Zurich Insurance
• Have a hot lead? Email us at [email protected]

Insurance Jobs

• Global Specialist - New York, NY
• Senior Consultant – P&C Commercial Lines Operational Strategy & Technology - Chicago, IL
• Operation Specialist – Business Resource Center - Houston, TX
• Middle Market Umbrella Underwriter – Account Executive - Charlotte, NC
• Outside Property Claim Representative – Phoenix - Phoenix, AZ

• Houses of Worship and the State of Insurance
• 3 Emerging Risks: Severe Convective Storms, Battery Energy Storage and Drones
• Youth Sports Liability Market in 'Armageddon Mode'
• Condos: A Difficult Market to Navigate
• Inflation, the Economy and Workers’ Comp: A Positive Outlook

• MrBeast and Amazon Sued by Competitors From His $5M Reality Show for 'Unsafe' Conditions
• Sharp Increase in Counselor License Protection Claims Highlights Rising Professional Risks
• Miami Investment Firm 777 Says Ex-IT Head Stole Data for Lender's Fraud Suit
• Boehringer Ingelheim Faces Second Hung Jury in Chicago Zantac Trial
• Hedge Fund Two Sigma in $100M Settlement Talks With SEC, WSJ Reports

• September 19 Insurance: Approved for Recreational (Vehicle & Watercraft) Use
• September 26 Risk Management and Insurance for the High Net Worth Client
• October 3 D&O Coverage for Public Investigations
• October 10 Digital Marketing and AI