About Paul L'Ortye Yacht Insurance

Netherlands

Paul L'Ortye Yacht Insurance

original

small

medium

large

extra_large

This article is featured as a guest post by Michel L'Ortye, the second generation of&nbsp;<a data-gid="gid://syiq/Company/8888" href="#managed-by-system" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Paul L'Ortye Yacht Insurance (Company)">Paul L'Ortye</a>&nbsp;Superyacht Insurance.In superyacht insurance, ''the difference is rarely found in what is covered, but in how it is worded''. At first glance, two insurance proposals may appear comparable. Similar limits, familiar terminology, and a competitive premium. Yet beneath the surface, the real differences emerge in structure, interpretation, and legal context.We asked ChatGPT to compare two superyacht insurance proposals. The outcome was structured, fast, and seemingly logical. But it also revealed a fundamental limitation: without true contextual understanding, critical differences remain unseen.This article highlights where that gap lies, and why specialist expertise remains essential.<img src="https://photo-assets.superyachttimes.com/photo/396822/image/large-d04de7387341e559ee1e637ffd910549.jpg" data-gid="gid://syiq/Photo/396822">1. Failure to understand layered policy structures and how clauses interact and override one anotherFor example, ChatGPT does not understand layered policy structures or how clauses interact and override one another.Policy wordings are built as layered legal frameworks, where clauses interact, override, or apply conditionally. AI tends to read them as isolated statements rather than as part of a structured system. Each insurer applies its own structure and hierarchy within the wording, often influenced by the applicable jurisdiction and its legal framework.For example, Policy A may state “worldwide navigation,” while Policy B specifies “worldwide excluding war zones.” ChatGPT may conclude that A offers broader coverage. In reality, Policy A may contain a separate war exclusion clause elsewhere in the wording that has the same, or even stricter, effect.2. Comparing apples with orangesOne operates on a Named Perils basis (only explicitly listed risks), the other on an All Risks basis (everything is covered unless excluded). The same term, but a completely different scope. ChatGPT sees “Hull &amp; Machinery” twice and concludes it is comparable, while the difference in coverage for a machinery breakdown or latent defect can amount to hundreds of thousands of euros.<img src="https://photo-assets.superyachttimes.com/photo/396820/image/large-aa15c287e8791d5230e10db1b947032c.jpg" data-gid="gid://syiq/Photo/396820">3. Deductibles and sub-limits are overlookedAI tends to focus on the main coverage and premium, while the real differences are often found in the sub-limits. These include maximum payouts per incident for tenders, crew medical limits per person, and differing deductibles for machinery damage versus navigational incidents. Such details are typically scattered throughout the policy and are easily missed.It also struggles to recognise requirements for minimum underlying covers, such as mandatory national healthcare or other primary insurance arrangements. These elements can be critical to the validity and effectiveness of the coverage, yet are rarely identified without expert review.4. What is NOT included remains invisibleChatGPT can only compare what is written. It cannot identify what is missing. No cyber clause? AI will not flag it, because there is nothing to read. A specialist, however, knows what should be there and recognises the gap immediately.It also lacks the ability to properly assess how coverage is structured. Policies may appear comparable, while in reality one is based on an all risks foundation and another on named perils, or where insurers apply their own wording with a tailored definition of “all risks.” These structural differences ultimately determine what is and is not covered, yet remain largely invisible without expert interpretation.<img src="https://photo-assets.superyachttimes.com/photo/396862/image/large-15929412d50cbaf94d80733c90eaecca.jpg" data-gid="gid://syiq/Photo/396862">5. ConfidentialityOwners upload commercially sensitive documents to a public AI. Vessel values, cruising areas, crew details, claims history, all of this is shared with external servers. For high-profile owners, this represents a serious privacy risk.6. “Cheaper = better” biasAI tends to conclude that the lower-priced option offers “comparable coverage.” In marine insurance, however, a lower premium is almost always a reflection of reduced coverage, higher deductibles, or an insurer with a weaker claims reputation. It also lacks the ability to properly weigh subtle but critical differences in policy wording, such as a depreciation clause on masts and rigging, or to recognise exclusions that carry the same practical meaning but are phrased differently, such as a market value clause applied to running and standing rigging, which in practice can largely have the same effect.<img src="https://photo-assets.superyachttimes.com/photo/396821/image/large-5911d8a80dbdc0631242e59608f5517a.jpg" data-gid="gid://syiq/Photo/396821">7. Jurisdiction and applicable lawThe governing law of a yacht policy determines how policy wording is interpreted at claim stage. The same wording can produce a very different outcome depending on the legal system behind it.This becomes particularly relevant in areas such as disclosure duties, warranties and gross negligence. Under some systems, sailing outside marked channels or ignoring a weather warning may already qualify as gross negligence, with a direct impact on the claim payment. Other systems apply a more proportional approach, or require a much higher degree of misconduct before cover can be reduced or declined.One policy may therefore respond very differently from another, despite similar wording and circumstances. These legal differences can have a major impact on the final claim outcome, yet in practice the governing law is often treated as little more than a footnote.Michel L'Ortye is the second generation of&nbsp;<a data-gid="gid://syiq/Company/8888" href="#managed-by-system" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Paul L'Ortye Yacht Insurance (Company)">Paul L'Ortye</a>&nbsp;Yacht Insurance, the family business&nbsp;that his father founded in 1978 and which focuses entirely on yacht insurance. Joining the company full-time over ten years ago, Michel has been working alongside his brother Didier, who leads the in-house claims operation. Michel's focus is on the high-end yacht and superyacht segment.

Guest author Michel L'Ortye compares an AI insurance proposal to a handwritten one. 

Can ChatGPT create your yacht insurance proposal?

Consultants

Crew insurance

Suppliers: Insurance