I've got a 1991 34' Super Hawaii and have had great rates and coverage the last 4 years. My boat is in terrific shape 90% of it looks maybe 5 years old not 17. The 10% is in the cabin, more dated than warn though.
I just recieved a letter from my insurance broker telling me about Agreed value rather than the actual cash value policy I have now. What are the pros and cons of each?

Thank
Mark

I have always gone with agreed value, that makes it so that you do not get killed on depreciation if your boat is totalled. If you buy a new boat for $100k and the insurance is only for actual value, if the boat is totalled after two years you may only get paid $60k by the insurance company. Whereas, if you have agreed value, then your insurance company will pay the full $100k, if the boat is a total loss. Agreed value is a little more money, but I think definitly a better buy in the end, especially cause you get your full investment back.

AGREED VALUE OVER ACV ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. Yes, it costs you a tad bit more, but it is so worth it if you have a claim. There is no negotiation and no back and forth crap. The limit is the limit and the check is for that less your deductible. The way I look at it, the only draw back to Agreed Value is that is costs a bit more but I could name more drawbacks to having an ACV policy. Just my two cents.

Agreed value, it cost more but is worth it. Only way you would come out better is if you boat was a total pos, below book value.