A Plea For Decent Anchor Lights.

[Reefmagnet]

Insurance companies can be fickle, but they have pretty much black and white interpretations of what claims can be denied, as there is usually some regulatory body that watches over them. A classic example is running a red light. If you accidentally run a red light, no problem. If, on the other hand, it can be proved you intentionally ran a red light then the claim would be denied. In the case of an anchor ball display (or rather not displaying) any mishap that resulted directly as a consequence of not displaying an anchor ball would be comparable, to say, being at fault in a car accident because you forgot to turn on your indicator as you made a turn.

[Weyalan]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Nope, I am not.

Why don't you go ahead a d photocopy the exclusion section of a policy and post it here? Otherwise, it's just hearsay.

Ok, since you asked





Right hand column, 2nd dot point. An illegal action voids my cover.

Your move.

[Weyalan]

And please note that I fully accept that my policy may, in fact, have completely different exclusions to yours or somebody else's policy. My point was that citing an example of an automobile running a red light in a particular jurisdiction has no relevance to a boat under motor running into a boat at anchor in a completely different jurisdiction.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Weyalan

You are comparing apples to baby grand pianos here. For example, hereabouts, if you have an accident in an unregistered car, your insurance cover is most likely void. But my point is that insurance is complicated and citing a single example of insurance process for automobiles in a particular area / country does not mean that the same process will apply for sailing boats in a different country / area.

The case that Jim Cate cited, by my understanding, was a boat at anchor (on a clear day with no impediments to vision) being hit by another vessel (who was not keeping an appropriate look out or not in control of their vessel) but who's insurance company tried to get out of paying for the damage to the anchored vessel because that vessel was not displaying the appropriate day-shape. I don't actually know who won the court case (maybe Jim can fill us in?) but certainly the Insurance company of the other boat tried, in court, to use it to avoid paying for damage to the boat at anchor.

OK, you don't like my quick analogy. Picture this: You are operating your sport fish boat at 20 -30 MPH on auto pilot. You decide to leave the helm to use the head, get a drink, whatever. Your boat collides with a dock, totaling your boat and severely injuring or killing several friends on board.

According to your logic, since you failed to keep a proper lookout, your insurance company does not have to pay for the injuries and deaths of your friends, damage to your boat, or damage to the dock.

I believe you are mistaken here. The only reason I bring this up is that this myth is repeated over and over again on boating forums.

[Weyalan]

Originally Posted by rwidman

They are incorrect. Insurance companies cannot get out of paying claims because someone broke the law. If they did, they would seldom have to pay.

Run a stop sign in your car and someone hits you? You are covered.

And, since I showed you mine, I think it is only fair that you show me yours. How about you post a scanned copy of your insurance that shows that you are covered in the event that you are acting illegally... its only fair.

[Weyalan]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Again, I am inviting you to post a copy of a policy.

I just did. about 4 posts back... click on the thumbnail for a full size version. Will you do the same to justify your claims?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Weyalan

And, since I showed you mine, I think it is only fair that you show me yours. How about you post a scanned copy of your insurance that shows that you are covered in the event that you are acting illegally... its only fair.

Acting illegally (as in drug running) is far different than failing to hoist an anchor ball.

[sabray]

Originally Posted by rwidman

They are incorrect. Insurance companies cannot get out of paying claims because someone broke the law. If they did, they would seldom have to pay.

Run a stop sign in your car and someone hits you? You are covered.

But you said this. Why we all went noooooo!

[Weyalan]

Drug running is irrelevant. The point of this discussion is that, using a strict interpretation of the colregs, that failure to display an anchor ball while at anchor is, in fact, illegal. So an insurance company might try to argue that cover is void because of this (illegal) failure to display an anchor ball. And the case mentioned by Jim Cate, an Insurance company did argue against paying out for precisely this reason. Whether or not they argued successfully, I have no idea, but the principle is act illegally = no cover.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Weyalan

Drug running is irrelevant. The point of this discussion is that, using a strict interpretation of the colregs, that failure to display an anchor ball while at anchor is, in fact, illegal. So an insurance company might try to argue that cover is void because of this (illegal) failure to display an anchor ball. And the case mentioned by Jim Cate, an Insurance company did argue against paying out for precisely this reason. Whether or not they argued successfully, I have no idea, but the principle is act illegally, no cover.

If an insurance company can deny a claim because someone failed to comply with a regulation, we might as well figure that every boater we meet is an uninsured boater because if they hit us it will be because they failed to take action to avoid a collision and that would give their insurance company cause to deny paying for our injuries and boats.

[downunder]

+1

Its your choice. The COLREGS are clear.

[sabray]

That's why we have a jury system. It comes down to common interpretation of the law. Commonly I would be like you hit a boat that was not moving because he didn't hang a ball over his boat. But if you had the ball no way your getting screwed by some lawyer representing common law. Oops

[Jim Cate]

OK...

In the case that I mentioned the yacht was at anchor awaiting a high enough tide to enter Scarborough Marina to clear customs. HE was near to but not on the leads for the channel into the harbour. The fishing boat was returning under auto pilot,no one on active watch, hit the boat (a Hans Christian 43) about amidships. It should have been a simple case, but the insurer for the F/V cited the missing ball and took it to court. The court eventually found in favour of the yacht. However, it took time and angst to get there. One can only guess as to what would have happened if the anchor ball had been displayed.

Incidentally, the plea of the skipper of the F/V was that it was the yachts fault because he was following a programmed route that he used every day, and the yacht should not have anchored there. Go figger...

And for Boracay, who thinks that it is too much trouble to follow that rule... well, I store the ball and its downhaul in the same bucket as the snubber. They come out of the sail locker at the same time just before dropping the hook. After setting the hook, I snap the spinny pole lift off the pole and on to the ball and then the downhaul to a stanchion base. Then I hoist it up... total time less than a minute. If that is too much trouble, well, you gotta make a personal choice between nuisance and legality.

Cheers,

Jim

[nimblemotors]

Originally Posted by downunder

With underwater lights you are talking serious money apart from the fact most here would consider them pretensious.

They are actually great idea if you do much night diving from vessel as is possible on GBR and Coral Sea.

Not actual underwater lights, but lights that shine upwards from the water line.
You could achieve the effect by having a light extended off the side pointed back to the side of the hull. With some reflective tape on the hull, it would be lit up quite well with little expense, money or energy.

You could use some of those led flashlights, I have a bunch at $1 each..
Here is a "waterproof" version $10,
9 White LED Waterproof Flashlight-The Electronic Goldmine

[JPA Cate]

Hi, everybody, I just got caught up here, and want to add, for those who have two people or more aboard, it is really easy to see whether the ball is up or taken down from the helm--I remind Jim before he gets to the mast to take it down if he isn't already headed there. Therefore, it is not a problem for forgetting it. I suppose that it would be similar with the motoring cone. Easy for helmsperson (how PC!) to notice absence or presence of the shape. The anchor ball usage for us was the result of cumulative experiences: the ones Jim and I related are only two of them.

Another time I've found 'em useful is on large cargo ships who are all anchored off waiting for permission to enter a harbor. (Yes, we also listen to Port Control to hear who's coming out or going in, too.) There, as soon as I see the ball, I know I can go either fore or aft of them. We frequently sail through "herds" of them in New South Wales and in Queensland, and I prefer to go to windward of them.

Ann