Marine insurance, going naked.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

So if your boat blows up, killing my wife and or children, do you have the several million I'm gonna be after to ensure you never forget how stupid it was not to have liability insurance? How can you sleep with yourself knowing that you cannot adequately compensate someone for the harm you could cause?

Am I the only one who is troubled by Rod's POV. It seems to me that he has put a monetary value of his family.

If his boat blew up killing my wife and or children, I would not be wanting his money. I would be wanting him asking me for my forgiveness and if I felt his remorse was genuine, I would do so.

My family has no monetary value whatsoever, they are priceless.

YMMV...

[transmitterdan]

Wotname,

I agree with you. The unique (almost) legal system in the US has created an environment where people can sue for so-called "pain and suffering" and other things without impediment. They think it is a right enshrined in the constitution (it is not). The "sue your neighbor" concept is almost non-existent in other parts of the world yet US citizens cannot fathom a world without it. Odd that.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Wotname

My family has no monetary value whatsoever, they are priceless.

And my life is priceless too. Which is why I carry liability insurance.

Liability insurance insures you, not your boat or your car. And if you put value in yourself, well...

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

...Liability insurance insures you, not your boat or your car. ...

And as Wotname points out, by insuring you are passing your responsibilities onto someone else.

Insurance is no different to gambling - you pay your money and if sh*t happens, you win a payout; if you are super careful and avoid accidents like the plague, you receive no benefit for your investment. It's a speculative gamble and if you expect trouble then of course you should pay the premiums and hope to benefit.

That's a gross oversimplification of course... but that's the basis of it.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by fxykty

... They were on starboard running downwind with a ginormous spinnaker and I guess expected me to change course for them. I was in a world of pain and didn't even see them until I hit them. ... that sure beat paying 50k. No lawyers involved.

So, you were on port, but they:
- failed to keep proper watch
- failed to take any avoiding action
- failed to call 'starboard' to warn you of the collision risk.
They were at least equally to blame, probably more so, so each vessel should have paid for their own repairs, surely? By being insured, I think you got ripped off.

[Lepke]

Liability is the big issue. Mainly because of cleanup costs if you have fuel or oil.
A sister to my hull sunk at the dock in Olympia w/o insurance. The owner didn't have the means and the state had a marine contractor remove and scrap the boat. About a million and a half.

[hamburking]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Insurance is no different to gambling

Ned Flanders: Well, sir, everyone's alive. Guess that's something to be thankful for.

Homer: Now, that kind of attitude's not gonna get your house back.

Marge Simpson: I'm sure your insurance will cover the house.

Maude Flanders: Uh, well, no. Neddy doesn't believe in insurance. He considers it a form of gambling.

Ned Flanders: You know it's kind of funny. The only thing that survived the storm were the family tombstones.
[said tombstones are named Ned, Maude, Rod and Todd]

Ned Flanders: They're all we have left.

Homer: [walking off] Well, call us if you need anything!

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

So, you were on port, but they:

- failed to keep proper watch

- failed to take any avoiding action

- failed to call 'starboard' to warn you of the collision risk.

They were at least equally to blame, probably more so, so each vessel should have paid for their own repairs, surely? By being insured, I think you got ripped off.

The skiff was racing, I was not (so they had an expectation that I would keep clear) and they had been calling starboard - I just wasn't hearing anything until way too late. But the situation was that it was a typical weekend day on Sydney Harbour with lots of racing fleets doing their thing and skiffs blasting back and forth in their races and everyone keeping clear. For some reason at this time they had a turning mark way deeper into the bay than usual and I hadn't been expecting them.

But it was totally my fault. If you'd ever sailed a skiff (not a 49er or an I-14, which are more normal, but one of the Aussi skiff classes that are ridiculously over-canvased) you'd know that they're on rails when sailing hard downwind - there's actually not a lot of course change you can make without getting over powered one way or underpowered the other and in either case falling off the plane and capsizing.

My point was, if your potential expenses exceed you resources and the risk is high enough, insurance is a good thing. And in this case it wasn't even my insurance, so I was saved by the prudence of the owner of the boat I was leasing.

Off topic now
Racing boats, even dinghies, are required to have liability insurance, even in NZ, usually by the organising authority e.g. Yachting NZ. I raced a Hobie 16 here in Auckland and had to get a policy to cover it while racing. Since I had house, contents and car from AMI it was pretty easy to extend the umbrella policy.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lepke

Liability is the big issue. Mainly because of cleanup costs if you have fuel or oil.
A sister to my hull sunk at the dock in Olympia w/o insurance. The owner didn't have the means and the state had a marine contractor remove and scrap the boat. About a million and a half.

It’s interesting — I often read on these forums how vital having environmental cleanup insurance is while travelling in the USA. I don’t doubt it, but…

But... I’ve never been in a marina for any length of time without seeing some sort of petroleum spill in the water. Happened just the other day here… They’ve always been small and innocuous. I’m sure they have some impact on the local environment, but I’m equally sure they are not that big a deal. There are far more impacts going on.

So I am left wondering how US marinas are so pristine compared to Canadians ones I’ve known. Canada’s environmental laws are not generally thought of as being lenient or easy on polluters (something we could debate, I suppose…), but I’ve never seen the slightest hint of heavy-handed law enforcement around these regular petroleum spills that some people seem to suggest happens elsewhere.

Am I missing something?

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It’s interesting — I often read on these forums how vital having environmental cleanup insurance is while travelling in the USA. I don’t doubt it, but…

But... I’ve never been in a marina for any length of time without seeing some sort of petroleum spill in the water. Happened just the other day here… They’ve always been small and innocuous. I’m sure they have some impact on the local environment, but I’m equally sure they are not that big a deal. There are far more impacts going on.

So I am left wondering how US marinas are so pristine compared to Canadians ones I’ve known. Canada’s environmental laws are not generally thought of as being lenient or easy on polluters (something we could debate, I suppose…), but I’ve never seen the slightest hint of heavy-handed law enforcement around these regular petroleum spills that some people seem to suggest happens elsewhere.

Am I missing something?

My experience too. "Public servants" like to look like they're doing something by writing rules & its a diversion from the pollution caused by the cars they drive. Diesel spills are best dealt with by evapouration like happens at every fuel station for vehicles.

[lateral]

Originally Posted by Wotname

It seems to me that those who advocate "the uninsured are irresponsible" are also irresponsible. They pay someone else to care care of their "responsibilities" rather than do it themselves.

Excuse me, I pay someone else to take care of something that I possibly can't take care of myself. (Within reason, stating anything else is a cop out) Just semantics.
I still take considerable care not to cause damage to other ppl property.

So you are capable of "fixing" someones megayacht paint job to their satisfaction?
**** happens however competent & responsible you think you are.

[kimtrang]

Originally Posted by fxykty

?....it was a typical weekend day on Sydney Harbour......

Sydney harbour on weekends are absolute hell to me. So crowded and so many gung-ho alpha boat owners and their freaking wash.

On the weekdays though- absolute heaven.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by kimtrang

Sydney harbour on weekends are absolute hell to me. So crowded and so many gung-ho alpha boat owners and their freaking wash.

On the weekdays though- absolute heaven.

Couldn't agree more.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by fxykty

... and they had been calling starboard - I just wasn't hearing anything until way too late. ...

Uh-oh! So, your moment of inattention has cost all those other folks who pay insurance premiums $50,000. This is my argument against taking out liability insurance cover: the good guys end up paying for the mistakes of others, as I still believe the uninsured (or those whose livelihoods depend on it) take greater care to avoid such incidents. We all agree this was totally avoidable?

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Uh-oh! So, your moment of inattention has cost all those other folks who pay insurance premiums $50,000. This is my argument against taking out liability insurance cover: the good guys end up paying for the mistakes of others, as I still believe the uninsured (or those whose livelihoods depend on it) take greater care to avoid such incidents. We all agree this was totally avoidable?

Most accidents are avoidable - hence they're called accidents. In this particular case I was at fault as I was the one with the primary obligation to keep clear, but I certainly wasn't trying to hit them. Nor were they trying to hit me. I.E. an accident.

So now you're saying that if you are insured you should not use that insurance when you have an accident? Then what would be the point of having insurance? Sure, if it's small, then it's not worth the claim record. But if it's large enough, why not?

And quit with the unfounded assertion that people without insurance are more careful. That's an ad hominem assertion and I bet without anything but anecdotes to back it up.