Marine insurance, going naked.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Zven

Humans are notoriously bad at assessing risks and probabilities... and more generally very small numbers, and very big numbers. It takes considerable effort to understand these things properly... perhaps because it's generally far removed from daily life experiences. Or perhaps because it is mathematics, which most people take little interest in. I guess this is what makes gambling and lotteries insanely profitable ... so much so that many governments outlaw it, or monopolize it. Learning about and understanding risk and probabilities in various areas can be most rewarding.

I agree. Most people seem to view mathematics as a foreign language, and way too many have no real understanding of basic statistics or probability. Of course, this ignorance is fostered by those who benefit: governments, various businesses like casinos, and insurance companies, just to keep this on the thread.

My suspicion is that we in North America (and perhaps most of the developed world) are actually getting worse at risk assessment compared to previous generations. I don’t have any data to back this up, so feel free to ignore these comments, but I suspect that as people increasingly get their view of the world from the small screens (TV, now computer), and decreasingly experience the real world, they increasingly get a distorted view of what’s actually out there.

Examples of this are the distorted view of crime (we’ve never living in safer times), or some forms of environmental laws (we spend billions to clean up that last PPB), or of course insurance (just to keep it relevant to this thread).

[oldjags]

I fully understand the decision to go naked when it's just you and your boat involved. I've been naked for 5 years now, and my only loss has been someone coming on board and stealing my chartplotter and autopilot while the boat was on its mooring. (It was a fellow cruiser, at that)

But when it starts affecting you in not being able to stay at a marina, or not being able to have your boat hauled for bottom work because you are uninsured, what do you do then?

The marina requirement is the only reason I need insurance at this point, but I can't find anyone who will write liability-only coverage here.

[DumnMad]

Liability insurance is insuring others against your accidents. Unselfish.
Cover for your own boat is claiming money off others for your mistakes. Selfish.

Liability only, with a decent sized deductible is the responsible way to go becasue it encourages care and responsibility on your part but covers others for your shortcomings.

[JPA Cate]

I was quite surprised to read that marina fires are common. I have been around marinas a lot in the last 40 yrs. or so. I first read of a marina fire here on CF, last year. I have not heard of one in Australia, New Caledonia, or New Zealand since 1990, when we arrived in this neck of the woods. Therefore, I believe them to be rare.

Since joining CF, I have also read of one boatyard fire. And a few fires that occurred on the water. That's it.

I do not think the risk of fires is high in marinas, although most do have a fire plan. Based on my experience, i would go so far as to say that risk is low, unless someone can show some statistics proving me in error on this.

Ann

[hafa]

Originally Posted by Zven

One thing I have found with insurance companies is that they care a lot about what you supply as your main address... Even if that is irrelevant to the issue.

As an example, I have a few addresses in Europe and Asia, for postal purposes. I have had more success getting insurance quotes based around a European address. That is, for the same sailing area (in Asia).

Other aspects of personal details can also be varied in numerous ways ... E.g. a spouse can apply for insurance rather than the captain doing it.

So there is a tip for those who struggle to get insurance: Try to shake up your basic details a bit. See what happens then.

An interesting approach. I wonder, however, if one might be denied coverage due to apparent inconsistencies in residency?

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Yep, but we are not all the US. The example I gave is from very much not litigious Netherlands...

The example you gave could not happen here, for example. Personal injury and death is taken care of by the state (no blame, no lawyers = less cost to everyone) and property liability would expire after seven years in bankruptcy, then you are free to get on with your life: different countries, different laws. Now in S. Korea, if you accidentally kill my grandmother by knocking her over with your BMW, my family will bring the body into your office/place of work and refuse to leave until you hand over enough fistfuls of dollars. Then you can get on with your miserable life, no more liability.

Different laws, different countries.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You’re going to have to define “not rare”, and show me your evidence. Any stat I’ve seen (look up USCG boating stats … it all publicly available) clearly indicates boat fires are extremely rare. If they weren’t rare then liability insurance would be a lot more expensive.

Its on the one hand rare enough you don't need expensive insurance, indeed. But it is a kind of "low risk, high dread" thing. And it does happen. And that is why you take insurance.
There was last july a spectacular case where a boat exploded in Germany (I'm keeping tabs on that as it is rumoured to involve Lithium Batteries...), injuring 16 first responders, and damaging several other boats.

This is typically the kind of incident that signifies the end of your life as you know it if you are not insured.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Its on the one hand rare enough you don't need expensive insurance, indeed. But it is a kind of "low risk, high dread" thing. And it does happen. And that is why you take insurance.
There was last july a spectacular case where a boat exploded in Germany (I'm keeping tabs on that as it is rumoured to involve Lithium Batteries...), injuring 16 first responders, and damaging several other boats.

This is typically the kind of incident that signifies the end of your life as you know it if you are not insured.

Yes, it does happen. Meteors have been known to hit people — it does happen. Just b/c something can happen does not mean it will happen. This is the mistake most people make when assessing risk.

In your assessment you said 'low likelihood' (I think you meant to say this, not low risk. Risk is what you’re trying to calculate or assess), 'high dread.' Depending on how low the likelihood, this could mean very low risk. Of course it could come out to a high risk — it depends on your assessment.

Just to toss in real data: according to the USCG stats, from 2005 to 2016 there were 55,100 reportable incidents.

(In the US the law says you must report any marine incident that results in human injury or death, or causes something like $2,000 damage — so basically most incidents. This dataset includes all recreational boats, from canoes to 200-foot yachts. The vast, vast majority of incidents involve small open boats, not cruising-sized boats. It’s far from perfect or complete, but it does provide a pretty decent picture of what’s happening out there.)

Of those 55,100 incidents, 2,871 involved fire/explosion in some way. This resulted in 40 people dying due to these incidents. A total of 8,115 people died from all causes in these 11 years.

There are approximately 12 million boats registered in the USA. How many unregistered is open to speculation, but it would likely be a factor more.

So… you do the math. Any way you calculate it the likelihood of a fire-related event is statistically tiny. And a fire-related incident causing death is even smaller. If this is your threshold for high risk, then so be it, but there are many more higher-risk activities that most of us do every day without batting an eye.

I’m not trying to be a dyck about this. I get it — people like to feel safe, or at least protected. I’m just pointing out how low the incidents of these events really are. In my assessment, this makes the risk very low, but that is up to each of us to decide.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

................... I’m not trying to be a dyck about this. I get it — people like to feel safe, or at least protected. I’m just pointing out how low the incidents of these events really are. In my assessment, this makes the risk very low, but that is up to each of us to decide.

Two weeks ago, my wife and I were driving down the road to pick up our dog at the vets. The light turned red and the cars slowed to stop for it. I slowed as well. The lady behind me did not.

"POW", she hit our brand new car. "POW", she hit it again. Nobody was hurt but our brand new (hadn't even had its first oil change) was bent all to hell.

Fortunately, as required in my state, the lady did have liability insurance and while this was not a pleasant experience, a loaner car was provided and our car was repaired.

If she had not had insurance, I would have had to pay for the repairs and the rental car and then gone after her for reimbursement. She might have had the money and paid willingly or I might have had to sue her in court and pay the court costs up front, hoping that she had the money to reimburse me. If she didn't, I would have had to get a judgement and then pay the sheriff to go repossess her car or other property.

I am glad liability insurance is a requirement for vehicles in my state and I wish it was the same for boats.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rwidman

...I am glad liability insurance is a requirement for vehicles in my state and I wish it was the same for boats.

Thanks for driving home my point . Driving a car is one of these incredibly risky activities that most of undertake without much thought. It’s also why insurance is legally mandated in most places.

High-risk = need for insurance.
Low-risk ≠ need for insurance.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks for driving home my point . Driving a car is one of these incredibly risky activities that most of undertake without much thought. It’s also why insurance is legally mandated in most places.

High-risk = need for insurance.
Low-risk ≠ need for insurance.

You are picking parts of my post in an attempt to prove your point against mine.

I think you are misjudging the risk of accidents while boating. Perhaps if you never boat around other boats and never stay in marinas, you can pretend you are alone in the world and there's no risk of you being liable for anything.

If, on the other hand, you boat in populated areas and/or stay in marinas from time to time, an accident on your part can cause a serious liability. One that could leave you penniless for the rest of your life. This is the reason for liability insurance.

You might think you can avoid accidents by being careful, but they are called accidents for a reason. You can reduce your chance of being involved in an accident but you can't avoid them altogether.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You are picking parts of my post in an attempt to prove your point against mine.

I think you are misjudging the risk of accidents while boating. Perhaps if you never boat around other boats and never stay in marinas, you can pretend you are alone in the world and there's no risk of you being liable for anything.

If, on the other hand, you boat in populated areas and/or stay in marinas from time to time, an accident on your part can cause a serious liability. One that could leave you penniless for the rest of your life. This is the reason for liability insurance.

You might think you can avoid accidents by being careful, but they are called accidents for a reason. You can reduce your chance of being involved in an accident but you can't avoid them altogether.

I provided actual data from your country. It’s freely available for all to see. Go look. Perhaps you’ll be surprised.

You say I’m "misjudging the risk of accidents while boating.” So … show me your supporting data. I’m always happy to examine actual data and information that supports a claim.

All you keep doing is citing single events, and claiming some sort of superior knowledge. Show me the data that supports your claim and we can talk.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

...You say I’m "misjudging the risk of accidents while boating.” So … show me your supporting data. ...

I've bin struck by lightning three times in past 3 years, and once by a meteor... Living is really, really dangerous! What more data do you need?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I've bin struck by lightning three times in past 3 years, and once by a meteor... Living is really, really dangerous! What more data do you need?

It’s true. As I often say: “Life; it’ll kill you!”

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I provided actual data from your country. It’s freely available for all to see. Go look. Perhaps you’ll be surprised.

You say I’m "misjudging the risk of accidents while boating.” So … show me your supporting data. I’m always happy to examine actual data and information that supports a claim.

All you keep doing is citing single events, and claiming some sort of superior knowledge. Show me the data that supports your claim and we can talk.

You don't want to see data, you simply want to argue. I don't think any "data" is going to change your (closed) mind.