Stay away from Pantaenius Yacht Insurance Why? read below..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

...Dockhead, MIke O'Reilly, and many others have made some good points about the legalities of specific policies, which I think should drive home the idea that ultimately, it is up to an individual to protect him/herself, through an appropriate policy but also through awareness, prevention, and financial resourcefulness.

One may complain all they want about someone else's (or their own) policy not paying, but in many ways this is no different than getting hit by an uninsured boater (or driver, flier, skier, etc.). Ultimately you are on the hook for the loss.

Completely agree. But just look through any of the numerous insurance-related discussions here on CF. You will see that most people here think any damage to their private property caused by another boat automatically means the other boat is at fault, and therefore must pay “to make them whole.”

I have argued time and time again, that if ‘your’ assessment of the risks are such that you think it worth carrying additional insurance, then that is ‘your’ responsibility. But the predominant pushback is that it is ‘my’ responsibility to cover your potential losses, regardless whether I am negligent or not.

To be clear, I’m not talking about negligent persons or acts. If I am negligent, then I am liable for any damages caused. But so often damages most cited; people dragging in anchorages, or in this case snapping docklines and hitting another boat, are not necessarily due to negligent actions. They are no one’s fault, or in the language used here, an “act of god."

[goat]

Am I the only one picturing an old guy with a long flowing white beard, halo, wearing a robe, sneaking down the docks and chuckling as he cuts through dock lines?

No one else?

Just me then.
O.K.

goat

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by jsc7

The chance you would get sued for $5 million is so small, that you would be more likely to die from being struck by lightning or other random event. You are essentially "protecting" against nothing because there are far more serious threats to your safety that are far more likely than a large admiralty lawsuit.

Also, another factor you are not calculating is that having insurance greatly increases the chance you will be sued in the unlikely event of an accident. Many attorneys will not even take a case unless they know that the counterparty is insured. It is far better to simply go bankrupt in the microscopic chance that there is a judgement against you.

For example, let's say your net worth is $2 million and your chance of a judgement larger than that is 1 in 50,000 per year (the real chance is probably much lower than this). Then the per year risk is $40 per year which is nothing. To be paying $2000 per year to "protect against" a $40 risk is crazy.

Your second paragraph definitely has some truth to it. I have had friends who wanted to sue for damages however the potential defendant had no assets and the lawyers said it wasn't worth their time.

Having said this, I think you are looking at Dockhead's comment from the wrong angle. It's one thing to declare bankruptcy if you have few assets or don't care about those assets, especially if you are single. It's quite a different thing if you are not in a position to just walk away. If you are married and have children, try explaining to your family why they are losing their house. If you have a business, try explaining to your employees and customers why they lost their jobs and you're closing.

Sure, the odds are small, but the penalties are great. The risk of a parachute not opening is small, but the penalty for failure to open is rather significant, which is why most will use a spare parachute. Yes, they are more likely to die in a car accident, but this is not an either/or issue. Many things in life have a small but potentially problematic risk. One must balance how one addresses these risks, not to the exclusion of one over an other, but in conjunction with all of them.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kalinka1

You are. Your boat damages my boat. your responsible. You didn't use a large enough anchor, your rode wasn't up to the task you anchored up wind from me knowing that if something happened you would drift back. If you had anchored astern you would not have hit me.I put the claim in to my insurance they go after you or yours.

This is the standard line we usually get here…

No. I had a large enough anchor, sufficient and proper rode, and anchored correctly. Anchoring upwind of you is irrelevant. If that were the standard, one person anchored miles off shore could block the whole anchorage.

Negligence is “the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.”

If I have anchored correctly, with the proper gear appropriate to the circumstances, I am not negligent. You can use an ipso facto argument as evidence I am negligent, but that doesn’t get you very far.

[Lihuedooley77]

Coming from a whole different angle......

If I knew, that a vessel next to me had brittle , or worn, or weak docklines, and a strong storm or wind was foecast. I would not count on anything except myself to protect my vessel.

1. Move my boat to a safe slip. Get a new slip assignment.

2. if that was not possible, take some of my own extra good dock lines, and back up the dock lines of the offending vessel. I would tie proper cleat hitchess , and run spring lines as well.

3. Then after the blow, move my boat to a safe slip or end tie and get thing straightened out with the dock master. Get totally away from the problem.

Also, I would have insurance that would cover the situation, let them fix my boat and go after the indifferent boat owner/ insurance co. with the frayed, or whatever docklines.

I would leave his dock lines on, and set my back ups over his, to keep the lawyers at bay, and avoiding the whole mess in the first place. Then remove my personal extra dock lines and move my boat.

And, again, move to another slip or side tie, or have the dock master boot that vessel out of the marina ..

Have situational awareness, take care of whatever to protect yourself, and then get the problem permanently fixed.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

...Sure, the odds are small, but the penalties are great. The risk of a parachute not opening is small, but the penalty for failure to open is rather significant, which is why most will use a spare parachute. Yes, they are more likely to die in a car accident, but this is not an either/or issue. Many things in life have a small but potentially problematic risk. One must balance how one addresses these risks, not to the exclusion of one over an other, but in conjunction with all of them.

Correct. Risk is proportional to the Impact of an event x the Likelihood of said event. This is why no one has meteor impact insurance. Sure, the Impact would be catastrophic, but the Likelihood is very small.

The error people make is to focus on the potential Impact of an event, and ignore the Likelihood. Most insurance is sold this way; it focuses your attention on the scary WHAT IF!, disregarding the odds of the event actually happening.

I advocate a rational approach to risk assessment and risk management. A big part of this is understanding your own tolerance for risk. Some of us have high tolerance, others much lower. Whatever yours is, it must then be matched with a rational assessment of the actual risk involved.

Insurance is one way of managing risk. But it’s certainly not the only way, and in the case of cruising, I argue it is often a poor use of limited resources. But we all make different assessments based on different risk tolerances.

If ‘your’ risk assessment is that there are a lot of negligent people cruising around you, then ‘you’ need to take appropriate action.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jsc7

. . . For example, let's say your net worth is $2 million and your chance of a judgement larger than that is 1 in 50,000 per year (the real chance is probably much lower than this). Then the per year risk is $40 per year which is nothing. To be paying $2000 per year to "protect against" a $40 risk is crazy.

This is just not correct. You do not live a statistical and average life, so that you can equate risk with cost in this way, by simply multiplying the risk times the cost of the loss. You live an individual life, not an average one. So this is not how risk works. You do not get to live on the average -- your number either comes up or it doesn't, and if it does, you are screwed, without a mechanism to pool that risk with that of others, which is what insurance is.

Edit: Another illustration of the difference between statistical averages and risks is the opposite case -- let's say you if you buy a share in a tech venture which offers a one-in-five chance of making it and being worth a million dollars, does that mean you have $200,000 in your hand? No! In four out of five cases, it will be worth zero. Whether that share is worth $200,000, or $50,000, or whatever, depends on a lot of things. A one-in-five chance of a thing being worth X tomorrow, does not mean it's worth X/5 today. Its value will APPROACH X/5 only if you have a WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM. Not if you have only one. Same thing with risks, only in reverse.

The fundamental principle of insurance is that it SPREADS RISK between policyholders, so that those policyholders who don't have a loss this year chip in and pay for those who do. The benefit to policyholders is that it transforms a small risk of a big loss into a certainty of a small(ish) premium payment. The small payment every year can be planned for and dealt with; the big loss can be devastating and most people don't want to gamble.

Insurance companies perform this function for us -- collecting the premiums of policyholders, accumulating a fund, and then paying off when something bad happens. The "drag" on the process is their expenses, and their profits.

And what that concerns, your numbers are way off if you think that insurance companies pay off an average of $40 a year on $2000 a year policies. That would be a "loss ratio" -- the technical term -- of 2% -- which does not exist. Typical loss ratios are 70% to 80%. Over the last 10 years, U.S. property insurance companies had average loss ratios ranging from 68.5% (the best year -- 2013) to 82% (2011). Expense ratios (the cost to provide the service -- all the overhead, salaries, etc.) range from 27% to 28%. So profits range from 3.3% to 4.54%. See: http://www.naic.org/documents/topic_...is_reports.pdf


Insurance therefore is no kind of racket. You are paying something like 20% or 30% on top of the average cost of the losses in your pool for the enormous privilege of paying the average case, rather than rolling the dice on the individual case. It's called "risk spreading".

It's not needed if you are so poor that you have nothing to lose, and it's not needed if you are so rich that you can painlessly pay any claim. But for the rest of us, it is invaluable.

If insurance were a racket, then insurance companies wouldn't buy insurance themselves, would they? But insurance companies engineer risk themselves by buying reinsurance. It increases the efficiency of the process by further spreading risks between different pools of insureds, and not just among the members of one pool. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Lihuedooley77

Coming from a whole different angle......

If I knew, that a vessel next to me had brittle , or worn, or weak docklines, and a strong storm or wind was foecast. I would not count on anything except myself to protect my vessel.

1. Move my boat to a safe slip. Get a new slip assignment.

2. if that was not possible, take some of my own extra good dock lines, and back up the dock lines of the offending vessel. I would tie proper cleat hitchess , and run spring lines as well.

3. Then after the blow, move my boat to a safe slip or end tie and get thing straightened out with the dock master. Get totally away from the problem.

Also, I would have insurance that would cover the situation, let them fix my boat and go after the indifferent boat owner/ insurance co. with the frayed, or whatever docklines.

I would leave his dock lines on, and set my back ups over his, to keep the lawyers at bay, and avoiding the whole mess in the first place. Then remove my personal extra dock lines and move my boat.

And, again, move to another slip or side tie, or have the dock master boot that vessel out of the marina ..

Have situational awareness, take care of whatever to protect yourself, and then get the problem permanently fixed.

Ya know, Lihuedooley,

I like your approach.

I could only add, take pictures of the rotten, partially frayed lines, too. But in a marina, with a blow expected and potential danger from boats whose lines are not doubled (for cyclones/hurricanes) or even severe thunderstorms, it is "very cheap insurance" to use your lines over theirs to help keep their boat in place.

You wouldn't expect to be thanked, and with a boat the size of Dave S's, he's limited in where in the marina he actually can be, plus the marina's quite full. I don't think they have anywhere else to put him.

But having noticed the problem, reporting it to the marina (harbormaster) is good as far as it goes, but adding the lines (or getting the marina to add some) is a practical way to approach the problem.

For Mike's situation at anchor, my experience has been that the people on the dragging boat are doing everything they can to get their boat back under control, and insurance is not the top thing on their mind. Ultimately, everyone has to try and take care of him/herself and the boat.

Finally, I'd like to say that I'm enjoying the insurance tutorial.

Ann

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is the standard line we usually get here…

No. I had a large enough anchor, sufficient and proper rode, and anchored correctly. Anchoring upwind of you is irrelevant. If that were the standard, one person anchored miles off shore could block the whole anchorage.

Negligence is “the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.”

If I have anchored correctly, with the proper gear appropriate to the circumstances, I am not negligent. You can use an ipso facto argument as evidence I am negligent, but that doesn’t get you very far.

That's exactly correct.

Mike is not responsible for damage to your boat, cause by his boat smashing into it, unless he was negligent or otherwise at fault. Just anchoring upwind of you or being on the water at all is not a basis for a claim against him.

That is just the law -- like it or not. And the law in every country as far as I know. Even Germany and Austria

Yes, if the anchor was too small, or if he didn't set it properly, AND if that was the proximate cause of the accident, then in that case, he would be responsible.

But if the cause was a freak gust of wind, or bottom conditions which a prudent sailor could not have reasonably anticipated, or if Mike's anchor shackle failed, and he could not reasonably have detected its impending failure -- in these cases, as a matter of law, he is not responsible, and neither he nor his insurance will pay you.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

I am not sure how accurate this chart is but it is known that the U.S. has far more attorneys per capita than other countries. If you have the misfortune of watching TV in the U.S. you'll see all of the commercials for lawyers. In many cases they even advertise that you don't owe anything since all fees will come out of any settlements. If there is no settlement you walk away owing nothing, so why not give it a shot?

I wouldn't say that we have a bad legal system but I would agree that it is abused horribly.

You are now blaming the victims who HAVE TO resort to hiring lawyers precisely because the legal system leaves the victims practically defenseless UNLESS they hire a lawyer.

If we as consumers were allowed to come up with a tough pro consumer laws and regulations there would not be a great need for this army of lawyers. The large armies of lawyers in any industry are not the cause of the problem, they are the visible symptoms.

Of course with a conusmer oriented compensation rules the profits of the insurance companies would suffer. But hey why in a democracy the will of the few at the top overrides completely the will and needs of the most at the bottom?

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by goat

Am I the only one picturing an old guy with a long flowing white beard, halo, wearing a robe, sneaking down the docks and chuckling as he cuts through dock lines?

No one else?

Just me then.
O.K.

goat

Funny boy

[44'cruisingcat]

If your anchor is upset by a large fish, it's an act of cod.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Having said this, I think you are looking at Dockhead's comment from the wrong angle. It's one thing to declare bankruptcy if you have few assets or don't care about those assets, especially if you are single. It's quite a different thing if you are not in a position to just walk away. If you are married and have children, try explaining to your family why they are losing their house. If you have a business, try explaining to your employees and customers why they lost their jobs and you're closing..

Run over the top of a teenager larking about in the water and put him in a wheel chair requiring care 24/7 then you will need £5m of cover or loose your house, boat and everything you have worked for.

Pete

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by double u

"...The Other Guy does NOT have insurance for damage to other people's boats which are not caused by his negligence. Nobody has insurance like this -- it's not how insurance works..."
I beg to differ: hereabouts car-3rd-party-insurance does work like this. if there is a technical defect & 3rd party gets "damaged" - insurance pays. even if it's not negligence that caused it, just "wear", unforseeable brakage, act-of "god". They always pay the 3rd party, but may demand their money back from the insured if e.g. it was wilful, under-the-influence, gross negligence, driving without license...

If you're DUI, your insurance company will say "thank you for the premiums, goodbye!"

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I suggest you read your policy. This is not correct. Liability insurance only pays if you have legal liability. It might cover you in case some technical defect causes an accident but only if you are somehow at fault for the technical defect -- like failing to maintain your car properly, or failing to properly inspect it, or if you knew about the defect and drove the car anyway. In the analogous situation -- say, a tornado picks up your car and drops it on someone else's car, destroying it -- your insurance will not pay for that, nor will you be liable to pay anything.

Liability insurance is not for the benefit of third parties. It is for your benefit - to protect you from liability in some case where you will be legally obligated to compensate someone for an accident.

No-fault works a little differently, but that's not at issue here.

My policy has this clause in it:

SECTION B:
LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES / 0915
§1. Cover


We will cover you, up to the limit(s) specified in the Schedule, for damages which you are legally liable to pay to a third party as a result of your ownership, operation and use of the yacht, arising out of an accident during the Policy Period which causes injury, illness, death or damage to property, subject to the exclusions and conditions in this Section and in Section D.

This illustrates the basic principles of liability insurance:

1. The beneficiary of liability coverage is the person who bought the insurance, not third parties (and why would you pay out your own money to insure third parties for things you are not legally responsible for?).

2. The coverage is only for something the insured person is legally liable for.

In our state (MA) it is. And it is specifically spelled out in law, insurance regs and actual legal practice. To hold otherwise would make th ewhole concept of "insurance" a fraud perpetrated on the unwary.

In insurance related legislation we even have a law which supposed to fine insurance companies each time they improperly delay or contest 3rd party liability settlements etc. The fine is not a big deal for them ($500) but as a small negotiating tool is highly effective. Especially considering that there is another consumer statute (sadly now often less used) which trebles this amount in case of highly aggregious behavior by the corporate sharks.
--------------
(9) Unfair claim settlement practices: An unfair claim settlement practice shall consist of any of the following acts or omissions:

(a) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;

(b) Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies;

(c) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;

(d) Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;

(e) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed;

(f) Failing to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;

(g) Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds;

(h) Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application;

(i) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of the insured;

(j) Making claims payments to insured or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made;

(k) Making known to insured or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements of compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration;

(l) Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring that an insured or claimant, or the physician of either, submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information;

(m) Failing to settle claims promptly, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage; or

(n) Failing to provide promptly a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.

(10) Failure to maintain complaint handling procedures; failure of any person to maintain a complete record of all of the complaints which it has received since the date of its last examination, which record shall indicate in such form and detail as the commissioner may from time to time prescribe, the total number of complaints, their classification by line of insurance, and the nature, disposition, and time of processing of each complaint. For purposes of this subsection, ''complaint'' shall mean any written communication primarily expressing a grievance. Agents, brokers and adjusters shall maintain any written communications received by them which express a grievance for a period of two years from receipt, with a record of their disposition, which shall be available for examination by the commissioner at any time.

(11) Misrepresentation in insurance applications: making false or fraudulent statements or representations on or relative to an application for an insurance policy, for the purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money, or other benefit from any insurers, agent, broker, or individual.

(12) A violation of section 2B, 95, 113X, 181 to 183, inclusive, 187B to 187D, inclusive, 189, 193E or 193K of chapter 175.