Insurance needed for transient (temporary) dockage?

[Bobby Lex]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As to the morality or righteousness of carrying insurance, or not ... let's avoid that kind of chatter. It always drags a thread down hill.

I disagree, Mike. I think it's quite valid to bring up the issue of social responsibility in the context of insurance. No, we shouldn't finger-point or call names. No, we shouldn't stir the pot of class warfare.

But should not an important consideration in deciding whether or not to carry insurance be the potential impact that our decision could have on other (innocent) people.

I think that it certainly is a fair question to ask: Should I be concerned about whether I have the ability to fix the harm I cause to others? Am I not accountable for my actions if they, intentional or not, adversely impact other people?

"I am willing to accept the risk of losing the value of my boat in an accident, so I chose not to be insured" only looks at the insurance issue from the perspective of how that decision affects you. But it completely ignores the perspective of how that decision might affect someone else.

Call it "morality" or "ethics" or whatever you want, to me it boils down to whether we as individuals should be responsible for the consequences of our actions. Or should we expect someone else (the marina, the victim, the government or whoever) to bear that responsibility?

My .02.

Bob (the "there-are-two-sides-to-most-issues" Cruisers Forum advocate)

[Mike OReilly]

So Bob (he writes, ignoring his own request), what is the cuttoff for being "moral"? It's often stated, in these discussions that it's not hard to do millions of dollars in damage. If you boat crashes into a few expensive yachts, or is the cause of a fire in a marina, the costs rack up pretty fast.

But... the standard liability insurance sold in the USA is $300,000. So, what happens when the costs exceed your insurance limit? Seems to me, according to you, that you are no longer being socially responsible.

So... what's the morally right amount? In Canada, the default amount is $2/3M. In Australia it's $10M. I understand that most Euopean standards are equally in the multi-millions. Yet in the USA (as I said), it's $300k.

No one has ever suggested anyone should ignore the potential impact our choices have on others. But it is ridiculous to claim that people can cover all possible impacts.

So yes, liability insurance is a good idea (I've said so, over and over). But carrying $X-amount does not make you a better person than someone who carries half-of-$X ... if that's the case, Canadian and Europeans sure look a lot more morally superior than most Americans.


And this is exactly why I say it is foolish to ascribe righteousness to one group over another. That kind of blakc & white chatter gets us no where.

[Bobby Lex]

[QUOTE=Mike OReilly;3751630]So Bob (he writes, ignoring his own request),

No one has ever suggested anyone should ignore the potential impact our choices have on others....[QUOTE]

Actually, some in this thread have suggested just that.

....So yes, liability insurance is a good idea (I've said so, over and over).

Again, some in this thread have suggested that the only consideration should be whether one has the financial ability to bear the cost of losing their uninsured boat.

In response I was merely pointed out that there are other considerations as well. And it seems that you and I now agree.

Bob

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But carrying $X-amount does not make you a better person than someone who carries half-of-$X ... if that's the case, Canadian and Europeans sure look a lot more morally superior than most Americans.

You nailed it.
All immoral ba$stard$ except the Italians (IIRC 10 million € minimum)


People have to be held accountable for their actions.
As a consequence certain activities imposing dangers to the pblic (driving cars, boats, planes) should not only require a certificate of competence but also a valid insurance policy.

A 3 million € liability insurance is under 80€ here. Maybe because it is a common requirement so that many companies offer it, and competition drives the price down.


Maybe the US is just under-regulated in this area. Or maybe their legal & medical system make liability that expensive. I don't know.

So realistically the only solution is to adapt the cruising grounds. When in Rome do as the Romans do.

When I am in areas frequented by US boats I have to make sure my own insurance takes care of uninsured. Or stay home.
Equally US folks have to buy insurance when in the EU. Or stay home.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rabbi

You nailed it. All immoral ba$stard$ except the Italians (IIRC 10 million € minimum) ...When I am in areas frequented by US boats I have to make sure my own insurance takes care of uninsured. Or stay home.

Actually, I think you nailed it, on both points .

I believe it is pretty standard for most comprehensive policies to include coverage for the uninsured. So, if you really believe the risk of encountering one of these un/under insured folks is high, make sure you're covered. It's your risk assessment.

I've always said that liability coverage makes sense, but not because it is the morally right thing to do. It's because it is so cheap. It easily passes the cost-benefit analysis. But if this were to change, and the cost were to increase significantly, this too would become as questionable as many are finding hull insurance.

BTW, it's so cheap because the real risk to the underwriter is so miniscule. It's so cheap, it's not even enumerated on any of my policies, which again speaks to the actual risk involved. So, if your risk assessment says this is a real danger, then it's easy: make sure you're covered.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I believe it is pretty standard for most comprehensive policies to include coverage for the uninsured. So, if you really believe the risk of encountering one of these un/under insured folks is high, make sure you're covered. It's your risk assessment.

Over here policies typically don't cover un-insured because uninsured cruisers don't exist here.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've always said that liability coverage makes sense, but not because it is the morally right thing to do. It's because it is so cheap. It easily passes the cost-benefit analysis. But if this were to change, and the cost were to increase significantly, this too would become as questionable as many are finding hull insurance.

Liability is a given. It's not a moral discussion, it's a legal fact. Who caues damage pays for it.

Liability insurance is there to protect my own wealth against potential liability claims of others.

Going without adequate liability insurance is a smart choice only for the broke with nothing left to loose. Enforcing mandatory liability insurance is the way to protect the public against them.

I see "insurance against uninsured" as a tool to educate these smart folks: My insurer will not only cover my damage but will extort any available money from the other party - for many many many years until all is paid plus interest and service fees.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As has become clear, mandatory liability insurance for transient (short) stays IS a thing in some areas of the world, but not in others.

I don't think that you are drawing the right conclusions here from the few inconsistent samples in this thread.

Marina staff may not always ask for proof of insurance but that doesn't mean it's not required. Contracts may contain such requirement in the fine print so the requirement exists but is just not clearly communicated and not consitently enforced.

Except for the mom & pop small business marina still using paperwork from the 1970s.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rabbi

Marina staff may not always ask for proof of insurance but that doesn't mean it's not required. Contracts may contain such requirement in the fine print so the requirement exists but is just not clearly communicated and not consitently enforced.

Nor does it mean it is required. A lot of things "may" exist. This is why I asked people what actually exists; what is their actual experience.

My accounting of the data provided here stands: "mandatory liability insurance for transient (short) stays IS a thing in some areas of the world, but not in others." But feel free to measure the responses.

[rabbi]

For every marina / region where you have received inconsistent and contradicting responses liability insurance is either

(A) a requirement but the relaxed dockhand doesn't enforce / document it consistently

(B) not a requirement but overmotivated staff asks for it anyway



We don't know the answer but I vote for (A)

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rabbi

For every marina / region where you have received inconsistent and contradicting responses liability insurance is either

(A) a requirement but the relaxed dockhand doesn't enforce / document it consistently

(B) not a requirement but overmotivated staff asks for it anyway

We don't know the answer but I vote for (A)

Gotta love our own biased.