Left hanging by Pantaenius

[Bloodhound]

Originally Posted by dannc

Good question.

I think the answer will fall under the laws of a given country. My guess is that your passport will come into play, even though that defines citizenship not residency, along with where you vote, have a drivers license, and bank.

It seems that in some countries, and the US seems to be heading the same way or already is, one must have a resident address to open a bank account.

Then there will be people like you who move around to avoid the 183 day rule. We have spent quite a bit of time discussing some travel ideas where where this would be an issue. Not really sure of the answer.

Later,
Dan

Let me complicate it a bit. Wife and I both have US passports, but both are dual citizens -- she also has an Australian passport and I have a Canadian. We own property in all 3 countries, and have bank accounts in all three. Does this make us a couple without country? We claim US residency, but are we entitled to?

[dmuma]

I'm in the USA. My corporation (business) uses a "Registered Agent" service for global operations, because to legally do business in a foreign state you need a local, legal address for things like licensing, insurance, service of suit, etc.

My boat is owned by a different corporation (personal LLC) set up just for the boat.

I've no idea if personal marine insurance companies will accept "registered agent" address, but I do know that you can get a legal, local address almost anywhere and plenty of commercial enterprises, including mine, use registered agent services globally.

[bouncycastle]

The problem for most peoples best I can tell is the world system of insurance is made for corporations and not for Joe soaps who want to traverse the oceans.

This all starts with admiltary law and legal need for corporations to register their ships.
To register ships or cars or planes etc means for example if your ship is registered to the UK then the UK government becomes the owner of the ship eg The corporation hands ownership of their ship to the UK government in this case the King of the UK.

What then happens the corporation is now now issued with he right to be the KEEPER of the ship but not the owner and normally to my knowledge the ship can have a maximum of 64 registered keepers of the ship such as several corporations may own their share of the ship via a corporation.

This system means if the UK registered ship enters another country that country knows the ship is ultimately underwritten for insurance claims by the entire wealth of the UK Kingdom if the normal insurance cannot or will not payout

Equally when a non UK ship such as a Nigerian registered ship enters the the UK shores and harbours if there is a claim against that ship then the Nigerian state becomes liable to pay that damage and claim

Logic is simple the countries that register ship as the owners of ship demand that the legal KEEPERS of the ships must have suitable Insurance .
failure to comply with these regulations can risk high fines or jail or even fall foul of piracy laws

The problem is that a address is is only something a corporation can have in the legal world as humans exist in their bodies and cannot have a name eg corporation name
Only a dead entity corporation can have a name and humans can not be inside any dead entity corporation address

To solve these problems for humans to own a type of sorta own a dead entity corporation address with which to register their small non commercial boats there exists the small boat registry and often is linked to another dead entity the passport PASSING THE PORT but often to the social welfare numbers system .

It varies a lot from country to country the systems

For Ireland with no boat registry system this means Portugal immeadilty seize Irish boats and class them as salvage as for Portugal has chosen no small boat registry no proper line of of boat registered ownership and big risk there may not be suitable insurance .

So the idea the Brexit triggered this problem is not true its a ADMILTARY LEGAL issue across the entire planet

Spain France have a very strict number plate boat registry system for small boats so their papers are very believable to other regions of the world.
However many Spainish Marina are selective which types of French boats can enter their marinas as there is two classes of French boats those that conform to Spanish regulations and interesting amounts that don't conform to Spanish regulations

Ultimately the receiving country has a choice does it believe the papers of ship or boat registry and are valid and choose to seize the ships or boats until they are satisfied the papers like the insurance are valid .Needless to say this process can take long periods if the ship or boat is tied up in a expensive harbour or marina so the administration system of the country not satisfied with the ship or boats paper can gain back some earning for this investigation using their administration assets like navy police etc

For hapless ship boat owners with correct papers this to them is a SCAM and for non compliant ships or boats a very expensive system to get ships or boats back

Over decades there has been a world wide rise in ships and boats doing a runner and not paying fees like damage or tax or other issues often using papers and insurance that don't pay out .

Then the process to claim against governments has also proved to be very problematic with delays in the decades if countries ever pay back the money some rogue ship or boat did

Insurance companies have a vested interest that rogue ships and boats don't fill in the truth in their applications to get insurance cover .That gives them a get out of dodge to pay the claims but the country or region that gets stiffed for final payment if they can identify the offending ship or boat becomes a problem to their system of profits

The older systems of Joe soaps with pleasure boats traversing the oceans using any address that their family can give them creates a risk for payments for insurance to cover as that often wasn't factually correct and may have been a higher premium if the risks were known and the easy going system world wide is getting more complex as many fake papers and insurance policies not worth a damm is becoming undone .

Also in the past the amount of pleasure boats traversing the oceans was not such a big number as todays world . This also leads to countries looking to earn income from these traversing boats that arrive to their regions and this will increase small boats insurance and marina cost as part of the supply and demand curve .

One Irish round the world sailing boat for the 35 foot boats not using modern equipment had to register as a Polish for about € 800 because if the boat arrived to obscure regions of the world like South America or Africa from broken equipment the non small boats registry system could risk in confiscation of the boat from lack of correct papers .

The result is many Irish boats avoid some regions of Europe like Portugal or similar as this problem increases across Europe . Some Irish boat register as British boats under the small boats registry but that can create problems if they wish to remain in the EU for extended times like live aboard because that creates VAT tax issues

best advise seems to be figure out the plans for next year ahead of the need to get insurance preferably with several insurance companies to help reduce the risks of this more complex world where Insurance is becoming a real big issue for the small pleasure crafts

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Bloodhound

Let me complicate it a bit. Wife and I both have US passports, but both are dual citizens -- she also has an Australian passport and I have a Canadian. We own property in all 3 countries, and have bank accounts in all three. Does this make us a couple without country? We claim US residency, but are we entitled to?

Then I suspect the next tests are where one votes, has a drivers license, and how taxes are paid.

You have an address in each country so that gets you the bank access and possibly a drivers license. The address seems to be a key to being able to get a bank account/credit cards which are required to live in a modern society, along with getting boat insurance.

I just read that in the Netherlands one of the banks will no allow one without an address to open a bank account. Before one had to have an address to open an account but one needed a bank account to rent or buy a place to live...

The bank said they investigated the regulations/laws and found there was no need to have an address to have get a bank account so they are allowing this to happen. They seem to be going after students and others that have immigrated to NL.

The banking scandal in the UK with Farage will hopefully trigger laws/regulations preventing people from loosing their bank accounts because someone in the bank did not like what you said, or asked, and better yet, require banks to allow people to have an account. I think Austria just passed this law/requlation.

What you are doing, along with many cruisers, are at the edge of what the vast majority of people do and government expects, and it puts us in this gray zone. Government does not like people in the gray zone, for the most part....

If we manage to pull off one of our various plans we will be in the gray zone. One of the problems we have is insurance along with residency.

We once met a non Irish citizen living in Ireland. The person's spouse was Irish but they died before this person could get residency. They had a house near the border with Northern Ireland, so before 90 days was up, a trip was made across the border to stay at a hotel to reset the 90 day clock... What is this person's residency?

This was in a small town. We only met this person because we were going into a store. When we mention this person to the store employee, she knew who we were talking about, as well as where the person lived and some of his history. The local government knew about him too. But I don't think the government in Dublin knew about him.

Later,
Dan

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by bouncycastle

The problem for most peoples best I can tell is the world system of insurance is made for corporations and not for Joe soaps who want to traverse the oceans.

This all starts with admiltary law and legal need for corporations to register their ships.
To register ships or cars or planes etc means for example if your ship is registered to the UK then the UK government becomes the owner of the ship eg The corporation hands ownership of their ship to the UK government in this case the King of the UK.

What then happens the corporation is now now issued with he right to be the KEEPER of the ship but not the owner and normally to my knowledge the ship can have a maximum of 64 registered keepers of the ship such as several corporations may own their share of the ship via a corporation.

This system means if the UK registered ship enters another country that country knows the ship is ultimately underwritten for insurance claims by the entire wealth of the UK Kingdom if the normal insurance cannot or will not payout

Equally when a non UK ship such as a Nigerian registered ship enters the the UK shores and harbours if there is a claim against that ship then the Nigerian state becomes liable to pay that damage and claim

Logic is simple the countries that register ship as the owners of ship demand that the legal KEEPERS of the ships must have suitable Insurance .
failure to comply with these regulations can risk high fines or jail or even fall foul of piracy laws

The problem is that a address is is only something a corporation can have in the legal world as humans exist in their bodies and cannot have a name eg corporation name
Only a dead entity corporation can have a name and humans can not be inside any dead entity corporation address

To solve these problems for humans to own a type of sorta own a dead entity corporation address with which to register their small non commercial boats there exists the small boat registry and often is linked to another dead entity the passport PASSING THE PORT but often to the social welfare numbers system .

It varies a lot from country to country the systems

For Ireland with no boat registry system this means Portugal immeadilty seize Irish boats and class them as salvage as for Portugal has chosen no small boat registry no proper line of of boat registered ownership and big risk there may not be suitable insurance .

So the idea the Brexit triggered this problem is not true its a ADMILTARY LEGAL issue across the entire planet

Spain France have a very strict number plate boat registry system for small boats so their papers are very believable to other regions of the world.
However many Spainish Marina are selective which types of French boats can enter their marinas as there is two classes of French boats those that conform to Spanish regulations and interesting amounts that don't conform to Spanish regulations

Ultimately the receiving country has a choice does it believe the papers of ship or boat registry and are valid and choose to seize the ships or boats until they are satisfied the papers like the insurance are valid .Needless to say this process can take long periods if the ship or boat is tied up in a expensive harbour or marina so the administration system of the country not satisfied with the ship or boats paper can gain back some earning for this investigation using their administration assets like navy police etc

For hapless ship boat owners with correct papers this to them is a SCAM and for non compliant ships or boats a very expensive system to get ships or boats back

Over decades there has been a world wide rise in ships and boats doing a runner and not paying fees like damage or tax or other issues often using papers and insurance that don't pay out .

Then the process to claim against governments has also proved to be very problematic with delays in the decades if countries ever pay back the money some rogue ship or boat did

Insurance companies have a vested interest that rogue ships and boats don't fill in the truth in their applications to get insurance cover .That gives them a get out of dodge to pay the claims but the country or region that gets stiffed for final payment if they can identify the offending ship or boat becomes a problem to their system of profits

The older systems of Joe soaps with pleasure boats traversing the oceans using any address that their family can give them creates a risk for payments for insurance to cover as that often wasn't factually correct and may have been a higher premium if the risks were known and the easy going system world wide is getting more complex as many fake papers and insurance policies not worth a damm is becoming undone .

Also in the past the amount of pleasure boats traversing the oceans was not such a big number as todays world . This also leads to countries looking to earn income from these traversing boats that arrive to their regions and this will increase small boats insurance and marina cost as part of the supply and demand curve .

One Irish round the world sailing boat for the 35 foot boats not using modern equipment had to register as a Polish for about € 800 because if the boat arrived to obscure regions of the world like South America or Africa from broken equipment the non small boats registry system could risk in confiscation of the boat from lack of correct papers .

The result is many Irish boats avoid some regions of Europe like Portugal or similar as this problem increases across Europe . Some Irish boat register as British boats under the small boats registry but that can create problems if they wish to remain in the EU for extended times like live aboard because that creates VAT tax issues

best advise seems to be figure out the plans for next year ahead of the need to get insurance preferably with several insurance companies to help reduce the risks of this more complex world where Insurance is becoming a real big issue for the small pleasure crafts

Excellent post.. thanks for keeping the petty political poor me footstamping out of it..
As to the Irish problem I can vouch for the Portugal problem having helped an Irish boat get out from under the Portimao Harbour master.

[TabbyCat]

Originally Posted by Pepijn

Just got an email from Pantaenius telling me that they will cancel the policy, because
1. Me, EU citizen, with a boat in the med
2. UK registered part 1
3. Not a permanent address (we are currently living aboard)

What to do? Any other insurance company?


UNQUOTE

I might be able to get you a quote from Velos, it depends on details like hull value, current survey, claims, etc. Anyway, fill out our quote request form and I will see what I can do.

[Schapera]

A bigger issue you now have is that you have had a policy cancelled on you. This is something that has to be declared to your next insurer, or any subsequent insurer, as one of the questions they will ask is “have you ever had a policy cancelled“. Whenever you feel this threat, you must always terminate the policy on the insurance before they do it on you.

[TabbyCat]

Originally Posted by Schapera

A bigger issue you now have is that you have had a policy cancelled on you. This is something that has to be declared to your next insurer, or any subsequent insurer, as one of the questions they will ask is “have you ever had a policy cancelled“. Whenever you feel this threat, you must always terminate the policy on the insurance before they do it on you.

I would advise the other way. Keep your policy for as long as the company will cover you. If the company cancels because they are no longer able to offer coverage, that does not count against you. We have re-written many Pantaenius policies for exactly this reason and have never had the new underwriter decline to quote because the current underwriter is no longer in the market or can't cover due to licensing restrictions. The only kind of cancellations that would count against you would be for non-payment or claims.

[christinekling]

When we were in the Med, we were an American and a Canadian on a vessel registered in Jersey. Our residence address was our mail forwarding company in the USA. We got what thought was quite reasonable insurance for cruising the Med from this German company, European Insurance and Services. We crossed the Atlantic in January, and had to switch to a world wide policy and it became much more expensive. But just for the Med and the Atlantic coast of Europe, it was great.

[Montanan]

Determination of Jurisdiction - It is complex.

https://www.tresslerllp.com/docs/def...n%20%C2%A7%206.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by chrisr

thanks

that may be the case in the US, but i don't see the relevance here

the OP said ;

1. Me, EU citizen, with a boat in the med
2. UK registered part 1
3. Not a permanent address (we are currently living aboard)

cheers,

How to establish the risk location - Llyods guidance:

https://www.lloyds.com/conducting-bu...usiness/marine

To identify the territory of regulation and tax of a marine risk consider:
The nature of the cover provided;
The jurisdiction in which the vessel is registered;,
The physical location of the property; and
The location of the insured’s residence(s) or business establishment(s).

Specifically as to:

Yacht hull and liability

Yacht insurance covers losses arising from physical damage to the yacht’s hull. Yacht liability insurance covers owners and operators of yachts for third party liability.

The risk location can be determined by any one or more of the following factors.

Physical location of the vessel (place of operation)
Jurisdiction in which the vessel is registered
Location of the insured’s residence or business establishment Please see the territory specific guidance on Crystal for specific risk location rules.

It is possible for a contract to have more than one risk location, if, for example, it covers more than one vessel, and the insured vessels are registered in more than one jurisdiction. It is also possible for the risk location rules of different territories to overlap, i.e. where one territory determines risk location by insured’s business establishment and another territory determines it by vessel registration. Therefore a single vessel can have multiple risk locations.

[Montanan]

UK registered vessel:

Guidance regarding UK law regarding warranties, which presumably would include a statement of the insured's place of residency.

https://www.iims.org.uk/warranties-now-future/

The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent in the UK on 12 February 2015. When it comes into force in August 2016, it will represent the greatest change to insurance contract law in this country in over 100 years. It will amend certain key sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 including warranties, although it is worth noting that the 1906 Act has not been repealed.

Under the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, any breach of a policy warranty gives insurers the option to walk away from any loss. That is any loss whether related to the breach or not. Worse still insurers are “off risk”, from the date of the breach. Coverage cannot be reinstated by remedying the breach. An insured cannot wander in and out of coverage as if he or she is calling in for a cup of tea. Very little has been as divisive and resented as breaches of warranty since the Marine Insurance Act came into effect 110 years ago. Like Elvis, many Insureds have felt abandoned by their insurers. The current (some say harsh) treatment of breach of warranty ends on 11 August 2016,

So what is a warranty? The Marine Insurance Act 1906 says this…

“A warranty … is a condition which must be exactly complied with, whether it is material to the risk or not. If it be not so complied with, then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach.”

The full text can be found at Section 39 of the Act. The implications for insureds is patent-breach a warranty and you lose your insurance cover for the remainder of the term of the policy.

Although apparently inflexible the Act does allow excusable breaches of
There are only two types of warranty; express and implied. Let’s deal with “Express” warranties first as by their nature they are easier to follow.

An express warranty is written into the policy. It may appear more than once. It may appear in the schedule of the policy and in the policy wording.

So what changes on 12 August 2016 when the Insurance Act 2015 comes into force? Quite a lot is the answer! Under the new Act a breach of warranty has a “suspensory” effect on coverage. There is still no cover for losses during the breach, but unlike under the current system, cover resumes once the breach is remedied. This change potentially benefits insureds enormously.

Under the current system statements made by insureds can be turned into warranties under what is known as “Basis of Contract” claims. Under the new Act these have been abolished.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by christinekling

When we were in the Med, we were an American and a Canadian on a vessel registered in Jersey. Our residence address was our mail forwarding company in the USA. We got what thought was quite reasonable insurance for cruising the Med from this German company, European Insurance and Services. We crossed the Atlantic in January, and had to switch to a world wide policy and it became much more expensive. But just for the Med and the Atlantic coast of Europe, it was great.

hmmm...we are always updating insurance ideas and these guys seem quite interesting.

however cannot see anywhere who are the actual underwriters - are you aware at all who this is ?

also interesting is that they recommend registration in san marino as there is presently no insurance tax there. this bears out our own investigations which show the significant difference for insurance costs (for same policy / same vessel) between different european countries, due to different tax rates on insurance.

cheers,

[Montanan]

Doctrine of Concealment - Insurance Contracts.

Reference link: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...53&context=lcp

Snipets:

"The average person holding an insurance policy is unsophisticated in the law, and meets the everyday challenges of life passably serene in the knowledge that his insurance policy- represents financial indemnity from the fortuitous unhappinesses which are somehow part of living. Whether his policy be of life insurance, fire insurance, theft insurance, or any of the countless varieties of business and personal insurance issued, it would come as a shock for him to know that his instrument of security can be in jeopardy because he failed to disclose any number of facts to his insurer.

This is the doctrine of concealment; unknown to most laymen, obscure to
many insurance agents and brokers. Even though the insurance company asked no questions when it issued the policy, or even though the insured filled out an application stating all he knew, the insurance company may be able to escape ultimate liability on the grounds that the insured did not first tell it something that it thought he should have.

This surprising doctrine strikes hard at the vitals of an insurance-buying society, the members of which procure insurance to gain a security, an assurance that misfortune will not be financial disaster. A doctrine which has the effect of gnawing at these expectations must be able to justify itself convincingly. History and judicial veneration are not enough; the doctrine must be tested in social utility and, if the result is negative, cast swiftly aside. This is a test of the doctrine of concealment; the result is negative.

. . .

In addition to his ability to select and control risks through the contract as written, the insurer may utilize certain interrogations of insurance applicants to ascertain whether he will undertake the risk requested. These ordinarily yield statements by the insured, made presumably to induce the insurer to act and generally known as "representations." Representations, then, fit into the selection and control of the risk pattern in that they are illuminative of the facts surrounding the risk, and go to influencing the insurer's judgment.
If a representation were to be the heads on a coin, concealment would be the tails.

While representation is the communicated affirmation or denial of a proposition of fact material to the risk, concealment is, in insurance law, the failure of the insured to disclose to the insurer, without being asked, known facts which the insurer would regard as material to the risk. The concealment doctrine aids the insurer in selecting and controlling his risks by allowing the insurer to presume that nothing material is being kept from him. As a power factor, the ability of the insurer to avoid liability on a policy issued under circumstances of concealment is a deterrent to those who would otherwise be tempted to conceal. The doctrine has further relevance to risk selection in that the concealment leads to the ultimate contention that the risk actually assumed was not the same risk contemplated by the insurer when he entered into the contract."


. . .

the notable quotation from Carter v. Boehm:

Insurance is a contract upon speculation. The special facts, upon which the contingent chance is to be computed, lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only: the underwriter trusts to his representation, and proceeds upon confidence that he does not keep back any circumstances in his knowledge, to mislead the underwriter into a belief that the circumstance does not exist, and to induce him to estimate the risque, as if it did not exist. The keeping back [of] such circumstances is a fraud, and therefore the policy is void. Although the suppression should happen through mistake, without any fraudulent intention; yet still the underwriter is deceived, and the policy is void; because the risque run is really different from the risque understood and intended to be run, at the time of the agreement.

. . .

The Variables

The key to understanding concealment is contained in a combination of specific variables. These are as follows: (i) The insured knew the fact; (2) The insured did not disclose the fact to the insurer, and the insurer was not chargeable with itsknowledge; (3) The fact was material; (4) The insured knew the fact was material.
Combinations of these elements form the currently prevailing rules on concealment. The relationship between the fourth variable and intent to deceive will be discussed below.

B. The English Law

The English law is of concern because of the historical antecedents, as well as
the prominent effect registered by British insurers on American business.
England follows the flat rule laid down by Lord Mansfield: innocent concealment of a material fact avoids the policy. The English rule, then, contains only three variables: (i) The insured knew the fact; (2) The insured did not disclose the fact to the insurer, and the insurer was not chargeable with its knowledge; (3) The fact was material.
There is no requirement of the fourth variable, namely, that the insured knew
that the fact was material. Innocent c oncealment means the failure of the insured to disclose a fact the existence or nonexistence of which he knew, but the materialityof which he was unaware. This is a tough rule, and it is applied by the English to all insurance contracts.
In England, a policy is avoided if the insured knows a fact, does not disclose it, and if the fact is material. There being no requirement of fraud or bad faith, innocent concealment lets out the insurer.

C. The American Law

i. Differences According to Kind of Insurance

a. Marine Insurance
In marine insurance, the strict English rule carries over. Consequently, in this
country the English rule is known as the "marine rule."
Therefore, the marine rule may be stated as follows: (i) The insured knew the fact; (2) The insured did not disclose the fact to the insurer, and the insurer was not chargeable with its knowledge; (3) The fact was material.
As said early by the United States Supreme Court in a noted marine insurance case, Sun Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ocean Insurance Co., 1o 7 U. S. 485, 51o (1882).

The duty of communication, indeed, is independent of the intention, and is violated by the fact of concealment even where there is no design to deceive.

b. The non-marine rule contains the three elements of the marine rule, and one more. It requires the insured's knowledge of the fact and nondisclosure of the fact to the insurer who is not chargeable with its knowledge and materiality. But in addition, the nondisclosure must have been in bad faith. The meaning of this last requirement is muddy in the very best tradition of empty legal verbalisms. Some courts tell us the disclosure must be fraudulent, others say there must be an actual intent to deceive. Then others rush in to say that a reasonable man would have known the fact was material, and that therefore the insurer's defense of concealment is effective. Presumably, if an insured ought to have known, but did not actually know, then his conduct is not fraudulent, nor is there intent to deceive; yet the requirement of "ought to know" is not to be found in the strict marine rule.

[TabbyCat]

Originally Posted by christinekling

When we were in the Med, we were an American and a Canadian on a vessel registered in Jersey. Our residence address was our mail forwarding company in the USA. We got what thought was quite reasonable insurance for cruising the Med from this German company, European Insurance and Services. We crossed the Atlantic in January, and had to switch to a world wide policy and it became much more expensive. But just for the Med and the Atlantic coast of Europe, it was great.

Seems like they are an agency? Do you know who the actual underwriter was? And what their rating is?