To claim, or not to claim.

[guyrj33]

It is a mistake to admit fault. That can be used against you in the future.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

1. There is a difference between "being my fault" and "negligence".
2. Honestly forgetting to do something that results in a claim maybe your fault but is not negligence.
.

Sorry to get off topic, but HUH? Forgetting to do something IS negligence. Shifting to the wrong gear, failure to inspect rig, failure to remove all dock lines, failure to shorten sail, all negligence. I’m at a loss to think of anything that’s not negligence, aside from act of god and intentional. Can you provide an example?

[Kd9truck]

I carry basic liability, my vessel is paid in full. My insurance has doubled in 5 years, with no claims filed. I guess even with basic liability I have to pay for the mistakes of others. When your insurance fluctuates with the location of your home port, you are paying for the risk factor of other humans and their propensity to file. Bank held vessels, vessels with loans on them, have to carry more insurance as a condition of the loan, more claims are filed in these areas.
Did you deploy your anchor prior to contact? Did another vessel cause you to put you boat in harms way of the obstruction? Did you hit the obstruction or did the obstruction hit you? Is your insurance “no fault” Imho, Pay the damage to fix it or expect to get dropped, both will most likely happen when you file, once the “cat is out of the bag” you can’t put it back in.

[zstine]

idk if this applies to Gieco marine insurance, but about 5 years ago I had a minor car accident, my fault, and Gieco paid out just under $3k (I wish I didn't go through ins but the other party insisted). Gieco did Not drop me, but raised my annual premium from about $700 to $2500! over 3x increase! I dropped them and got Progressive which was about $700 again. Today Progressive insurance covers the boat, house, cars and motorcycle.

[Gary Matthesen]

I have to say, I had a total loss of my 35 foot Cheoy Lee in Hurricane Sandy. boat US at the time treated me well. I received my $35k hull value, they covered the yard cut up and disposal fee and I never even got a bill for the crane that lifted me off the seawall.
They continued to carry me, I didnt notice much of an increase. Now as Geico I continue to be insured for a 1987 boat after a big claim 10 years ago.
We shall see...

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Sorry to get off topic, but HUH? Forgetting to do something IS negligence. Shifting to the wrong gear, failure to inspect rig, failure to remove all dock lines, failure to shorten sail, all negligence. I’m at a loss to think of anything that’s not negligence, aside from act of god and intentional. Can you provide an example?

Most policies (country specific) used to carry a "duty of care" clause. This would cover your scenarios that on the face of it could be regarded as negligence. This was challenged and is now normally written as "reasonable precautions". The onus being placed upon the insurer to prove that the incident was the result of "reckless behaviour" on the part of the insured.



An example would be a mechanical failure that resulted in you crashing.


All mechanical devices only fail when they are operating so checking in advance will not always prevent failure.



If an engine seized resulting in a collision with another boat because the owner had forgotten to replace the oil after a fully documented oil change as part of a long service history it would show that the owner had taken reasonable precautions but had made a mistake, he was not acting recklessly. Knowing something is wrong and not taking action to correct it.



If the same mistake had been made by a professional mechanic then a possible claim could be made against the mechanic because in his professional capacity he did not take reasonable precautions. The mechanic's professional insurance would then become responsible and would pay out the third party regardless of whether he made a mistake or acted recklessly.



Should the owner have checked the oil before starting the engine? and therein lies the grey area. Did he say that it was his fault? This statement could determine who pays the very reason insurers insist on non admission of liability.


You can probably blow lots of holes in this example that just goes to highlight the grey areas.



If nobody made mistakes or everything was negligence, except acts of god (that are usually excluded) then insurance would not exist.


We are not sure why the OP thinks it was his fault. Did he make a mistake or was he acting recklessly?

[letsgetsailing3]

I carry a minimum of insurance, and only use it for catastrophic damage.

I don't know if that's the right thing to do or not. And it appears nobody else does, either.

I do know that a few years ago I scoured my home insurance, and made it as cheap as possible, eliminating all optional coverages. My house insurance was really quite reasonable. The following year, they sent an inspector to my house, and said that they were dropping me because they suddenly realized that my roof was old. I could keep the insurance, but had 30 days to replace the tile roof. I couldn't find a roofer who would do the work in time.

My replacement insurance was double my original insurance. So they were successful in teaching me that I should not mess with them.

I consider insurance to be a black art. It's like wizards in the middle ages. Not to be messed with.

So, no, I wouldn't make a minor claim on insurance. It's one of the few products I buy that I really have no idea what I'm buying, but it's impossible to function in our society without it for major assets.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

Most policies (country specific) used to carry a "duty of care" clause. This would cover your scenarios that on the face of it could be regarded as negligence. This was challenged and is now normally written as "reasonable precautions". The onus being placed upon the insurer to prove that the incident was the result of "reckless behaviour" on the part of the insured.



An example would be a mechanical failure that resulted in you crashing.


All mechanical devices only fail when they are operating so checking in advance will not always prevent failure.



If an engine seized resulting in a collision with another boat because the owner had forgotten to replace the oil after a fully documented oil change as part of a long service history it would show that the owner had taken reasonable precautions but had made a mistake, he was not acting recklessly. Knowing something is wrong and not taking action to correct it.



If the same mistake had been made by a professional mechanic then a possible claim could be made against the mechanic because in his professional capacity he did not take reasonable precautions. The mechanic's professional insurance would then become responsible and would pay out the third party regardless of whether he made a mistake or acted recklessly.



Should the owner have checked the oil before starting the engine? and therein lies the grey area. Did he say that it was his fault? This statement could determine who pays the very reason insurers insist on non admission of liability.


You can probably blow lots of holes in this example that just goes to highlight the grey areas.



If nobody made mistakes or everything was negligence, except acts of god (that are usually excluded) then insurance would not exist.


We are not sure why the OP thinks it was his fault. Did he make a mistake or was he acting recklessly?

Originally Posted by Tupaia

Most policies (country specific) used to carry a "duty of care" clause. This would cover your scenarios that on the face of it could be regarded as negligence. This was challenged and is now normally written as "reasonable precautions". The onus being placed upon the insurer to prove that the incident was the result of "reckless behaviour" on the part of the insured.

We are not sure why the OP thinks it was his fault. Did he make a mistake or was he acting recklessly?

This post, and a couple of others above it, make me think that the words I used, and the scolding I've been giving myself, may be slightly off.

It was certainly not a pure accident, like seaweed clogging a strainer, or a belt breaking. But it was certainly not reckless either. Mistake is a much better word.

My starboard Racor was starting to get clogged, so I shifted to port (two 3-way valves, inlet and outlet). The next morning, I replaced the element in the starboard unit. To fill it back up with diesel, I shifted the inlet valve to starboard and ran my little electric fuel pump. I then cleaned up my tools and had myself a cup of coffee. Life was good. Although an astute reader will note that I now have the discharge valve set to port and the inlet valve set to starboard.

We get underway, and 5 or 10 minutes later, the remains of the fuel are consumed and the engine is starved.

Sloppy, careless, negligent, I have beat myself up relentlessly on this. But incompetent, indifferent, and reckless aren't really the right words for this.

[Kd9truck]

File, get denied (it was your fault) , your insurance will still go up,….and you will raise the rates for everybody around you because you just raised the risk factor. Not saying it right just saying that’s what’s going to happen. Your rates are related to your region, if you are with boaters who file a lot of claims, everybody’s insurance around you gos up. That’s a “fun fact” you will not find in your insurance policy.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Sorry to get off topic, but HUH? Forgetting to do something IS negligence. Shifting to the wrong gear, failure to inspect rig, failure to remove all dock lines, failure to shorten sail, all negligence. I’m at a loss to think of anything that’s not negligence, aside from act of god and intentional. Can you provide an example?

The issue of negligence vs accident has a pretty clear legal interpretation. It all has to do with the concept of what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.

According to this legal definition:

An accident is commonly defined as “an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.” While negligence is “a failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not.

Typically, most events have both 'accident' and 'negligence' causes. But it's certainly true that, legally speaking, there are lots of blameless accidents that occur.

[JimsCAL]

I've had two claims on my current boat that I have owned for 13 years. Both were while boat was on mooring and hit by boats dragging in storms. No problems with payments or having insurance being cancelled. Insurance is Progressive/USAA.

[Messing About]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

"Insurance" has to be, without a doubt, the biggest legal "racket" on this planet.

These days everybody and everything carries insurance of one kind or another.

Insurance companies are not in the business of "paying claims"...they are in the business of extracting dollars from your pocket.

I see no point in paying monthly premiums and not filing a claim. Might as well not carry insurance otherwise.

100% in agreement with your characterization of the industry.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

1. There is a difference between "being my fault" and "negligence".
2. Honestly forgetting to do something that results in a claim maybe your fault but is not negligence.
3. This why insurance companies insist that you do not admit liability.

In reality there are two fundamental types of negligence.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Messing About

100% in agreement with your characterization of the industry.

Insurance is always a “racket” right up until the time you need it and usually to whom the first phone call is made asking for help.

[Wannabes00n]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

First, I'm surprised we don't have a whole sub forum dedicated to insurance! It seems to come up frequently, and when I searched I found questions all over the site.

We have a 24-year-old boat in very good condition. We have been insured with BoatUS since we bought it in 2019, so 3 years ago. In addition I have a decade with BoatUS on my previous boat. We've never had a claim.

Yesterday, coming out of Old Montreal in 6 to 7 knots of current, the engine died. 100% my fault, but nonetheless it died. With no headway, we slid into the concrete bulkhead at 6 to 7 knots. Fortunately, our arch took over 90% of the impact and damage.

A smattering of small change damage, such as an older stack pack sail cover and bimini top, a GPS antenna, and a solar panel.

While the boat is well into the BoatUS depreciation debacle, the arch can be documented as only 8 years old. I have discussed with the arch builder, Klacko out of Ontario Canada, and he has ball parked 12 to 15k. I assume another 5k for a yard to remove and reinstall, including all the mounted gear.

I think that even after our high deductible, this probably qualifies as a claim worth filing. But that's not the question.

My concern is the attitudes and practices I've heard mentioned here. If I file a claim, and they pay $5 or $10k -- and then turn around and cancel my policy, that's not a good outcome!

Does anyone here have experience with BoatUS, specifically, using a claim that was the result of policyholder negligence as reason for non-renewal?

On a related note, we are on an extended cruise and will not be home to Maryland until early October. We have stabilized the damage and can continue our cruise. I am concerned about the inability to have an appraisal or any estimates done until then. If I document the incident now, does time lose its urgency?

I am not sure if GEICO is "Admitted" paper or "Non-Admitted Paper" on their Boat US/GEICO product. Find this out. If it is admitted they cannot legally drop you for a claim. If non-admitted they could, but not necessarily. Given the guesstimated damage amount to Full hull value it sounds like you will not be dropped. As others have mentioned, your premium at renewal will likely go up as your risk profile has increased. Nobody kills a laying hen because she produced a bad egg...now a couple bad eggs maybe so.