Going Uninsured !?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Great lets just lie and rely on the marinas greed and call ourselves moral.

Just add a line on page 27 - in small print (small print ) that the policy is for entertainment purposes only.

How could I be blamed if someone does not read the small print?.....works for insurance companies.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The reason is different. Marinas don't want to be sued as the "deep pockets" in case of an accident where the real perpetrator has no insurance and can't pay -- who is "judgement proof", as lawyers say. Their own insurance, no doubt, requires them to require berthholders to be insured. I think it is entirely understandable and reasonable. Why we are not allowed to get behind the wheel of a car without liability insurance -- why should boats be any different?

Well fair enough, but why would a marina require one to have comprehensive insurance rather than just liability insurance as evidence by SimonV's experience.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Well fair enough, but why would a marina require one to have comprehensive insurance rather than just liability insurance as evidence by SimonV's experience.

Yeah, to me that is rather strange. Requiring you to have insurance for damage "to your own boat" is quite different from requiring insurance for damage your boat/you may do "to another boat or marina property." And a huge difference in price of such insurance.

[Wavewacker]

Comp would be required to provide coverage for a loss arising from an uninusred as mention. I don't know if WA is a contributory negligence state, but comp would cover that part of a loss attributed to the owner's negligence in an accident. And, when insurance companies deal between themselves in a common loss, comp provides a means of sharing a loss rather than having to prove negligence of one party of another.

Social aspects of underwriting; A customer who has comp insurance will be thought of as one being more financially responsible than one who does not. It is an assumption that such an individual will be more responsible in other areas of, not only boating, but in other aspects of their life. Insurance logic is justified by statistics and loss experience and applies to large populations of like customers and not individuals. As an example, insurance companies charge lower premiums if you are currently insured when obtaining a new policy, if you have good credit, if your teenager has good grades and drivers education. It could be that a company has seen lower losses arising from negligent boaters who carried comp coverage. So, not only would a marina insurer make it a requirement for the business policy, the marina owner may recongize these aspects and make it a requirement.

Someone who carries comp coverage could be assumed to keep their boat in good condition and thereby reducing the risk of accidents as well.

Another issue, be careful about assuming crossover coverage for liability. While I have personal liability coverage that would cover me for all kinds of stupid and even intentional acts, such coverage is not afforded if a specialized policy is available on the market covering specific areas. If I carry a 14' canoe down on a dock and knock some little old lady in the water, hitting her head and she goes under, my personal liability coverage will kick in. Liability coverage specifically for canoes is not really written by any company. If I ram by 26' runabout into that dock and knock that little lady off with similar results, my personal liability coverage does not cover me since boat liability coverage is available.

I don't think having or using fake insurance documenation is a good idea as you could find yourself in more hot water in an incident, it could go as far as insurance fraud if another company relies on your having the coverage you claimed to have.

If I were self-insured I might consider a bond that could be posted toward any loss. With some marinas it might get by with a Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement, waiving rights toward claims and further agreeing to hold the other parties harmless from any action taken by you and further to pay for any such claims.

My original question in bumping this thread was answered somewhat as to wooden boats and I see they may be harder to insure. The total value of my boat would be small anyway, being a homebuilt.

I will probably self insure my tub unless the premium is resonable to me to assign the risks assumed to a company. I have had a rather unique professional background in the financial arena, including insurance and law, so others should not follow my lead,rather discuss their situation with their attorney and insurance agent/broker. I'm also considering the waters traveled, since I will not be near much traffic or anchoring near others, my risks drop significantly. You don't need to be so concerned about me since I will be more concerned about where you are and avoiding you. The other thing is that now I am fairly bullet proof, yet responsible, so if I damage something, I'll take care of it!

[hellosailor]

Why would a Marina require comprehensive cover????"
Why do some bars have cover charges? To keep the riffraff out.
Could be the requirement is used to encourage a better economic class of customer. Could also be a strong insurance lobby was active before the legislation was passeed. Or to make sure that if you sneak in a mechanic (no, really, he's my cousin and this is personal) and he sets fire to the yard, they're still off the hook.

That wasn't a mechanic, that really was my cousin. But I told him not to touch the whiskey, honest! And those weren't my candles that started the fire around the jacuzzi!

[Wavewacker]

Deniablity is the first line of defense.....ever see those "Not Responsible" signs, they are pure hog wash, but effective.....

[AllezCat]

I tried again to get insurance:
Called Boat US - they denied coverage due to "...condition of the vessel".
hmmm.
My boat was damaged while being hauled. My insurance was involved. but paid nothing and only made matters worse. The yard is repairing the damage.
But seems I am blacklisted now...
As others have pointed out - insurance is a scam - they may help once - but then you are done.
Boat US offered 100,000, 300,000, or 500,000 liability. Effectively nothing. No risk to them and no help to you if you damage (most) other boats and structures. A boatyard could burn thru 100k in a few days on a million dollar repair. Then you are "in the same boat" as those that are self-insured.
Medical - don't know? - maybe 20,000 is the norm? Also useless in a law-suit.
I owned bars in NYC. Had some minor lawsuits - $50,000,000 is the initial offer.

I read recently that the best way to attain property in USA, is to fall over on someone else's...So I agree that liability is imperative. If it works (i.e if they do anything). At least they may initiate the legal procedures.
But, if it is serious, a personal lawyer needs to be hired just to deal with the malfeasance of "your" insurance company.

I will try a couple of other companies -

I do not believe that "having insurance" is a panacea as some do.
Who would anchor more carefully? Someone self insured in their home, and life savings, or someone "fully insured". Or worse someone on a bareboat charter?

I don't see a solution to the control all insurance has over us. They do have plenty of bucks for lobbyists. But, (complete fantasy here) if everyone stopped paying them, then...

[Wavewacker]

I wonder if there are any large yacht clubs or groups that could be pooled to lower costs. They could be underwritten differently, almost like their own insurance company.

Use to be that forming an organization for the purpose of obtaining insurance was illegal....but that is exactly what AARP is all about, they just claimed to have another purpose.

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by Wavewacker

I wonder if there are any large yacht clubs or groups that could be pooled to lower costs. They could be underwritten differently, almost like their own insurance company.

Use to be that forming an organization for the purpose of obtaining insurance was illegal....but that is exactly what AARP is all about, they just claimed to have another purpose.

this is a good start.
Also many people that are insured - are effectively not - mostly anyone that single hands for instance. Even if the policy does not explicitly exclude it. "Must maintain watch", etc...
Seems everything is backwards:
we have to have insurance and "beg" to get coverage, and obey their orders.
When docking, hauling, hiring contractors. We are the ones who are obligated to show insurance.
When I worked in construction many contracts (especially .gov) required performance bonds. And we had to have insurance to cover architects, engineers, owners, etc, etc...
I think this should be the case with all professional services. They should insure us.
Contractors should provide a performance bond, rather than a deposit. For instance if they remove sails, seat cushions etc for repairs. They have thousands of your property - and may ruin it or not return. But they typically take your property and a deposit.
haul-out and docks - should show they have insurance - a bond to cover loses, and "certificate of safety".
but supply and demand, and organization is not in our favor...

[hellosailor]

Allez, if insurance is a racket, so is all business. So were your bars, after all, you ran them to make a profit didn't you? That what insurer's do. Some water the drinks, others don't, and most customers come back without any idea or complaint, in both cases.

There ARE mutual self-assurance companies, owned and operated by the policy holders, non-profits even if the executives are well-paid. (And limited in what they can be paid.) If the economics work, and the customers aren't trying to steal mnoney by committing insurance fraud, etc., then it should be simple, easy, attractive, to open a new mutual insurance society for boaters and offer them great prices and terms.

That would be something like a bar selling top-shelf booze at a buck a shot instead of five or ten, perfectly possible, but you don't see many folks stepping up and offering to do it, do you?

You say your boat was damaged during haul--but don't mention who damaged it, how it was damaged, or why the insurer considers it uninsurable now. Your argument might make more sense if you filled in the details, there may be a very good reason why the event was not covered. Perhaps an exclusion in your policy? One of those little things we rarely scrutinize, since they are (really) intentionally printed in a manner making them difficult to read. Or perhaps, the boat is now uninsurable simply because there is a specific damage, and no one has certified that it has been repaired correctly as yet? That would not be unreasonable, no one wants to insure an unknown unvalued quantity.

Insurance? Yeah, like bars, it is a zero-sum game. One side gets, one side gives. You want a better deal on the bottle, you go to a real members-only social club instead. Anyone can open one.

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Allez, if insurance is a racket, so is all business. So were your bars, after all, you ran them to make a profit didn't you? That what insurer's do. Some water the drinks, others don't, and most customers come back without any idea or complaint, in both cases.

There ARE mutual self-assurance companies, owned and operated by the policy holders, non-profits even if the executives are well-paid. (And limited in what they can be paid.) If the economics work, and the customers aren't trying to steal mnoney by committing insurance fraud, etc., then it should be simple, easy, attractive, to open a new mutual insurance society for boaters and offer them great prices and terms.

That would be something like a bar selling top-shelf booze at a buck a shot instead of five or ten, perfectly possible, but you don't see many folks stepping up and offering to do it, do you?

You say your boat was damaged during haul--but don't mention who damaged it, how it was damaged, or why the insurer considers it uninsurable now. Your argument might make more sense if you filled in the details, there may be a very good reason why the event was not covered. Perhaps an exclusion in your policy? One of those little things we rarely scrutinize, since they are (really) intentionally printed in a manner making them difficult to read. Or perhaps, the boat is now uninsurable simply because there is a specific damage, and no one has certified that it has been repaired correctly as yet? That would not be unreasonable, no one wants to insure an unknown unvalued quantity.

Insurance? Yeah, like bars, it is a zero-sum game. One side gets, one side gives. You want a better deal on the bottle, you go to a real members-only social club instead. Anyone can open one.

You sound like either a lawyer, insurance consultant, or surveyor for insurance companies. Not much difference between any off them.
Why are you so defensive? They do not need you to play devils advocate. They have billions bribing politicians (lobbyists).
I don't think any bars do - "All businesses are crooked because they desire a profit"? please what utter horse ****...

[hellosailor]

Individual bars may not have lobbyists, but the liquor, entertainment, and restaurant industries all do. Same as the insruance industry.

I don't work for them, I'm just pointing out that their business, just like yours, is a zero-sum game, based on taking as much money as you or they can, from the "patrons". Customers, clients, rubes, whatever. Bars are generally considered to be a relatively high profit business when they are successfully run. Just like insurance companies. And there's always more than meets the eye, or the laws. Bars aren't allowed to buy back the third or fourth round (in most places) but a number still do. Customers never can be sure, really sure, that what's in the bottle is what the label says, kinda like assuming what their insurance policy contains. The businesses aren't so different after all. Zero-sum games in both cases.

My favorite pub serves a reasonable pint, which I can't keep on tap at home. And the regular waitresses "buy" the third or fourth round, legal or not, because it makes everyone happy. Still a zero-sum, but what they're offering, I can't do myself, or more reasonably elsewhere. Funny thing, that's almost how I chose my insurer. I don't LOVE the insurer, I just know I could do worse elsewhere, and I know the rules I can (and may have to) force them to play by.

So what did happen to your boat, and why did your insurance walk away from it?

[AllezCat]

I have a thread relating to what happened - but I will not comment any further - for now.
My previous post referenced my recent quote from Boat US - I quoted directly their verbal and written response - my reaction -and my speculation as to why. I know nothing else:
"Called Boat US - they denied coverage due to "...condition of the vessel".
hmmm.
But seems I am blacklisted now..."
You really think they are going to elaborate and tell me the real reason?


I think you are trying to deflect from what I believe is the control and corruption of the insurance industry. I have stated some of my experiences - all negative.
Some people are crooks, most aren't. I think the service the insurance industry provides is ostensibly nothing. Another way to put it is their business is to profit by denying claims. And they can do so because they have power to do so - absolute power.
Would be nice to here someone explain how they are useful in our society...
Here is more info on a lawsuit I received in the bar business. 3 years of my life - 20 years ago.
Law suit from "slip and fall".
Insurance denies on xyz grounds.
hire lawyer experienced in filing such lawsuits against small businesses. Says "xyz" is not pertinent.
Insurance continues process "under protest (can't remember their expression)".
Insurance denies claim under "Abc" grounds".
Lawyer argues not pertinent under statute 456...
Insurance continues process "under protest"
etc, etc and on it goes.
Worse happened with medical.
My thoughts after this. You must first have a lawyer (family lawyer etc) experienced in such matters to find insurance. (he knows the good ones as he fights them).
Using a broker to select insurance for you is like ....
And then when you have acclaim can use lawyer to follow thru...

[hellosailor]

"You really think they are going to elaborate and tell me the real reason?"
No, I only asked what they gave as the reason. Usually when an insurer denies coverage, they deny it for some specific reason. Apparently they have simply denied you coverage due to an unstated "condition" then? And you have no idea what "condition" the boat might be in, say, after being dropped or something?

"their business is to profit by denying claims." I agree with you fully on that. I'm familiar with it personally. A brief discussion with out state insurance commission and then a call to the insurer citing chapter and verse and making a few suggestions about criminal prosecution resolved that. And I know that's an industry problem, not a personal one, because I've read direct quotes from former health insurance executives in "respectable" press interviews, stating how at a certain point every nth claim would be denied, right or wrong, because the insurer knew that about 1/3 of them would never be resubmitted or appealed, so their profit would increase. A policy given verbally in their formal training, but never written down, so it could always be denied or dismissed as a misunderstanding.

They're not nice guys. But, for some reason, nice guys never seem to start up the non-profit mutual assurance companies that could be run for nice guys. (Maybe because then the not-so-nice guys would bankrupt them with fraudulent claims? Whch means insurers aren't totally paranoid?)

If the judges and politicians would only enforce the laws...oh wait, if they did that they'd have to shut down the insurers, and then we'd have to start new companies. Damfino.

Although perhaps the prettiest classic wood boat I ever saw was supposedly owned by a judge. I'm not sure why, we never saw it off the mooring.

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"You really think they are going to elaborate and tell me the real reason?"
No, I only asked what they gave as the reason. Usually when an insurer denies coverage, they deny it for some specific reason. Apparently they have simply denied you coverage due to an unstated "condition" then? And you have no idea what "condition" the boat might be in, say, after being dropped or something?

What I wrote is exactly what they said and wrote in an email. We can all infer what we want from that...
Blacklisted? Once a claim always denied insurance????
Damaged to the point of uninsurability?
Calling the head of claims a #@$#@$...?
who knows?
But condition? Please...
I told them about the several hundred thousand in refit - new engines, navigation systems, anchors, etc...
they don't know - don't care...