Going Uninsured !?

[atoll]

Originally Posted by svBeBe

I do believe all insurance (medical, life, auto, home, boat, etc) are rip-offs. Still, we carry full coverage insurance on our boat. Every marina and boat yard that we have used has required a copy of the policy face page and proof that the insurance was still active.

FWIW, IMHO every boat should carry liability coverage for a reasonable policy limit. When our boat was berthed in a marina in the BVI in spring 2006, there was an explosion nearby. Several boats caught fire. Floating embers from those boats dispersed throughout the marinas nearby and damaged several boats. We were lucky and our boat escaped damage; but floating embers from one of the burning boats caused several burned spots on the boat next to us. There were lots of insurance claims for all boats involved.

Another cruiser we knew in 2009 hit a reef when entering the pass to a relatively remote Pacific island. Their boat ended up on the reef. They escaped unharmed with the assistance of the local villagers. They were not allowed to leave the island until they paid $10,000 for damage to the reef and the cost of removing their ruined boat. They had let their insurance lapse just a few months prior to this accident. It cost them dearly before they were allowed to leave that country.

Think you don't need liability insurance?

Better think again. Those days are over. Every country considers environmental damage seriously today.

Judy

and why is that? possably a bunch of lawyers and litigators in the "free world" lol

[familycruisers]

No, I meant I didnt trully follow, what were you saying? Or if i did understand you right, obviously injury to a member of family is what I meant , like if that bowsprit through the salon occured, and my daughter gets cut by a piece of plexi, whatever) to a member of family is what I meant. Actually, can ya clarify what you're saying so I know, what I dont know now? Clear as mud.

[MacG]

"Damage to the Reef", Or how do we successfully plunder a bunch of unlucky people. Are they going to "reconstruct" the reef?

Shame on them.

[familycruisers]

are you saying if one carries liability, statistically, they are more apt to be involved in incidents?

[atoll]

Originally Posted by familycruisers

are you saying if one carries liability, statistically, they are more apt to be involved in incidents?

statistically first time drivers are more likely to be involed in an accident in their first 12 months,experinced drivers however can have 30- 40 years without a claim................at x dollar a year,who is the winner ? lol

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

I strongly disagree that insurance *has* to be about reducing risk to zero. The closer one tries to get to that, the more they pay for their insurance, but it is a personal choice.

Uhm ... that's why I said to the limits of the policy and the deductible. It's not zero, your risk is to those limits.

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

As someone else said, it's about mitigating risks.

Yes, that was me (and a few others as well).

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

You don't have to be in a marina for that to happen -- embers can be carried by the wind.

Here again you are proving my point. What are the real odds of this happening? Very, very low indeed. Anecdotes and single events only prove something is possible. But they don't tell how probable an event is. If you fear everything that is possible, then you don't need insurance, you need therapy .

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Far more likely, I think, is an injury for which the owner or skipper (insurance usually carried by owner, and usually they're the same people) is responsible in some way.

In my country you would have to show negligence to make this kind of claim stick. Perhaps US law is different, but here no judge would even hear a case over someone tripping over a line (even a misplaced one) on a boat: "Can you image? A line on a boat the wasn't properly stowed?!? Incredible"

All too often our society (at least here in Canada and the US) is driven to enact new policies or regulations based on unlikely events. At the same time we take incredible risks (driving a car!) and think nothing of it. It's irrational ... except if you are an insurance company who makes money off irrational fear. Then it's supremely rational .

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Uhm ... that's why I said to the limits of the policy and the deductible. It's not zero, your risk is to those limits.



Yes, that was me (and a few others as well).



Here again you are proving my point. What are the real odds of this happening? Very, very low indeed. Anecdotes and single events only prove something is possible. But they don't tell how probable an event is. If you fear everything that is possible, then you don't need insurance, you need therapy .



In my country you would have to show negligence to make this kind of claim stick. Perhaps US law is different, but here no judge would even hear a case over someone tripping over a line (even a misplaced one) on a boat: "Can you image? A line on a boat the wasn't properly stowed?!? Incredible"

All too often our society (at least here in Canada and the US) is driven to enact new policies or regulations based on unlikely events. At the same time we take incredible risks (driving a car!) and think nothing of it. It's irrational ... except if you are an insurance company who makes money off irrational fear. Then it's supremely rational .

big brother is telling me i have to thank others before i can thank you again for your eloquent posts....

[lateral]

User pays. If you damage something you should pay. Whether its a reef or another boat is irrelevant. A reef is a major asset to the Pacific Islanders. How would you feel if someone damagers you front garden and then said I had bad luck 'cos I couldn't read my TomTom.

Reconstruct the reef ??? At least it might make people less frivolous about negotiating passes. Bad luck doesn't exempt responsibility.
The problem is a lot of humans don't have respect for the planet.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by lateral

User pays. If you damage something you should pay. Whether its a reef or another boat is irrelevant. A reef is a major asset to the Pacific Islanders. How would you feel if someone damagers you front garden and then said I had bad luck 'cos I couldn't read my TomTom.

Reconstruct the reef ??? At least it might make people less frivolous about negotiating passes. Bad luck doesn't exempt responsibility.
The problem is a lot of humans don't have respect for the planet.

last time i looked baghdad has not been rebuilt lol...,nor kabul

[vcsmithuk]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

If you fear everything that is possible, then you don't need insurance, you need therapy .

This just gave me my humour fix for the evening. Brilliant.

[hellosailor]

Mr. B, you were sailing with no watch, no one on deck, and the insurer didn't try to walk away saying "Gross negligence" ?? That's a very generous insurer, who is the carrier?

Ram, you might want to be careful about corporations that are formed for no legitimate business purpose. If they exist only to shield liability and not to make a normal business profit, in some places you'll just be wasting your money on the corporation fees and commercial insurance rates. In the US, the IRS routinely has declared "sham corporations" to be exactly that, and gone after the individual who set them up. That's a dangerous game for amatuers to play, if you've got the knowledge and experience to pull it off...well...so did many Americans who tried tax dodges by using overseas banks and credit cards to hide income. Income, liability...doesn't matter, those dodges are being pierced more and more often these days. And rightly so.
Might be cheaper to just buy fake ID and then live under that name, if you're going to bother spending money on firewalling.

I think it was last week in Coconut Grove? FL. A megayacht caught fire mysteriously before dawn, four or five others were totalled out as the fire spread before the USCG could push one boat out to stop the spread down the docks. A million or two in liability wouldn't even begin to cover what that one is going to cost the guy who owns the boat that started it all. Of course if you have no assets to protect, no retirement fund to lose, no income to be seized, you don't need insurance.

[Ram]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Mr. B, you were sailing with no watch, no one on deck, and the insurer didn't try to walk away saying "Gross negligence" ?? That's a very generous insurer, who is the carrier?

Ram, you might want to be careful about corporations that are formed for no legitimate business purpose. If they exist only to shield liability and not to make a normal business profit, in some places you'll just be wasting your money on the corporation fees and commercial insurance rates. In the US, the IRS routinely has declared "sham corporations" to be exactly that, and gone after the individual who set them up. That's a dangerous game for amatuers to play, if you've got the knowledge and experience to pull it off...well...so did many Americans who tried tax dodges by using overseas banks and credit cards to hide income. Income, liability...doesn't matter, those dodges are being pierced more and more often these days. And rightly so.
Might be cheaper to just buy fake ID and then live under that name, if you're going to bother spending money on firewalling.

I think it was last week in Coconut Grove? FL. A megayacht caught fire mysteriously before dawn, four or five others were totalled out as the fire spread before the USCG could push one boat out to stop the spread down the docks. A million or two in liability wouldn't even begin to cover what that one is going to cost the guy who owns the boat that started it all. Of course if you have no assets to protect, no retirement fund to lose, no income to be seized, you don't need insurance.

Your Right, for sure, Myself im fully covered and have the boat in its own LLC and use the LLC in my sailing-charter biz-

[lateral]

Originally Posted by atoll

last time i looked baghdad has not been rebuilt lol...,nor kabul

I haven't seen a govt with a conscience, hopefully some individuals still have one. Lets not pick on the US , Royality has been just as bad.
I'm in favour of sending HM a bill for the treaty of Waitangi.

[vcsmithuk]

Originally Posted by lateral

I haven't seen a govt with a conscience, hopefully some individuals still have one. Lets not pick on the US , Royality has been just as bad.
I'm in favour of sending HM a bill for the treaty of Waitangi.

That'd be some bill.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Ram

There are 2 schools of thought here this is what my attorney said to me, he then said 1 get as much Insurance as you need/can afford or 2 get none at all
- if you do not want to pay a high price for insurance- form a company and put the vessel in it, if anyone gets hurt or killed all they can go after is the vessel and very few attorneys will sue you knowing the most they can get is your boat-

I thought I posted this earlier, but apparently it went into never never land.

At any rate, if you want to further isolate yourself from liability issues, and further reduce your boat being claimed, incorporate a finance company, preferably in a different jurisdiction then where the boat is registered.

Place a lien on the boat, preferably for full value, and then your finance company becomes the first charge, which pretty well precludes that any law suit can attach it successfully and hope to collect.

Better yet, incorporate in a jurisdiction that does not reveal shareholders/directors to outside interests. Law suits will end at the corporation.

The huge caveat is make sure you keep you taxation issues clean... government the world over have a habit of envoking eminent domain.

Originally Posted by hellosailor

......

Ram, you might want to be careful about corporations that are formed for no legitimate business purpose. If they exist only to shield liability and not to make a normal business profit, in some places you'll just be wasting your money on the corporation fees and commercial insurance rates. In the US, the IRS routinely has declared "sham corporations" to be exactly that, and gone after the individual who set them up.

IRS and other taxation agencies don't give a fiddler's fart about the reason you set up your corporation, as long as it does not act as sham for tax purposes. Hence my caveat above. Besides, what assets? Ever hear of management fees? Debentures with first charges registered? Just don't screw with the taxes, and the rest is relatively easily dealt with.

I had a large (over 150 retail stores) client. Everyone of their locations were leased by a different corporate entity. Any guess why?

Income, liability...doesn't matter, those dodges are being pierced more and more often these days.

Actually it does. Normal corporate and personal liabilities do not have the power of eminent domain, which gives the government tools not available to "the rest of us". So, keep your nose clean with government, and decide if insuring liability will be a mix or not of corporate structures and insurance, or none of the above.

As someone else mentioned, just because you have liability insurance, what happens when an incidence exceeds the coverage? And how high should you make your deductible?

Many variables; the decision is up to the boat owner.