Marine insurance, going naked.

[JPA Cate]

Some members here are losing their cool. Please remember the "be nice" rule.

JPA Cate

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

1. I dunno why you keep referring to SriLankan fishermen as 'deadbeats'. I found them to be the exact opposite. I enjoyed their company immensely and thought them a proud, generous people for whom I held the greatest admiration. Darn, they were uninsured, I shoulda despised them!!

2. I would not feel proud of killing anyone by accident, which is why I take such care not to. With insurance, I know I'd drive faster, take more risks, be more reckless, less averse to risk. Is that the kind of attitude you want us all to adopt? Gung-ho risk-takers, we're covered, becasue our insurance will pick up the damage we cause? That's one point-of-view, not mine.

Most of the world does OK without the burden of insurance costs.

Third party only is great for those who can cope with loss but care about the potential loss for others.
Full insurance is a great service for highly strung people who live in fear of loss.

If insurance and fear of loss ruled our lives the road speed limit would be halved, no cycles on the roads and motor-bikes outlawed. There would be no contact sports, ocean sailing and mountain climbing would be banned etc etc.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by LLizzard

I'm not an insurance wiz, but what about an umbrella policy. Basically it covers me for any liability up to $1mil, and costs me about $800/ year here in CA.

That's what I have also but you have to have a regular policy before you can buy an umbrella policy. For example, $300K on your home, cars and boat. The umbrella policy covers the difference without having to insure each for $1M.

[hafa]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Which do you want to be known as?

I want to be known as the guy that rwidman sold an insurance policy to. How about it, rwidman? Provide me with a reasonable premium offer (preferrably under the $10k/year we were quoted by Lloyds of London) and I'll buy it!

[rwidman]

There is some really strange logic going on here from a few people - People driving carelessly because they have insurance? Come back down to earth.. That's preposterous.

Laws requiring liability insurance are called "financial responsibility laws". These laws mean that if someone injures me or my property through no fault of my own, they will make me whole again.

What can possibly be wrong with that?

By having liability insurance, I will not be wiped out by a claim of negligence on my part. What can possibly be wrong with that?

I think the people who claim to not understand are doing it just for the sake of arguing and the ability to insult others. If you really don't understand at this point, I can't help you and I suspect nobody can.

If you move to my state, you will be buying liability insurance or paying into the uninsured motorist fund if you want to own or drive a car. You won't get license tags without it.

I would like to see this applied to boats as well.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Most of the world does OK without the burden of insurance costs.

Third party only is great for those who can cope with loss but care about the potential loss for others.
Full insurance is a great service for highly strung people who live in fear of loss.

If insurance and fear of loss ruled our lives the road speed limit would be halved, no cycles on the roads and motor-bikes outlawed. There would be no contact sports, ocean sailing and mountain climbing would be banned etc etc.

Nicely put. It’s utterly fascinating to me to see how people express such fear over their scary, but highly unlikely “WHAT IF!” scenarios with regard to boating, but will blissfully drive down a freeway at insane speeds, or even walk down a city street, with little care in the world.

There is no comparison between the risks involved in much of urban living vs life on a cruising boat. But some people seem unable to comprehend this basic fact. And a tiny few insist on hurling insults at anyone who disagrees with their distorted world view.

I’m fine with basic disagreement. But when people resort to name calling and invectives, it really gets my dander up.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by rwidman

That's what I have also but you have to have a regular policy before you can buy an umbrella policy. For example, $300K on your home, cars and boat. The umbrella policy covers the difference without having to insure each for $1M.

Ron, what you are saying may well be the case in your locale but the world is a great big place, full of differing locales many with different requirements and rules to the others. All I can suggest is that perhaps you should get out there and see for yourself, who knows, perhaps you may find it refreshing.
Cheers.

[kimtrang]

Originally Posted by rwidman

There is some really strange logic going on here from a few people - People driving carelessly because they have insurance? Come back down to earth.. That's preposterous.

How is that preposterous? People regularly drive dangerously. Australians are notoriously bad drivers. Inattentive, aggressive and completely underwhelmed by the actuality of just how dangerous motor vehicles are. I can't imagine the US not suffering the same cultural malaise. How is it illogical that someone without insurance is going to be more careful?

i've had crewed boats tack to starboard in front of me for no reason at all, other than to force me to take action, when sailing my uninsured boat alone. I bet they were insured.

It is really sad that westerners are so aggressive. I've ridden my bicycle (uninsured hahah) throughout South East Asia. The driving is utterly terrible, but absolutely nobody gets angry.

[hafa]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Don't be an ass.

I'd prefer to see this thread continue, as it's interesting. The moderators have already warned about abusive language, so please refrain if you can. My rhetorical statements are intended to point out the fact that in many places in the world, insurance is simply not available for a reasonable cost, while simultaneously lampooning the emotional diatribes taking place in this thread.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by rwidman

There is some really strange logic going on here from a few people - People driving carelessly because they have insurance? Come back down to earth.. That's preposterous.

Laws requiring liability insurance are called "financial responsibility laws". These laws mean that if someone injures me or my property through no fault of my own, they will make me whole again.

What can possibly be wrong with that?

By having liability insurance, I will not be wiped out by a claim of negligence on my part. What can possibly be wrong with that?

I think the people who claim to not understand are doing it just for the sake of arguing and the ability to insult others. If you really don't understand at this point, I can't help you and I suspect nobody can.

If you move to my state, you will be buying liability insurance or paying into the uninsured motorist fund if you want to own or drive a car. You won't get license tags without it.

I would like to see this applied to boats as well.

Ron the main problem I see with requiring liability for boats is that if it is required the price will at a minimum triple . Due to now you have to have it. !

[Lost Horizons]

Originally Posted by olaf hart

Anyone out there going without any insurance? Am I missing anything?

Out of three sailboats that I had, only one was insured because I was stupid enough to buy it with borrowed money. The next one will not be insured either. I am not, unfortunately, rich enough to support others.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by hafa

I'd prefer to see this thread continue, as it's interesting. The moderators have already warned about abusive language, so please refrain if you can. My rhetorical statements are intended to point out the fact that in many places in the world, insurance is simply not available for a reasonable cost, while simultaneously lampooning the emotional diatribes taking place in this thread.

Your post was nothing but an insult and added nothing to the discussion. Everything that needs to be said on this subject has already been said and a lot more, most of it poorly veiled insults.

Don't want or need liability insurance, fine. You're not going to take advice from anyone anyway.

[NevisDog]

The thing is, I agree absolutely with Rwidman so far as USA is concerned. I'd be scared to death to visit there without both health and liability insurance. We are not so far apart in our world view, except maybe I've been a few other places where things are very, very, very different, and then some not so different. The one point where we disagree is that we can call someone a 'fool' for being different - a few of us strongly object to that sort of sentiment. Life is full of people we disagree with, and I don't have any problem with that, not until they force their views on me.

[Ambler]

Perhaps we need a "not for profit" world wide organisation or another way of putting it, a commune where we can take out a liability only cover for a reasonable price. Any profits are given back after perhaps the first 2 years of cover, as a yearly discount off the premium.

Perhaps Cruisers Forum could offer it up? After all we already spread the love around in offerig advice etc to our fellow members!

[hafa]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Your post was nothing but an insult and added nothing to the discussion. Everything that needs to be said on this subject has already been said and a lot more, most of it poorly veiled insults.

Don't want or need liability insurance, fine. You're not going to take advice from anyone anyway.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that a rhetorical statement necessarily constitutes an insult; interpreting it as such, however, is telling. I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between not wanting or needing and lack of availability. Reinforcing this point is a valuable contribution to the thread; using rhetoric to reinforce it is an effective method of highlighting the issue.