Licenses for Americans sailing in Europe

[De.windhoos]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

We're far off topic here. But I simply disagree. The state I'm in has no fault insurance. So if someone plows into me I pay. Also if someone hits your car parked, storm damage, hit and run, or they don't carry insurance (happens often) you're also picking up the bill.

I also think driving is inherently more dangerous than sailing (from a collision/equipment damage) perspective. Lot more cars, close quarters, high speeds. I don't have figures but it would be interesting to see insurance claim statistics for auto vs boats. If you exclude storm damage I bet boat claims are quite low.

I don't know where you sail, but I don't lose a lot of sleep getting run over from behind by a motor boat.

It's a bit of a non-discussion because in most EU and Med countries your boat must be insured and proof of insurance must be provided when checking in and/or when using a marina.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by De.windhoos

It's a bity of a non-discussion because in most EU and Med countries your boat must be insured and proof of insurance must be provided when checking in and/or when using a marina.

Which European countries require insurance? Haven't heard that before, marinas for sure but countries?

[De.windhoos]

Originally Posted by conachair

Which European countries require insurance? Haven't heard that before, marinas for sure but countries?

I only remember the Med. From the top of my head, Croatia, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Turkey.

The reason I dont remember is because I feel that having, at minimum a yacht liability, insurance is a must. So when checking into a country proof of insurance is part of the standard document set I show.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by De.windhoos

I only remember the Med. From the top of my head, Croatia, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Turkey.

The reason I dont remember is because I feel that having, at minimum a yacht liability, insurance is a must. So when checking into a country proof of insurance is part of the standard document set I show.

Same here as regards the boat, almost always at least liability unless sometimes way off the beaten track - but can't remember ever being asked for insurance outside a marina - who asked you for insurance in those countries? Port officials or cutsims/immigration ?
Just out of interest.


Edit - this site seems very well researched so is probably right..


Third Party Insurance
A certificate (often in the local language) confirming third party insurance is required in many marinas and ports, and also to cruise in Spain, Italy, Croatia and Greece. All insurers will supply a suitable local language certificate on request. The original yacht insurance policy (as well as a copy) should be carried. It's very rarely inspected

http://www.jimbsail.info/going-foreign/docs-and-VAT

[Stakaman]

License /boat registration paper /boat incurance and passenger list signed from the port officer of the last port which you left !!!
The first 3 are most likely to asked from cost guard and port officers (I don't for immigration office ) and the passenger list rarely asked except if you fall on an officer who haven't been in a good day !!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Stakaman

License /boat registration paper /boat incurance and passenger list signed from the port officer of the last port which you left !!!
The first 3 are most likely to asked from cost guard and port officers (I don't for immigration office ) and the passenger list rarely asked except if you fall on an officer who haven't been in a good day !!

Most of the "ports" I visit are often not very close to a road let alone any offices, of course most likely different for non EU boats/crew when changing countries. Easy for us from the UK, turn up in a new European country, anchor, go for a beer
Tracking down an office then finding someone interested can't be easy, in Spain/Portugal anyway.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by conachair

Most of the "ports" I visit are often not very close to a road let alone any offices, of course most likely different for non EU boats/crew when changing countries. Easy for us from the UK, turn up in a new European country, anchor, go for a beer
Tracking down an office then finding someone interested can't be easy, in Spain/Portugal anyway.

And interestingly just a minute ago I had a visit from the maritime police men in black anchored down here in the algarve, only interested in passports.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.



I don't really understand what argument you're making. If you're in a no-fault state, then that is much closer to the situation at sea. Would you even dream about going without insurance on a car, in a no-fault state? I guess it's even illegal to do so.

Yes you are required to have basic liability coverage (which i do), but just like with boats you don't have to get "comprehensive coverage" in other words the insurance won't pay to repair your own car. Basic coverage is of course much cheaper.

As mentioned earlier for boats I agree on getting liability coverage for three reasons:
1. I can't cover the financial impact of damaging a boat much more expensive than mine
2. I can't cover the full liability if someone potentially is injured on/by my boat
3. Many marinas require liability insurance (which I generally support from a fairness standpoint)

I assume we'll also all agree that getting liability coverage only and self insuring your own boat is much a cheaper premiums and not really comparable in price (same with cars).

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.



Likewise with boats -- you have risks way beyond those things which you can control. Quite like driving a car in a no-fault state. If you're OK with those risks -- that's your business -- I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I personally am not.

Unfortunately the reality is that I have to pay for those risks one way or the other. I know in today's society we like to over insure everything and pretend we eliminate all risk. But if sailing is as risky as you say then you'll pay for that commensurate risk in your premiums. The real problem with boating insurance is that this market is simply not as efficient/competitive as auto insurance resulting in a lot of your premium's risk transfer being lost to brokers and overhead, etc. On average I would also argue the customer service level is also aggravatingly lower than for auto. As was the point of this thread originally you're also taking the likely small risk that they find a weasily way for denying your small or catastrophic claims (e.g. You didn't have required local license)

So my point is if you can pay to replace your boat because it's say 10-20% of total assets statistically you're certainly better off self insuring. Yes. You might lose your boat entirely (but that's quite unlikely - and even if it happens the impact on your life is likely about the same as paying premiums for 10 years). You'll also likely have to pay small claims yourself - but at least they'll be less aggravating and faster to deal with without having to make an insurance claim.

So to each their own - it also depends on your personal risk tolerance. If you're going to stress everyday because you're not fully insured then please go get insurance and enjoy sailing again. But for most everyone else I'd suggest reconsidering the common belief (partially fed to us by years of insurance advertisement) that it's "Irresponsible" to not have full coverage for your boat. Personally I worry much more about medical evac and rescue insurance - but to each their own .

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sail along minding your own business and a powerboat plows into the back of you, you will have almost certainly have significant fault, possibly enough that you won't get a penny from his insurance.

Big difference in the COLREGS vs. traffic rules on land.

The Overtaking vessels duty is to stand clear.. the duty of the vessel being overtaken is to maintain a steady course and speed..
Methinks significant fault would lie with the power boat that rammed my stern.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The Overtaking vessels duty is to stand clear.. the duty of the vessel being overtaken is to maintain a steady course and speed..
Methinks significant fault would lie with the power boat that rammed my stern.

What you write, does not contradict, what I wrote.

Except that you don't describe all of the duties of the vessel being overtaken.

You are obligated to keep an effective watch.

You are obligated hold course and speed only until you have reason to believe that the overtaking vessel is not taking adequate avoiding action.

You are obligated to take avoiding action yourself when it is evident that action by the overtaking vessel alone will not resolve the situation.


So, if you just trundle along fat dumb and happy and let the overtaking vessel plow into you, you have made some serious violations yourself, and you will have a significant share of the fault. I would guess around 50% would not be strange, if it is shown that you weren't keeping a watch out behind and/or didn't even attempt any avoiding action.

It's very different from cars -- where being rear-ended is per se the fault of the overtaking driver in most cases, with 0% fault of the driver who got rear ended. I'm obviously not talking about no-fault states.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

Also for insurance the risk adjusted claims will always be less than the premiums. So as long as you can cover the lumpy cash outlays it always is in your benefit to self insure. Especially if you are more prudent than average (self insurance also sharpens the mind on prudence)....

Regarding 3rd party insurance you are way out and besides that they are mandatory in most Europe. If you hit a valuable yacht (or are hit) or injure someone, even if it is not your fault there is a considerable chance that due to nature of the law (as dockhead has explained) you are considered in court partially responsible. Even if only 10 or 15% is considered to be on you, that can amount to a lot of money, eventually more than what you can pay without ruining your life.

Regarding Hull insurance you are technically right on a statistical way, but not always you are in the right place in what regards statistics and you can lose your boat, even if statistically that is very rare.

I would not have 200 000 euros to replace my boat and but a similar one on the same condition and the same equipment, not without selling property I don't want to sell. If I had an older boat that could be replaced by 50 000 euros, it seems your suggestion makes sense but if you look at numbers you would see that on older boats the insurance, even 3rd party is proportionally much more expensive and that the additional for hull insurance on that case would not be that big.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by De.windhoos

I only remember the Med. From the top of my head, Croatia, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Turkey.

The reason I dont remember is because I feel that having, at minimum a yacht liability, insurance is a must. So when checking into a country proof of insurance is part of the standard document set I show.

One thing it should be known is that in Greece they demand more coverage in what regards anti pollution coverage than other countries. They changed the law some few years back and you should specify to your company that you are going to sail in Greece to see if the coverage is accordingly. Greek authorities specifically look for that on the insurance papers. It should be there written in Greek, the right amount that is covered.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

What you write, does not contradict, what I wrote.

Except that you don't describe all of the duties of the vessel being overtaken.

You are obligated to keep an effective watch.

You are obligated hold course and speed only until you have reason to believe that the overtaking vessel is not taking adequate avoiding action.

You are obligated to take avoiding action yourself when it is evident that action by the overtaking vessel alone will not resolve the situation.


So, if you just trundle along fat dumb and happy and let the overtaking vessel plow into you, you have made some serious violations yourself, and you will have a significant share of the fault. I would guess around 50% would not be strange, if it is shown that you weren't keeping a watch out behind and/or didn't even attempt any avoiding action.

It's very different from cars -- where being rear-ended is per se the fault of the overtaking driver in most cases, with 0% fault of the driver who got rear ended. I'm obviously not talking about no-fault states.

Your assuming that the powerboats doing a sensible speed.. I've got used to big power boats in the Med bearing down on me at 25kts plus then swerve to Port or Stbd at the last minute because they get a kick out of making sailboats rock back and forth.. if I alter course the wrong way I'll get rammed more than likely.. unless he's not seen me in which case he'll miss.
With ships however.. when I lose sight of the bridge and he's still coming its hard right..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

. . .So my point is if you can pay to replace your boat because it's say 10-20% of total assets statistically you're certainly better off self insuring. Yes. You might lose your boat entirely (but that's quite unlikely - and even if it happens the impact on your life is likely about the same as paying premiums for 10 years). . . .

Well, not really. I pay less than $2000 a year for a very comprehensive policy (with 5 million pounds of liability, and my own property at replacement cost) on a boat worth two thirds of a million (more or less). Ten years of premiums is only $20 000.

I think you might not entirely understand how insurance works. It does not only spread risk over time (taking out "lumpiness") -- it also spreads risks among policyholders. There is no "risk adjusted" cost -- you are not 1000 policyholders, you are one policyholder, and that is the crucial difference. If you were 1000 policyholders, you would be right, but being only one, you are rolling the dice. I don't like casinos, myself. YMMV.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding 3rd party insurance you are way out and besides that they are mandatory in most Europe. If you hit a valuable yacht (or are hit) or injure someone, even if it is not your fault there is a considerable chance that due to nature of the law (as dockhead has explained) you are considered in court partially responsible. Even if only 10 or 15% is considered to be on you, that can amount to a lot of money, eventually more than what you can pay without ruining your life.

Regarding Hull insurance you are technically right on a statistical way, but not always you are in the right place in what regards statistics and you can lose your boat, even if statistically that is very rare.

I would not have 200 000 euros to replace my boat and but a similar one on the same condition and the same equipment, not without selling property I don't want to sell. If I had an older boat that could be replaced by 50 000 euros, it seems your suggestion makes sense but if you look at numbers you would see that on older boats the insurance, even 3rd party is proportionally much more expensive and that the additional for hull insurance on that case would not be that big.

I think we're in agreement here. Yes I think one should get 3rd party / liability / pollution coverage.

As I said if you can manage the risk of lumpy cash flows you're potentially better foregoing the hull insurance. Yes, i'd have a really bad few weeks, but losing 200k wouldn't alter my financial life significantly and frankly for me if it would, I would want a lower priced boat (it's also a key reason I don't want a catamaran). The cash also doesn't have to be fully liquid since you don't need to get a new boat immediately. Say even if it's all tied up in real estate - you could take out a loan on the real estate equity until you can sell the property.

I don't have figures off hand, but I'd be surprised if the 3rd party/liability insurance increases with hull value since intuitively the risk doesn't increase with hull value (maybe even an inverse relationship - e.g. damage due to shoddy equipment like an electrical fire burning down you and your neighbors boat).

I wouldn't be surprised if some brokers price this way to push everyone into full hull insurance since that's their bread and butter...