One day worth of insurance for a haulout

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't quite understand what you're saying here - do you mean it would have been better if the drunken charter skipper had been uninsured?? So that your fellow cruiser would have been required to chase after the irresponsible drunk, hire lawyers at his own expense, and hope that the drunk has some assets, so that in three or four years he might perhaps, if he's really lucky, collect something? Wow.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to express that some people don't care about hammering another boat since the vessel was insured. I was pointing out the way of thinking now a days as compared to, say, 20 years ago.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to express that some people don't care about hammering another boat since the vessel was insured. I was pointing out the way of thinking now a days as compared to, say, 20 years ago.

I would rather my boat was hammered by a stupid, drunk person who didn't care, but had good insurance, than by a person who felt really bad about it, but couldn't pay. I bet most people would say the same.

There's something hollow, to say the least, in feeling bad about it, if you didn't actually do anything - like buy cheap liability insurance - to protect innocent people from your mistakes.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

"And is thus able to live a life off of the grid and free of debt, mortgages, and expectation"?
Enough said.

I'm all in favor of living without debt or mortgages - I have no mortgages myself, which required quite a bit of frugality and hard work at one stage of my life. Having less but being freer is an excellent path through life and having even nothing at all, if that's the price of freedom, is also good in my book

I don't know what expecting innocent people to pay for your mistakes - because you have neither assets nor insurance - has to do with any of that.

[goboatingnow]

I would rather my boat was hammered by a stupid, drunk person who didn't care, but had good insurance, than by a person who felt really bad about it, but couldn't pay. I bet most people would say the same.

Thats a bit harsh there Dockhead, you mean morality is irrelevant if you are insured. I carry comprehensive boat insurance, like almost everyone else I know, Its costs about 400 a year. Im covered irrespective of the status of the other person.

I quite understand that **** happens on boats and that circumstances can arise, where damage can be done, My first response is "are you alright" , not "a wallet biopsy".

I really don't think there is anyone that blithely causes damage just cause they are insured BTW CelestialSailor.

dave

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I would rather my boat was hammered by a stupid, drunk person who didn't care, but had good insurance, than by a person who felt really bad about it, but couldn't pay. I bet most people would say the same.

I will second that. While I'll more pissed off about the drunk hitting my boat in the end I what it fixed!

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I really don't think there is anyone that blithely causes damage just cause they are insured BTW CelestialSailor.

dave

Come over to the West Coast of Florida….. happens all the time here

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If by your own fault you damage someone else's boat, or injure someone, you should pay for it. Surely no one disagrees with this simple proposition.

If you have millions in assets and are sure you could cover any eventuality out of your own pocket, then by all means, self-insure.

If, however, you cannot be sure of being able to fulfill your responsibilities out of your own pocket, then you should have liability insurance. Imagine for a moment that you crash into another boat and a child is injured. The child's parents have no assets but a $2000 boat and a trailer and no insurance. What are you going to say to them? Is that an acceptable situation to you? What if the child dies because neither you nor they can afford to pay for the care? Will you be able to live with that? Or forget the child - what if you sink a much-loved boat belonging to a person who loves sailing and can't afford to replace it? Are you ok with putting the cost of your mistake onto that innocent person?

It is forbidden in most countries to drive without liability insurance. Considering the mentality expressed in some of these posts, probably it ought to be the same with boats.

Couldn't have said it better.

[SURV69]

I agree with dockhead ... screw the morality ... pay for the damages.

I'm sure I'd rather be hit with a lucid, easy to talk to, curvaceous 25 year old with no kids, than by a bolsterous(sp), pot-bellied drunkard with an outhouse mouth ... IF each, on their own, could make good on the damages.

But by far, if the drunkard has insurance that will pay, I'd much more prefer being hit by him, putting up with his "issues", and getting my boat repaired.

[SURV69]

BTW ... it's obvious from the posts that simple liability is very, very, very cheap.

Why would someone not want extremely cheap insurance ... something like $10 a month ... that pays for something someone damages?

Forget that one might not have seizable(sp) assets ... but for the mere simplicity of being able to get through to the next day without all the harassment, threats and fear of "the other boater" ... who might be quite large and maybe quite mean.

The person you might damage, might in turn damage you if you cannot or will pay, or make good on his damage.

AGAIN ... we're talking what? about $10 a month ... unless one does something really, really stupid.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Thats a bit harsh there Dockhead, you mean morality is irrelevant if you are insured. I carry comprehensive boat insurance, like almost everyone else I know, Its costs about 400 a year. Im covered irrespective of the status of the other person.

I quite understand that **** happens on boats and that circumstances can arise, where damage can be done, My first response is "are you alright" , not "a wallet biopsy".

I really don't think there is anyone that blithely causes damage just cause they are insured BTW CelestialSailor.

dave

I don't at all mean that morality is irrelevant. On the contrary, I think having insurance is a moral act in such a case, and more important than other kinds of good intentions. Having insurance means doing something concrete to protect innocent people from your mistakes.

Whether or not insurance would make people less careful was something hotly debated when insurance started to be widely available at the end of the 19th C. Turns out that in general people are not less careful, otherwise insurance would not work.

And yes, of course, to hell with fiberglass and stanchions, if there is a question about a person being hurt. I agree, but that's not really what we were talking about.

[Jim Cate]

Let's get off the morality issue for a minute...

In Australia, most marinas and boatyards want you to have 3d party insurance (liability to Yanks) coverage to the tune of 5 million bucks. I have found that in that country it costs about 450 bucks a year to buy that coverage, and most companies require an out-of-the-water survey of the boat (logic not understood) before they will cover you. This is already quite high compared to US prices, and in a somewhat lower risk environment.

After years of self insurance, we decided to do the "right thing" and have enjoyed the moral high ground ever since. However, that coverage is only good for Aussie coastal waters, and we frequently leave for other shores. The Aussie companies don't want to cover us offshore for some reason (despite the lower risk of huge settlements in most other areas), so we investigated the cost of unlimited area 3d party coverage. Few insurers were even willing to offer it, and those that did wanted more than 1000 dollars per year to cover us, and that to a much lower maximum amount.

So, my query: has anyone found such cover at a reasonable price? I'd be happy to hear about it.

Cheers,

Jim

[goboatingnow]

I would have thought that if you really wanted to protect your boat from damage by others, you would carry the insurance. Thats what I do. Whether the insurance company can get recovery from the person that caused it , is of no concern per say to me. IN my case as I have comprehensive insurance, I get my boat fixed up and the insurance company attempts recovery.

I personally would not rely on the other person having insurance, they may or may not.

Dave

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I would rather my boat was hammered by a stupid, drunk person who didn't care, but had good insurance, than by a person who felt really bad about it, but couldn't pay. I bet most people would say the same.

There's something hollow, to say the least, in feeling bad about it, if you didn't actually do anything - like buy cheap liability insurance - to protect innocent people from your mistakes.

Actually, I would not want either but yes, the other guy having Insurance is a plus. At $125 for Insurance, I see no excuse not to have it other than someone trying to get one over on the "system" at my expense.
In California, auto Insurance was optional a long time ago. I was backed into once and the other person smiled, shrugged their shoulders and left. So yes, very hollow indeed. The state of Ca. finally got sick of it and changed it through an initiative that the people voted on. Now if you drive without Insurance and get caught, your life becomes very miserable for a few years. So it's easy to see why Haul outs and Marinas make sure a person carries liability. I shake my head when people call this a nanny state.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I'm all in favor of living without debt or mortgages - I have no mortgages myself, which required quite a bit of frugality and hard work at one stage of my life. Having less but being freer is an excellent path through life and having even nothing at all, if that's the price of freedom, is also good in my book

I don't know what expecting innocent people to pay for your mistakes - because you have neither assets nor insurance - has to do with any of that.

I am debt-less and mortgage-less myself. Only because I worked my ass off to become so. I have realestate for my golden years and paid off all my debts getting ready for retirement. That's a lot different then living on the dole expecting others to pay your way. So for me Freedom is pulling my own weight, not at someone elses expense.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I really don't think there is anyone that blithely causes damage just cause they are insured BTW CelestialSailor.

dave

I agree and did not imply so. Just that the guy could care less. There was no accountability. But good the charter boat carried Insurance. The guy here with the gaping hole in his Tayana 37 is a Canadian and was on his way south. Now he is stuck flying back and forth to Canada every few weeks, losing cruising time and hassling with Insurance companies. That sounds like fun.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I would have thought that if you really wanted to protect your boat from damage by others, you would carry the insurance. Thats what I do. Whether the insurance company can get recovery from the person that caused it , is of no concern per say to me. IN my case as I have comprehensive insurance, I get my boat fixed up and the insurance company attempts recovery.

I personally would not rely on the other person having insurance, they may or may not.

Dave

That's also what I do, but it's not at all of "no concern to me" since my large no claims discount, the result of 20 years of no claims, is at stake. Still, it's a relatively minor issue to me compared to the case of a person with limited means and no comprehensive. He shouldn't be forced to buy comprehensive, which unlike liability is not so affordable for many people, because some people don't bother to have any insurance at all.

Liability, probably, should be required, like it is for cars.