Should there be mandatory liability insurance for boats?

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by ccannan

Do a search for liability insurance on CF. This topic has been discussed before. I am a US citizen with a US documented sailboat in Europe (mosly Spain, and Portugal) have liability only insurance from Pantaenius (Mallorca, Spain). I think the policy is for €5-10 million (I'm away from home so I can't readily reference the policy). The policy also covers salvage/removal environmental damage/mitigation, etc... My boat is an 1992 Alubat OVNI 47. The annual premium is less than €800. I will probably switch to Bavaria (a German insurer) this year as their premiums are about €200/yr for similar coverage.

Thanks. I didn't realize that other Pantaenius agencies could write different policies than the UK and US branch. I sent a group email in for a quote. I also sent one for Bavaria and will see what they say.

Matt

[Dave9111]

Originally Posted by CareKnot

The majority of "the reasons why" in this ill-conceived conflation of ideas and issues are actually non-issues founded on false assumptions and a politically driven, left-leaning NPR diatribe. They are so deeply flawed as to be worthy of ridicule and dismissal out if hand. JUST SAY NO!

Conflating national disasters and the subsequent national relief and cleanup efforts - with a need for 'those bad ole boaters' to accept personal liability for what is legally termed, an 'Act of God' is absurd on its face. The premise is simply stupid.



JUST SAY NO!

I was going to write a long reply to the original question but I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH YOU. Auto liability insurance basically does not work either.
First the minimum amount of insurance is what .. 20K dollars ?? And that will pay for what? Nonsense. On top of that almost all Auto insurance policies come with ... wait for it... UNISURED MOTORISTS INSURANCE. Yes, even though auto liability insurance has been mandated for years, every policy I have ever seen comes with insurance for uninsured motorists. That's basically admitting that the auto insurance requirement simply does not work. An now the author thinks that mandating liability for boats will somehow work, even though auto insurance does not work. Good luck with that. I propose that we instead ban hurricanes... I'm sure that would work... :-/. Think if the amount of money that could be saved..

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by rabbi

But what exactly are we talking about?
I pay around 110 Euro per year for worldwide liability coverage. That is for 10 Million Euro coverage per incident, and includes damage to other peoples boats, marinas, personal injuries, oil spills, wreck removal, fines for damage to natural resources, ...

That sounds like a GREAT price.
Who is your insurer?

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by fatherchronica

There are people like the lawyer in Florida that recently filed a lawsuit for $300,000 in damages against a hotel because the valet gave the his keys to his Ferrari to a conman who went on a joyride. No damage at all to the vehicle, just the worthless lawyers brain. Which, if all but one of the lawyers I have hired in my lifetime are any indication, it was a birth defect anyway.

Silly? Yes.
But I bet the settlement made it worthwhile.

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by rabbi

Anyonoe operating a boat has a liability. If he damages something or hurts someone he has to pay for it. Period. This is something that no serious person can question.

I personally don't care if someone is excluded from boating because he can't afford insurance.
If someone can't afford insurance he is certainly unable to pay for the potential damage. If this person goes boating he is acting completly irrsponsible.

I'm not bothered by the dents someone makes into my boat. Thats just an annoyance.
Im more concerned what happens if an uninsured broke guy drives his dinghy over my head and either kills me or injures me significantly, like being disabled afterwards? Who is going to pay for HIS liability? Me? My insurance?


And what happens if this guy sinks his old ferrocement boat in the middle of the entry of a larger port or right in front of the cruise ship dock? Who pays for this damage? The anonymous tax payer?

This is the most intelligent post that I have seen here on this topic.

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by ccannan

Do a search for liability insurance on CF. This topic has been discussed before. I am a US citizen with a US documented sailboat in Europe (mosly Spain, and Portugal) have liability only insurance from Pantaenius (Mallorca, Spain). I think the policy is for €5-10 million (I'm away from home so I can't readily reference the policy). The policy also covers salvage/removal environmental damage/mitigation, etc... My boat is an 1992 Alubat OVNI 47. The annual premium is less than €800. I will probably switch to Bavaria (a German insurer) this year as their premiums are about €200/yr for similar coverage.

Here is the response I received from Pantaenius Mallorca Spain:

"I am afraid we cannot insure US Vessels for the voyage you describe below.

I would think you should be able to find cover with a US Underwriter !?"

I wonder If I need to get a policy for just Europe and one for just the Caribbean?

Matt

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

Here is the response I received from Pantaenius Mallorca Spain:



"I am afraid we cannot insure US Vessels for the voyage you describe below.



I would think you should be able to find cover with a US Underwriter !?"



I wonder If I need to get a policy for just Europe and one for just the Caribbean?



Matt

You and I seem to have come to the same conclusion.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

Send the owners a bill, I have no problem with that.

The problem with that is the ones who could pay the bill usually have insurance and the ones who don't have insurance, will just laugh at the bill because they are judgement proof.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

Originally Posted by rabbi 
Anyonoe operating a boat has a liability. If he damages something or hurts someone he has to pay for it. Period. This is something that no serious person can question.

agreed

I personally don't care if someone is excluded from boating because he can't afford insurance.
If someone can't afford insurance he is certainly unable to pay for the potential damage. If this person goes boating he is acting completly irrsponsible.

nonsense. I have proven time again that I do not cause any damage. I certainly don't need insurance, I can't afford it either, so why should I be excluded from boating?

I'm not bothered by the dents someone makes into my boat. Thats just an annoyance.
Im more concerned what happens if an uninsured broke guy drives his dinghy over my head and either kills me or injures me significantly, like being disabled afterwards? Who is going to pay for HIS liability? Me? My insurance?

Again, as I said before. Any boat that has a motor should have insurance. This is true of vehicles on land as well. Boats without motors, that operate with sails and oars, should not need insurance. We also don't have insurance for bicycles and horse carts.

And what happens if this guy sinks his old ferrocement boat in the middle of the entry of a larger port or right in front of the cruise ship dock? Who pays for this damage? The anonymous tax payer?

This boat hopefully prevents the cruise ship from operating?

cruise ships cause massive amount of damage in the form of pollution, as well as spoiling otherwise interesting places, so preventing them is the opposite of damage.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The problem with that is the ones who could pay the bill usually have insurance and the ones who don't have insurance, will just laugh at the bill because they are judgement proof.

Best comment of the thread. This is reality.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The problem with that is the ones who could pay the bill usually have insurance and the ones who don't have insurance, will just laugh at the bill because they are judgement proof.

Most everyone has some assets. Most people also don't ignore a bill from a government entity. Have you heard someone laughing at the IRS because they are "judgment proof"? You're taking the most extreme cases and extrapolating it to the majority of people without insurance...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

nonsense. I have proven time again that I do not cause any damage. I certainly don't need insurance, I can't afford it either, so why should I be excluded from boating?

So you are saying it's impossible for you to cause any damage? That is patently false.

If you can't pay for damage you cause, yes, the option of keeping you off the water is a reasonable response.

Again, as I said before. Any boat that has a motor should have insurance. This is true of vehicles on land as well. Boats without motors, that operate with sails and oars, should not need insurance. We also don't have insurance for bicycles and horse carts.
We also prohibit bicycles and horse carts from freeway,
so by your logic, you will be OK if we limit you to small inland ponds and keep the seaways open for those willing to take responsibility if they cause damage.

There's a difference between you not wanting to be responsible for causing damage and random unsubstantiated statements that you can't cause damage.

PS: I deleted the cruise ship ramblings as it had nothing to do with the subject.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

Most everyone has some assets. Most people also don't ignore a bill from a government entity. Have you heard someone laughing at the IRS because they are "judgment proof"? You're taking the most extreme cases and extrapolating it to the majority of people without insurance...

Might want to get out and see what's going on in the real world. The ones that aren't carrying insurance frequently have no real assets and if they claim the boat as home, it's often protected from judgments.

Even with the IRS they understand what "judgement proof" is. They will often cut deals if they see there is limited money to be had and if there is no money to be had, they won't bother at all. So individuals may not literally "laugh", they will shrug and ignore the IRS bill.

Then again the people we are talking about typically pay no federal income tax, so there is no reason for the IRS to be going after them.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

We also prohibit bicycles and horse carts from freeway,
so by your logic, you will be OK if we limit you to small inland ponds and keep the seaways open for those willing to take responsibility if they cause damage.

I recall riding my bicycle across colorado, new mexico and arizona on the interstate. There were bicycle signs every few miles indicating that they were perfectly legal. The law in fact required this, as no alternative roads existed. The same is true for the ocean.

So you are saying it's impossible for you to cause any damage? That is patently false.

It is possible to cause damage, but also possible to always make decisions that avoid causing damage.

People who use combustion engines, require the engine to function to avoid causing damage. In fact they are already causing damage just by using the engine.

If you can't pay for damage you cause, yes, the option of keeping you off the water is a reasonable response.

Who can pay for loss of life from motor vehicle "accidents"? It turns out, that no matter what your insurance policy is it is irrelevant, because the person is dead. Therefore, I agree with you then that no motorized vehicles should be allowed is a "reasonable response"

Suppose I mounted very rare fragile irreplacable items on the outside of my boat. If you hit them and crushed them, would you be responsible for substantial cost? This scenario is no different from someone who buys a boat that cost more than your own. You need to have your own insurance for this.

As for environmental cleanup. What exactly? Obviously some boats have much more impact than others if sunk. The differences are widely different, so any kind of insurance for this is basically unfair. I would suggest the impact of engine free boats to be minimal, but it all depends on what is in the boat. Boats that spill oil.. generally they never clean that up.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Might want to get out and see what's going on in the real world. The ones that aren't carrying insurance frequently have no real assets and if they claim the boat as home, it's often protected from judgments.

Even with the IRS they understand what "judgement proof" is. They will often cut deals if they see there is limited money to be had and if there is no money to be had, they won't bother at all. So individuals may not literally "laugh", they will shrug and ignore the IRS bill.

Then again the people we are talking about typically pay no federal income tax, so there is no reason for the IRS to be going after them.

Unfortunately, you take a very dim view of people less financially secure than you.

You make an assumption that most people don't have any assets beyond their boat/house. Ok. So how do you think they survive day-to-day? They have no income for food, repairs, fuel? Then these must be very self reliant people...

Most people have SOME assets, even if in the form of future income.

The poor unfortunately are a lot less savvy at avoiding financial obligations than the rich/richer. If you think the poor can just walk away from financial obligations willy-nilly then payday lending must be a terrible (I'm talking financially not morally) business, and I assure you payday lending is highly profitable.

Also I'm sure there is only a real minority of boaters that pay 0 federal income tax. All those vlogers will owe ~15% self employment taxes even if they only made a few thousand dollars. And if the IRS isn't paid for the 1099 income they'll track the taxpayer down in a hurry.

Yes maybe they'll "cut a deal", but the IRS is only generous when it comes to assessed penalties. Good luck negotiating out of taxes due - if you're lucky you'll end up with a payment plan paying interest.