Should there be mandatory liability insurance for boats?

[fatherchronica]

I have never made a claim on my marine insurance, nor been in an accident ever. But 45 years ago I had a renters policy through State Farm and my home was burglarized the week after my wedding. Nearly all our wedding gifts, still in their original packaging were stolen. Even though our coverage was supposed to cover full value, they kept saying " how could all your stuff be brand new?" and offered us about 75% of the cost of replacing it. I never used them again and for 40 years at work bad mouthed them at lunch or coffee break whenever insurance came up to probably over a thousand people. On the other hand, a couple years ago my daughter had a guy back out of his driveway into the side of a 10 year old Kia Spectra we bought her. It only had 45,000 miles on it and it had a custom airbrushed paint job on it because Kia displayed it at car shows for a couple of years. The insurance company of the guy gave her the run around for two weeks and told her to leave it where it happened right next door to her boyfriends house. I called them and told them she was done waiting, we were moving it to a body shop. So two adjusters came out that afternoon, set up little tables on the sidewalk and went online and made phone calls for over two hours. Then they cut her a check for 1,700 more than the 4,000 we paid for it. They said it was totaled because of the paint job. I pried the right front fender out, we drove it to a shop, it was fixed in two days for $700 and she didn't have the ghetto paint job she hated anymore. Two long stupid memories, sorry

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by rabbi

Greece:
On another website I found information that this affects any motorized boat even if its just a 2.5hp auxiliary, and sail boats >=6m LOA. The minimum limit of indemnity is 336.566,78 euros (I guess this comes from pre-Euro times).

So with a 5 meter boat it's fine. I will keep this in mind if I visit those countries. It doesn't make sense to draw the line at a particular boat length, but at least it's below a certain length rather than above one.

Noonsite says about Italy:
It is illegal for yachts to sail in Italian waters without valid third-party insurance. Yachts which do not have insurance may not be allowed to leave the harbour until they obtain it. Insurance can be obtained locally from an Italian insurance company.
The minimum liability stated there are wrong, since 2017 its 6.070.00 million euro.

So if you have a 6 million euro boat, your insurance can cost exactly 1000x more than someone with a 6000 euro boat.

By choosing to have an expensive boat, you are responsible for damage caused to it. This was your choice. After all, you could have chosen a more respectfully sized vessel.

So if you can't afford insurance you are simply not allowed to cruise Spain, Italy, Greece, Croatia. These countries consider this a reasonable way to protect their population from uninsured boaters.

These countries also have plenty of other idiotic rules, it's no surprise. I used to think europeans must be smarter than us.

Then I sailed around and met hundreds of europeans, and found out they are basically the same!

Your boat is certainly capable of causing a few million dollars worth of damage and we have given you plenty of examples.

I am personally capable of causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in a variety of countries in a variety of ways if I decided to make it a priority. It would be illegal to do it.

I can also cause millions or more in damage with just my boat, if I wanted to. There is no difference here. It's still illegal.

All of the "examples" would only occur if I wanted them to. I can, and aIways have managed to avoid causing damage, in all cases. My boat is light enough, and I am strong enough, that I can kick off even in 40 knots of wind, and not hurt anything.

I have stopped 20 ton boats from hitting a cement quay by myself, because the other people were afraid to even try.

So because some people don't know how to not crash into other boats and prevent bad things from happening, it means that everyone must be liable for it!?! The risk is clearly not equal depending on who is involved.

The notion of insurance, throws all that away, and acts like we are all "equal" and in fact, nobody is equal.

Thats not liability, thats a joke. Just the collection of smartphones and tablets present on most boats costs way more.

If more money than many people in the world make in a whole year is a "joke", then you are seeing things from the wrong angle.

[CSY Man]

. My boat is light enough, and I am strong enough, that I can kick off even in 40 knots of wind, and not hurt anything.

Let me get this straight: You don’t need insurance because you can fend of in a 40 knot gale?

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

Let me get this straight: You don’t need insurance because you can fend of in a 40 knot gale?

Even when he's away from the boat!

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Okay let us try for a thread redirect. Recall my original post was: Desiring your thoughts regarding boat owners' responsibility as to liability for recovery, removal, transport and disposal of abandoned, sunk, or beached boats and of the costs of rehabilitation and repair caused by such boats.

First, I think all of us can agree that no system created by man is or ever can be perfect.

Second, I think we can take a look at other areas for some guidance. We've tried, with mixed results, to compare and contrast motor vehicles to boating. There are other areas we can also examine. In business and politics there are some areas we can use to gain some insight. Often, politicians will give away things for "free" (recognizing of course that there are no free lunches) such as land use, tax credits, energy, etc. Occasionally the business that is the beneficiary is required to guarantee a certain level of jobs created, tax payments, etc. and on very rare occasion the business has to post a guarantee for cleanup when the are done. Likewise, politicians in the U.S. are required to remove their many campaign posters after the election is over.

The sad truth is that more often than not these guarantees are ineffective. About the only thing that really works is a bond, and even then it only works when it is in force and available.

If we think of the above examples, we can see take away a few points.
1. Insurance is only effective if it is in force.
2. Even if a policy is in force, it may not cover removal, spills, etc. depending upon the fine print. Think of force majeure.
3. A bond is really the only effective way to guarantee payment for removal. This usually requires a stringent underwriting process. This process is likely to cause the insurance company to deny coverage on the boats that are most likely to need it or cause the premium (often lump sum) to be high, thus making it less affordable.
4. This brings us back to individual responsibility. Those boaters who are responsible will get insurance. Those who are not will let it lapse if they get it at all.
5. There is a small group that is primarily responsible for the bulk of abandoned boats. They are usually, but not always, poor and using the boat as a cheap home. In a case like this, the municipality or other agency will end up taking the necessary action regardless of what insurance is required. See point four.
6. Abandoned boats (and buildings, cars, etc.) are not a new phenomenon. There are literally thousands of abandoned boats from time immemorial. Most often Father Neptune will take care of disposal himself. They are really only an issue if they are a menace to navigation, upsetting to a property owner, or sunk en masse such as during the recent hurricanes.
7. The overall numbers are really quite small however I suspect that some areas have a bigger problem than others. Parts of Florida come to mind and in a case like this, a local solution is probably best as opposed to a one size fits all diktat. As Mike said earlier in this thread, this is a solution in search of a problem.

[seandepagnier]

I've been considering insurance again, and I think it can work if it is made in a fair way. So far, all the countries enforcing it are clearly doing it to protect the rich at the expense of the poor.

For example, someone with 10 million dollar boat is putting out a big target compared to a typical cruiser, and they are therefore somewhat responsible for the higher damages caused. Furthermore, typical vehicle policy minimum is from 5-25k, no where near millions, despite the fact that many boats are valued similar to cars.

It is also unfair that someone doing nothing wrong gets rammed by someone else. The current system without insurance, maybe requires the innocent to pay this damage, and doesn't make enough incentive to not hit someone.

So what I suggest is very simple. You must insure damages to the value of your own boat. Any damage above this is the responsibility of the other boat. If you underdeclare the value of your boat, then your bluff can be called, and you can be simply offered that, and now, you just sold your boat.

[hellosailor]

Allow me to torpedo that boat. Ah, argument.

I think there are at least two states that still require only a $10k minimum for auto liability insurance, and one of them even allows a personal bond rather than insurance. So, you can buy a $250,000 McLaren (one of their cheaper models) and sideswipe an entire block of cars, and ? The coverage stopped at $10,000.

As to setting the insurance coverage value to the value of your own boat, that's useless. If your boat really IS worth $100k and you haven't defrauded the insurer with that value? The boat can be seized and forcibly auctioned off to satisfy liability, which is the way it happens now.

Then there are games that (especially) those who have made lots of money can play, with corporate ownership, foreign flags, charter backs...

The only enforceable and meaningful solution would be to set insurance minimums to the value that can be expected, i.e. if you are hauled in a marina every winter, and your heater starts the usual fire, what is the value of the nine boats around you? Gee, it easily becomes two million once the fire spreads. And whatever that value is, it needs to be market and inflation adjusted, the same way other pension, salary, retirement plans often are.

You're not going to get any legislators to drop their socks and spend a couple of weeks researching that one. Much less pissing off their constituents when they sign it.

Nice idea, but ain't gonna fly.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

So what I suggest is very simple. You must insure damages to the value of your own boat. Any damage above this is the responsibility of the other boat. If you underdeclare the value of your boat, then your bluff can be called, and you can be simply offered that, and now, you just sold your boat.

According to your logic an old 50ft ferrocement boat worth 5k can't do more damage than a new 40ft racer worth 500k?

And your point that you can't do damage because you don't want to and you can fend off your boat even when you are on the bar:
I suppose You don't have anything that consumes energy, like electricity, diesel, cooking gas? All of that can start a fire that could cost you millions. I wonder what device you use to access the forum?
And of course your anchor never drags, your lines never chafe and your boat is totally unsinkable.

My point is that every boat owner is responsible for any damage he causes.

By choosing to have an expensive boat, you are responsible for damage caused to it. This was your choice. After all, you could have chosen a more respectfully sized vessel.

I get the point: Anybody with a boat worth more than yours made an unreasonable choice.
And because of that he is responsible for his stupid choice. So nobody should ever be allowed to claim more than 5k!


Obviously you keep looking for excuses why you don't need insurance. That's fine, but I hope your boat is not next to mine when your old trusty notebook battery catches fire and you are not there to fend it off.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

There are literally thousands of abandoned boats from time immemorial. Most often Father Neptune will take care of disposal himself. .

Which doesn't make it right. Some guy owned this boat. So it's his responsibility to clean up the mess he left.
Liability ends when the boat is properly disposed.

[Mike OReilly]

We all wish everyone was as good as we are — as I am. We all want the world to be just like we want it to be. But the one thing I’ve learned about the world, and about other people, is that I can’t change them. I can only change me.

Yes, absolutely; everyone should be responsible for their own actions. And that means fully dealing with any damage done to others due to negligence or neglect. But wanting the world to be this way won’t change the fact that it isn’t always this way.

The only two alternatives are to force people to behave a certain way — something we do all the time in our communities and societies. Either that, or we each manage the risks ourselves. Both approaches come with positives and negatives.

[Montanan]

Well said Mike. Fair sails.