Captain Damaged Neighboring Boat- Who is Responsible?

[forsailbyowner]

Damned thats the problem with insurance companies. Personal responsibility goes out the door. If i hit someone I am responsible and i will make it right. I dont care if anyone tells me otherwise. If someone tells me to do something stupid I dont do it. I had some Russians wanting me to take them fishing in their boat. I declined because i didnt feel comfortable navigating a 54' single screw boat in an area notorious for its strong sideways current thru the marina. When Ive done damage in my boat 2x in 8 yrs. nobody had to sue me. I was right on it making things right without having to be asked. This countries moral compass is all screwed up.

Doesnt a captain have to carry a bond? I had to carry one when I was a licensed contractor. Can you not go after his bonding company?

[boatman61]

Why do you folk keep thinking 'Mud Law' works on the water..

[Jammer Six]

I know Washington law about general contractors cold, but applying my remarks outside of Washington State could yield an error. That would be the second time this year I've been wrong and it's only May.

In Washington State, and in the U.S. generally, one must have the "capacity to contract".

In the U.S., in general, that means one must be an adult. They define an adult as someone who has had 18 birthdays, which is an entirely different issue.

Under some specific circumstances, one must fulfill certain requirements to have the capacity to contract. For instance, if one is a general contractor in Washington State, and one is working on someone else's home, (you can burn your own home right to the foundation and no one will care except the bank) one must have either a general contractor's license or a sub contractor's license. Otherwise, one doesn't have the capacity to either create or enter the contract. There is, therefore, no contract, (legally) regardless of what you write down.

That means that if one does create or enter such a contract, and then the owner refuses payment, the contractor can't sue for his money, because he didn't have the capacity to create or enter the contract in the first place. It also means that any mistakes the "general" makes is on the home owner, and if someone gets hurt, killed or houses get burnt to the ground, the owner is liable, because he hired someone to do the work who didn't have the capacity to create a contract and assume the responsibility.

If you enter a contract with a person who doesn't have the capacity to contract, whether because that person is 15, insane, a cocker spaniel or unlicensed, there is no contract in Washington State. (Actually, there's some hairs to be split about whether the contract is null or void, but that doesn't make much difference except in one-in-a-thousand cases.) Florida may be different, they have crocodiles, and are, therefore, all insane. (Living in the same state as crocodiles is absolute proof of that. Crocodiles can eat you. But I digress.)

Here in Washington, one needs a Captain's license to assume responsibility for a boat. A six pack license. A 100 ton license. An unlimited license. It's exactly what they're for.

If you hire an unlicensed contractor, whether to add a second story to your house or move your boat, good luck with that. There is nothing to stop such an individual from running into the dock, jumping off, and walking away, or from making a mistake on your house that kills someone, and then pointing out that he has no license, is 17, or was born a poodle.

To get a contractor's license, one must put up a bond and get insurance. I don't believe that's the case with a Captain's license, but none of the folks with such licenses that I know would risk them without insurance and a contract.

Because it's too easy to get blown into the next slip, and they worked hard to get their Captain's license.

[weavis]

Guyz

In order to facilitate an insured transfer of a vessel via the services of a skipper, the Insurance company of the vessels owner wants the qualifications and details of the delivery skipper, and places him or the company on the OWNERS INSURANCE.

That is the end of it. The VESSELS INSURANCE covers any incident arising out of the handling of the vessel by that skipper, and the Insurance company 'holds no harm" to the skipper. EXCEPTING proven in a court of law that he was negligent in a major way. Scraping a vessel doesnt count.

I have a patient (British) who is in litigation with an American owner over the hiring of a crew member who was injured. Fortunately for my patient, the OWNER hired the crew member and forced the skipper to take him along. It would seem that if the skipper (my patient) had hired him, he might be liable under something similar to the Jones Act or whatever. I dont know much more than this but so far my patient has won every step of the way. (He is my patient for health reasons unrelated to this episode).

When this changes, everyone in the industry will suffer. Deliveries will go under the counter or prices will go up to cover huge Skipper premiums.

We dont live in a righteous world, and sometimes its best to suck it up.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by weavis

Guyz

In order to facilitate an insured transfer of a vessel via the services of a skipper, the Insurance company of the vessels owner wants the qualifications and details of the delivery skipper, and places him or the company on the OWNERS INSURANCE.

That is the end of it. The VESSELS INSURANCE covers any incident arising out of the handling of the vessel by that skipper, and the Insurance company 'holds no harm" to the skipper. EXCEPTING proven in a court of law that he was negligent in a major way. Scraping a vessel doesnt count.

I have a patient (British) who is in litigation with an American owner over the hiring of a crew member who was injured. Fortunately for my patient, the OWNER hired the crew member and forced the skipper to take him along. It would seem that if the skipper (my patient) had hired him, he might be liable under something similar to the Jones Act or whatever. I dont know much more than this but so far my patient has won every step of the way. (He is my patient for health reasons unrelated to this episode).

When this changes, everyone in the industry will suffer. Deliveries will go under the counter or prices will go up to cover huge Skipper premiums.

We dont live in a righteous world, and sometimes its best to suck it up.

Weavis has it exactly right. I have delivered well over 100 motor vessels just as he describes.

PS. Washington contractor law and its bond requirements has nothing to do with Admiralty Law which covers captain and crew payments and is an entirely different world.

[sabray]

Originally Posted by xymotic

This is exactly right

I once got into an accident in CA where I drove over a board and it kicked up into a guy's headlight

HE was cited for having a suspended license and no insurance and I was let go because in CA you aren't responsible for road debris you didn't create and he was warned about following too close

the guy files a $1500 claim and my insurance paid it without even asking me and I switched insurance and my rate went up dramatically because I had claims

When I called Safeco they said they paid it because in WA I'd have been liable for kicking up the board I was incredulous! (particularly that they didn't even ask me about it!) but well my insurance with Geico went up and I never was able to contest or clear that claim

Almost right. He left out my premium goes up too. As I explained to my insurance company I have zero claims in yaddddah years. Why is my premium up 25 percent? Apparantley my neighbors 600 miles north had a little accident in a storm. I pay more because I prayed that storm to keep going north.
Sort of like were all in a really big bar. A few of us are obviously screwed up. A few are not but we still let our screwed up friends buy boats. When they wreck them we get billed. No lawsuit or questions we just pay them off because we really need insurance and want to look like we are happy giving them payments so were okay. Worse yet some places won't let visit unless you have paid off the agents uhh enforcers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weavis]

Originally Posted by sabray

Almost right. He left out my premium goes up too. As I explained to my insurance company I have zero claims in yaddddah years. Why is my premium up 25 percent? Apparantley my neighbors 600 miles north had a little accident in a storm. I pay more because I prayed that storm to keep going north.
Sort of like were all in a really big bar. A few of us are obviously screwed up. A few are not but we still let our screwed up friends buy boats. When they wreck them we get billed. No lawsuit or questions we just pay them off because we really need insurance and want to look like we are happy giving them payments so were okay. Worse yet some places won't let visit unless you have paid off the agents uhh enforcers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So we are all agreed then?
Life is totally unfair.
The owner pays the damage caused by his delivery skipper.
His insurance stays the same because he did not claim.
And next year the premium for his boat will go up because someone in Alaska made a claim.

friggin' sux dont it...?

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

PS. Washington contractor law and its bond requirements has nothing to do with Admiralty Law which covers captain and crew payments and is an entirely different world.

Yup. That's why they have entirely different licenses.

In the U.S., though, the capacity to contract is central to payment and liability issues. That is the only reason I brought up contractor's laws, to illustrate the concept of the capacity to contract.

Since it distracted and confused people, I should have left it out, and stuck with dogs, minors and crazy people.

[Captain Bill]

Did I miss something in the original post? The hired captain hits another boat and does some damage. The OP then gets a bill from the "Marina" for $1500, not from the owner of the other boat? Did the other owner simply tell the marina to send the OP the bill and they complied? Does the OP have any obligation to the marina for damage to another owner's boat? I would think he owes the other owner the money and the damaged owner owes the Marina for the repairs.

As for the insurance, my hull coverage has a deductable, but I don't think I've ever seen a deductable on my liability coverage. I've had a lot of different insurances over the years and don't remember ever having a deductable on my liability coverage. Can I be saving money by having a deductable on my liability as well as my hull coverage? I would think that this would be covered under the OP's liability policy.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Did I miss something in the original post? The hired captain hits another boat and does some damage. The OP then gets a bill from the "Marina" for $1500, not from the owner of the other boat? Did the other owner simply tell the marina to send the OP the bill and they complied? Does the OP have any obligation to the marina for damage to another owner's boat? I would think he owes the other owner the money and the damaged owner owes the Marina for the repairs.

As for the insurance, my hull coverage has a deductable, but I don't think I've ever seen a deductable on my liability coverage. I've had a lot of different insurances over the years and don't remember ever having a deductable on my liability coverage. Can I be saving money by having a deductable on my liability as well as my hull coverage? I would think that this would be covered under the OP's liability policy.

You're obviously right on the deductible. No idea why he said that. I think it was just part of his trying to avoid responsibility. H can clearly file.

As to the Marina, I only see them as a facilitator, perhaps witnesses, perhaps because they knew who he was and how to reach him. Didn't pay much attention since the issue was really weather the owner was liable.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by OldFrog75

Really? I didn't know that. I've always assumed the driver of the vehicle is responsible. If I let someone borrow my car and they kill somebody with it, me and my insurance company are liable not the driver? I'm going to call my agent right now and confirm that.

*************

Just got off the phone with AAA and was told the driver of the vehicle is liable but the owner is responsible if the driver doesn't have adequate insurance to cover the damage. Moral of the story is if you're going to loan your vehicle to someone make sure they have adequate coverage of their own.

Absolutely. You let someone drive your car, he gets drunk, head on's a family killing three, he goes to jail, you may lose everything you own.

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by Scott Berg

Easy...
You pay them...
You take it out of the captain's pay...

+1, this is clear cut in my mind.

[Jammer Six]

In our club, we don't have Captains. (That is, usually.) Captains have licenses, and the license is used to assume responsibility for the boat. We all signed contracts with our charter company.

We all charter a bare boat. There is liability and property damage insurance that is carried by the charter company, and the contract that we all signed with the charter company specifies that there is no Captain, that we are all equally liable for the deductible on any liability or property damage claim that arises from our cruise.

The reason no single person can assume the responsibility is because none of us (usually) have a Captain's license, and that license is the only way one person can assume the responsibility which otherwise follows the boat.

So the way it's been explained to me is that if we do damage to another boat or if we damage the boat we're on, or if someone is injured or killed, then it will automatically be referred to the insurance company for a settlement, and the deductible would be split equally between the members who chartered the boat.

When I asked, I was told that in the history of our company, no one has been killed, but people have been injured and boats have been damaged. No one has ever sued over an injury, nor has there ever been a suit over damage, because the insurance company steps in automatically in every case.

There are people in our club with different levels of licenses, including six packs, 100 ton and all the way up to unlimited. When the club does something unusual, (the locks, night sails, etc.) one of the licensed Captains is always on board and in command. I assume they're getting paid for those, but I've never asked.

On a side note, I was interested to find that not all the instructors in our club are licensed-- the Captain's license and the instructor certification are two very different things. One is a legal issue, the license comes from the U.S.C.G., the other is strictly recreational, and comes from U.S. Sailing.

On yet another side note, I got into an interesting discussion the other day about the flip side of the equation, authority. Since a licensed Captain is responsible, I was curious what legal authority accompanied that responsibility. I never got any clear answers.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by BandB

Absolutely. You let someone drive your car, he gets drunk, head on's a family killing three, he goes to jail, you may lose everything you own.

Not with our insurance. Any licensed driver I loan my truck to is insured.

Which doesn't mean I'll loan my truck to anyone...

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Not with our insurance. Any licensed driver I loan my truck to is insured.

Which doesn't mean I'll loan my truck to anyone...

So you think....has insurance lapsed.....but even more, his liability insurance runs out real fast. Say the person you loaned to has $300,000 liability. The lawsuit is for $10 million which with the loss of three lives is quite within range. They get all the driver's assets, say $50,000. Now it comes to you. Your insurance pays to it's limit, let's say $500,000. Now you're still held liable for $9,450,000.