Insurance requiring second adult

[GRIT]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Insurance is such a scam. On a trip from the US to Nz, the insurance company wanted 4 crew on a 40 ft boat. Better to self insure.

I agree completely with this statement too. But my wife doesn't like that idea.

I guess if they're making the bet, it should be on their terms. It's all a gamble, but they're "the house", and the whole thing works to benefit them, as a business. It's a game I'd rather not play, but my wife prefers to have insurance.

Cheers.
Paul.

[ChrisJHC]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Insurance is such a scam. On a trip from the US to Nz, the insurance company wanted 4 crew on a 40 ft boat. Better to self insure.

Until you get to AU and NZ and find the marinas won’t let you in without insurance.

[Muaddib1116]

Thanks for all the comments and insights guys. For added clarity, this is the wording in the coverage quote. As far as I can tell, this is the only wording addressing this.


"Warranted that an additional individual of minimum 21 years of age is to
accompany any approved Named Operator, whenever the Scheduled Vessel is
navigating, in order to assist with the safe operation of the Scheduled Vessel."

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GRIT

They didn't add that to the policy, it was always there. They simply removed the part that said I couldn't single hand the boat.

Cheers.
Paul.

Probably because they decided it was redundant.

If you are happy, go for it. I would personally want some sort of positive affirmation in writing that single handing is going to be covered.

[hasse_A]

Originally Posted by Knotical

Thanks, Shrew and valhalla360

This kind of language can sometimes be restrictive in our sailing ventures especially when you consider there will definitely be a time when you have to single hand - what if there are 2 people on board but one has fallen ill? (There are numerous such scenarios)

Or fallen over board.

[hasse_A]

The 21 year rule seems ridiculous. I would rather have a 15 year old hand who has sailed since he was 7 than a 75 year novice.
My opinion is that it's all up to the skipper/captain to decide what is safe and it's his/here responsibility to see to it that the boat is safe for the intended trip.
What's next ? Are the insurance companies going to mandate how much food, water and toilet paper must be on board for the insurance to be valid.

[Amapola]

Unlike in the past, BoatUS/GEICO would not insure us for the Caribbean (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala) without a captain and 4 crew aboard. It's always been just the 2 of us in our 1979 48' trawler.

[stvnm]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If that's what they gave you as a response to your video, they basically set you up to fail if you put in a claim. Any accident that could possibly be traced back to solo sailing and they will say you didn't have "adequate crew".

The video does nothing to change that and your opinion of what constitutes "adequate crew" doesn't stop them from denying a claim.

Now as long as you don't put in a claim, they are happy to give you a piece of paper that says you are insured.

Paul, I have to agree with the above. Although you can infer that the carrier change in verbiage was due to your video submission there is still ambiguity in your final contract. Probably if you had written evidence that they accepted your video as proof that your single hand boat handling meets their definition (not yours) of “adequate” your standing would be more air tight. Ambiguity is bad because it opens the door to litigation which is expensive and aggravating and the outcome is uncertain. Disclaimer. This is not legal advise and it may be worth what you paid for.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by hasse_A

The 21 year rule seems ridiculous. I would rather have a 15 year old hand who has sailed since he was 7 than a 75 year novice.
My opinion is that it's all up to the skipper/captain to decide what is safe and it's his/here responsibility to see to it that the boat is safe for the intended trip.

The insurance company isn't saying you can't consider your 15yr old legitimate crew...they are saying they won't payout if you choose to do so. There is a big difference.

Insurance actuaries aren't going to look at each potential crew member and adjust your rate accordingly. To do so would raise rates for everyone including those with multiple very capable and experienced crew. They set general rules and you are expected to apply them in a reasonable manner.

Yes, capability counts. As previously discussed up thread, if you have a 25yr old paraplegic who is unable to provide any realistic assistance in operating the boat, you are clearly violating the intent, so if the fact you are effectively solo sailing results in a claim, there is a good chance they will deny it and are likely to win if you fight them over it.

PS: your crew overboard example is actually an example of why insurance wants at least 2 crew...with a second crew member, there's a chance the boat can be turned around and the crew member recovered. Solo, if you lose contact with the boat and it keeps charging along at even 2-3kts, you basically have no chance of getting back onboard.

More importantly and as previously mentioned, this falls under Force Majeure. You were making a good faith effort to comply with the insurance terms.

[blueblaze]

Hi! I
Am insurance agent who is a cruiser. I
May be able to help if you would like to chat, my email is Laura@Marineinsurance.cc. We represent several companies so maybe we can help with an alternate quote.

[Nicholson58]

We have ANJO purchased in Antigua. No restrictions. Many cruisers in our Salty Dawg group are solo. Some look for add on crew for long transits. Not always a panacea. You don’t find out enough until you are at sea. One cruiser two years ago single handed his Shipman 63 from Hampton to English Harbor in seven days. Autopilot is essential and a remote reversing windlass is extremely desirable.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by stvnm

Paul, I have to agree with the above. Although you can infer that the carrier change in verbiage was due to your video submission there is still ambiguity in your final contract. Probably if you had written evidence that they accepted your video as proof that your single hand boat handling meets their definition (not yours) of “adequate” your standing would be more air tight. Ambiguity is bad because it opens the door to litigation which is expensive and aggravating and the outcome is uncertain. Disclaimer. This is not legal advise and it may be worth what you paid for.

And it's very situational. You may get variable results depending on how much the insurance company thinks solo sailing played into the claim:
- Motoring across the bay on a 2hr run in calm weather when you lose track and hit a buoy doing a couple grand in damage. They could claim a 2nd crew might have seen it and warned you off but it's a gray area as the 2nd crew might not have seen it or might have been off watch...at the same time just sending it over to the legal department to look over is going to be a couple grand. They might deny it and if you challenge them, they probably aren't going to fight too hard.
- If you are 48hr into a crossing from Gulf Port to Tampa and you fall asleep at the wheel before ramming an anchored fishing boat seriously injuring an occupant...expect them to deny the claim and make it stick even with the nifty video of you anchoring.

[TabbyCat]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This (“listed as operators”) sounds more like auto insurance policy jargon.

No, many policies are now named operator policies. That means that the only people covered to operate the boat must be pre-approved by the underwriter. You tend to see it more often on policies that cover offshore navigation, like the Caribbean or Trans-Atlantic. The named operator clause gives the underwriter the opportunity to judge whether the boat will be operated by qualified people or not. I've noticed a recent trend among boat owners to complain when an underwriter asks questions and tries to determine if they are a good risk. Although it is a pain, and counter-intuitive, you should be happy when your underwriter asks lots of questions up front and is cautious. That means they are seriously considering the risk in the event that they have to pay out. An underwriter who does not ask any questions (other than how would you like to pay?) or have any underwriting rules is a red flag - it usually means they are not even considering paying out on a claim.

[TabbyCat]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Honestly wonder, if the video actually was actually looked at. .

I can confirm is was indeed looked at. Paul has a very special and unique boat!

[lestersails]

Two thoughts/questions
How many serious accidents on long distance cruises would happen that could result in a sizable claim due to single handing where the captain survives? Sorry to be morbid, but if you are single handing and the **** hits the fan and you are swimming with the fishes - who is going to file an insurance claim? Can heirs file a claim for a lost vessel?

Is the covered operator only shtick a way to prevent the insurer from having to cover boats under charter? I would think that would be handled by a no rent, no for hire, no commercial use clause. Is it for incompetent delivery captains*?


*I know about this having had to co-captain a boat from Bimini to Lauderdale because the hired delivery captain was below decks hung over. Unbelievable. I am not anywhere close to an expert sailor - but I was much more functional than the worthless knucklehead they paid to move the boat.