Marine insurance, going naked.

[JPA Cate]

TO THE OP:

Since it's your wife's boat, why not let her make the decision?

For some people the $500 might be a big deal, and for others, it might come out of their wine budget and not be missed.

If the boat has to go into the boat yard to be anti-fouled, you'll need it.

Ann

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Great idea, the government takes care of every detail of our lives. ... you so casually brush off your personal responsibility to others with that comment on bankruptcy and getting on with your life...

Go to most any part of the world and government takes care of healthcare for all, at a cost that is a tiny, tiny fraction of healthcare costs in the US, but that's getting off the subject - I think the point was the OP is not in the US and laws are different.

Yes, bankruptcy laws here are pretty lax - no debtor's prison nowadays, no transportation, not even flogging or hanging any more. Darn!

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You take a friend out sailing, he gets hit in the head by a swinging boom, falls overboard and drowns. His widow sues you for a million dollars (or more).

I'm curious...

So a question for our USA members - is this a realistic scenario in the USA?

Is this how you live your sailing life?

Or is it just trolling...

FWIW, the likely hood of being sued (let alone successfully sued) for such an event down under is vanishingly small. Everyone on board of recreational boat is considered responsible for their own safety and unless there was some proven evidence of criminal intent, such an event would be considered by all as an unfortunate accident and not as a way to make some money from the skipper / owner.

[Lost Horizons]

Originally Posted by Wotname

FWIW, the likely hood of being sued (let alone successfully sued) for such an event down under is vanishingly small. Everyone on board of recreational boat is considered responsible for their own safety and unless there was some proven evidence of criminal intent, such an event would be considered by all as an unfortunate accident and not as a way to make some money from the skipper / owner.

Same in the USA.

[Bean Counter]

To Quote from an ABC news report in 2006:


"A former Tasmanian woman has been awarded more than $760,000 in damages after suing her father-in-law over the death of her husband and son in a boating accident.
The payout is believed to be the highest ever made under the Tasmania's Fatal Accidents Act.
Craig Hanlon and his nine-year-old son, Sam, drowned in Arthurs Lake in 1999 after being thrown from a four-metre runabout driven by Raymond Hanlon.
Mr Hanlon also fell into the water but was rescued by people nearby.
Craig Hanlon's wife, Colleen, took legal action against her father-in-law, claiming he was negligent in failing to keep the boat under proper control and failing to test a new motor on the boat before carrying passengers.
Today, Tasmanian Chief Justice Peter Underwood upheld her claim.
Mrs Hanlon, who now lives in South Australia, says through her lawyer she is pleased to finally know the true facts of what happened on the lake.
The payout will be divided between Mrs Hanlon and her two surviving children."

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Bean Counter

To Quote from an ABC news report in 2006:


"A former Tasmanian woman has been awarded more than $760,000 in damages after suing her father-in-law over the death of her husband and son in a boating accident.
The payout is believed to be the highest ever made under the Tasmania's Fatal Accidents Act.
Craig Hanlon and his nine-year-old son, Sam, drowned in Arthurs Lake in 1999 after being thrown from a four-metre runabout driven by Raymond Hanlon.
Mr Hanlon also fell into the water but was rescued by people nearby.
Craig Hanlon's wife, Colleen, took legal action against her father-in-law, claiming he was negligent in failing to keep the boat under proper control and failing to test a new motor on the boat before carrying passengers.
Today, Tasmanian Chief Justice Peter Underwood upheld her claim.
Mrs Hanlon, who now lives in South Australia, says through her lawyer she is pleased to finally know the true facts of what happened on the lake.
The payout will be divided between Mrs Hanlon and her two surviving children."

And that, people, is a dose of reality.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Lost Horizons

Same in the USA.

You think?

$10 million suit: Boater charged, sued in death

$ millions: Stew Leonard's Founder Sued in Boater's Death |

$0.5 million: Brooklyn DA candidate once sued the city she wants to defend | New York Post

etc.

[Mike OReilly]

My understanding of negligence lawsuits, at least in the Canadian context, is that the plaintiff has to prove the defendent behaved in a negligent manner (based on a balance of probabilities). Does third-party liability cover negligent behaviour on the part of the insured? Makes no sense to me that it would. If it does, that’s a pretty big loophole.

Even if it does, the first two examples on Cottontop's list would still bankrupt most boaters since most only carry $1M in liability.

BTW, and I feel like a broken record by now, but citing single events tells you almost nothing about the actual risk you are trying to mitigate. Events must be placed in context — How often does the event occur? How often is someone sued for this kind of event? How often is the suit successful? IOW, how likely is this event to occur?

I don’t understand why some people have such a hard time understanding this simple fact of reality.

[Thumbs Up]

All of you well insured boaters had might as well pay for extra coverage from uninsured boaters because we are not likely to get any. Why? Because the policies are not available. If you can find me a reasonably priced liability only policy that will cover my type of boat and my cruising area, I will buy it. In Mexico they make it easy, I had a policy there. Now I am back in Guatemala, uninsured. I will try to be careful, as always but am I supposed to give up my home, and my lifestyle because no one will insure me? Insurance is not always an option for everybody. What are we supposed to do? It isn't our fault that no one will sell us a policy. Blame the insurance industry

[NevisDog]

I suspect those lawsuits try to prove NEGLIGENCE. So, refraining from negligence should solve the problem. Sounds glib, but hoping your insurance will cover you for your own negligence could prove problematic.

Q1. As mike asks, should insurance cover us for negligence?
Q2. As Mike says, if claim is for 10m and we are insured for 1m, are we really much better off?

Seems to me that being careful, having correct equipment, learning the ropes, are so much more important than whether we have adequate insurance or not. Would you prefer to anchor next to an incompetent, mildly intoxicated, but well-insured skipper - or an experienced, well-equipped, cautious, conscientious, careful (to the nth degree) boater?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My understanding of negligence lawsuits, at least in the Canadian context, is that the plaintiff has to prove the defendent behaved in a negligent manner (based on a balance of probabilities). Does third-party liability cover negligent behaviour on the part of the insured? Makes no sense to me that it would. If it does, that’s a pretty big loophole.
................. .

Of course it does. That's exactly what liability insurance is for. You harm someone, your insurance pays. You were operating drunk or left the helm to take a dump, they pay.

Perhaps if you understood what we are talking about little better, you might change your stance against liability insurance. It is a benefit to the insured because it protects him/her from being wiped out financially if he/she caused an accident and it's a benefit to the person who was harmed because he/she collects from a financially stable insurance company and doesn't have to hire an attorney and track down and sue the person responsible for the injury.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

................ Seems to me that being careful, having correct equipment, learning the ropes, are so much more important than whether we have adequate insurance or not. Would you prefer to anchor next to an incompetent, mildly intoxicated, but well-insured skipper - or an experienced, well-equipped, cautious, conscientious, careful (to the nth degree) boater?

Being careful is great and should be expected but being careful doesn't prevent you from causing an accident, it just lowers the chances.

As I mentioned before, anchor your boat and go ashore and your boat breaks loose and hits another boat. You are liable. Here's an example that's harder to argue with: You are driving your car, have a heart attack and crash into another vehicle. No amount of care can avoid that but you are still liable because it was your car and you were driving it.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I suspect those lawsuits try to prove NEGLIGENCE. So, refraining from negligence should solve the problem. Sounds glib, but hoping your insurance will cover you for your own negligence could prove problematic.

Q1. As mike asks, should insurance cover us for negligence?
Q2. As Mike says, if claim is for 10m and we are insured for 1m, are we really much better off?

Seems to me that being careful, having correct equipment, learning the ropes, are so much more important than whether we have adequate insurance or not. Would you prefer to anchor next to an incompetent, mildly intoxicated, but well-insured skipper - or an experienced, well-equipped, cautious, conscientious, careful (to the nth degree) boater?

Given your example, if I had the choice of which incompetent boater I anchor next to, I would prefer the insured one. But there is no way to tell which is which. Of course, I would much prefer to be next to the competent boater. That’s your point, right?

Again, there is no correlation between competence and having insurance. Please stop beating that horse.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Of course it does. That's exactly what liability insurance is for. You harm someone, your insurance pays. You were operating drunk or left the helm to take a dump, they pay.

And the notions of due diligence on the part of the insured mean nothing?

So you’re saying I can buy liability insurance and behave as recklessly as I want b/c my insurance will cover any damages I cause up to my max. Really? If so, that’s the best deal going. Those insurance companies really are stupid .

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by fxykty

...Again, there is no correlation between competence and having insurance. Please stop beating that horse.

Yep, I've dropped that one. Didn't even suggest any correlation this time.

I'm hoping you'll agree there are generally two distinct categories of uninsured: those that don't give a damn, and those who are aware of their responsibilities but choose to self-insure. Same with insured folks: some are careful, some not so much. I merely suggested that being one of the 'being careful' group is much more important than whether he is insured or not.