Marine insurance, going naked.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by newhaul

:............ Becides how much damage can I cause with a 24ft sailboat that tops out at 5knots.

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).

[newhaul]

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 carry insurance but your scenario has an extremely remote probability for several reasons.
First my boom doesnt swing wildly so as to hit someone in the head and cause a man overboard issue.
Secondly (and I'm a real hard a&$ on this one) if the boat isn't at the dock or anchored everyone must wear a lifejacket when on deck. No exceptions.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[Lost Horizons]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

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.

So what? In Italy, a guy runs a ship aground, gets big jail time. Should we make a conclusion based on that case?

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Lost Horizons

So what? In Italy, a guy runs a ship aground, gets big jail time. Should we make a conclusion based on that case?

You suggested that the chance of being sued by a friend who got hurt on your boat were "vanishingly small" in the US.

Took me about two minutes to find three cases. I guess we might disagree as to the definition of "vanishingly small."

As to your second question, the conclusion I would draw is that if you are the captain of a big ship, and you carelessly run the ship aground, killing some of your passengers, you might get put in jail. Good to keep in mind.

Possibilities that are "vanishingly small" but have huge consequences like losing everything you've worked your life for, or getting put in jail, should be guarded against, if possible. Insurance can offer protection against some, but not all, of those possibilities.

[Lost Horizons]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

You suggested that the chance of being sued by a friend who got hurt on your boat were "vanishingly small" in the US.

Took me about two minutes to find three cases. I guess we might disagree as to the definition of "vanishingly small."

To be meaningful, you need to show the percentage of cases resulted in litigation. Three out of ten is not the same as three out of ten thousand.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

.......
Possibilities that are "vanishingly small" but have huge consequences like losing everything you've worked your life for, or getting put in jail, should be guarded against, if possible. Insurance can offer protection against some, but not all, of those possibilities.

Are you suggesting insurance can keep you out of jail?