Marine insurance, going naked.

[olaf hart]

If I visit a lawyer for advice on making a claim for negligence, they are more interested in who was insured, not who was negligent.

Most negligence cases are settled with insurers without going to court.

Around here you can always find a magistrate who will find for you if the case is emotional enough and the defendant is insured. The definition of negligence is so rubbery it doesn't seem to matter anymore.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by olaf hart

If I visit a lawyer for advice on making a claim for negligence, they are more interested in who was insured, not who was negligent.

Most negligence cases are settled with insurers without going to court.

Around here you can always find a magistrate who will find for you if the case is emotional enough and the defendant is insured. The definition of negligence is so rubbery it doesn't seem to matter anymore.

Perhaps that rubberiness has something to do with the eloquence of the solicitor!

Ann

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by olaf hart

If I visit a lawyer for advice on making a claim for negligence, they are more interested in who was insured, not who was negligent.

Most negligence cases are settled with insurers without going to court.

Around here you can always find a magistrate who will find for you if the case is emotional enough and the defendant is insured. The definition of negligence is so rubbery it doesn't seem to matter anymore.

This thread is about NOT having insurance.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that negligence is often a question that goes to a jury. Getting to a jury is very expensive in the US. If you get sued big time, your defense attorney, experts, etc. could easily cost in the 6 figures. Those folks get paid by the hour. And in the US, you probably don't recover those costs, even if you win in the end. Insurance will pay to defend you, however.

[Cottontop]

I picked the three cases above because they all involve friends and family suing each other. Depressing. But the cynical among us (and you know who you are) will suggest that the potential of insurance money is the reason for the suits.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

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 .

I'm doing the best I can to post the honest truth but you seem to be having a very difficult time understanding what I post.

I think you would do well to ask someone else to explain the concept of insurance to you because obviously, I am unable to do so.

[Seaslug Caravan]

Originally Posted by fxykty

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.

Interesting.


Whilst I was anchored UNINSURED in Sydney / Black Wattle Bay, a comprehensively insured , highly experienced (harbour pilot ,from earlier conversations) got flustered whilst up anchoring, single handed, and left his engine in gear whilst going forward to lift the anchor. He realised what he had
done early enough to avoid running me down, but unfortunately couldn't decide whether to run back to the engine controls or run forward and fend off. After what seemed like an eternity with the errant skipper running in smaller and smaller circles along his side deck he ploughed into my port stern.
He was very apologetic.

To cut a long story short.
All I can say to anyone in a similar situation," GOOD LUCK GETTING ANY MONEY
OUT OF SOMEONE ELSES INSURANCE WITHOUT THAT PARTIES COMPLETE COOPERATION IF YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN INSURANCE COMPANY DOING THE BATTING FOR YOU ."

I quickly learned it was easier to fix the damage myself and move on with life.

Conclusion, people with insurance can be A@@@@@@@s

[newhaul]

[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?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Seaslug Caravan

Interesting.


Whilst I was anchored UNINSURED in Sydney / Black Wattle Bay, a comprehensively insured , highly experienced (harbour pilot ,from earlier conversations) got flustered whilst up anchoring, single handed, and left his engine in gear whilst going forward to lift the anchor. He realised what he had
done early enough to avoid running me down, but unfortunately couldn't decide whether to run back to the engine controls or run forward and fend off. After what seemed like an eternity with the errant skipper running in smaller and smaller circles along his side deck he ploughed into my port stern.
He was very apologetic.

To cut a long story short.
All I can say to anyone in a similar situation," GOOD LUCK GETTING ANY MONEY
OUT OF SOMEONE ELSES INSURANCE WITHOUT THAT PARTIES COMPLETE COOPERATION IF YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN INSURANCE COMPANY DOING THE BATTING FOR YOU ."

I quickly learned it was easier to fix the damage myself and move on with life.

Conclusion, people with insurance can be A@@@@@@@s

Not long ago, I was driving and slowing for a red traffic light. The lady behind me, who appeared to be drugged or otherwise impaired, ran into our car. Twice. I called her insurance company and filed a claim.

They told me to select a body shop and call them back. I did and they paid for the repairs and a rental car for the two weeks it took for the repairs.

I think my experience is much more typical than what you report.

[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.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Lost Horizons

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.

And so do you. But neither of us knows how often friends get hurt and don't sue.

But if there's 3 chances in 10,000 of losing everything I have, I'll insure against that if I can.

[olaf hart]

So reading between the lines, the best option would be to buy third party person and property liability insurance from a company that is known to be difficult to settle a claim.

Hopefully they would also be the lowest cost insurance as well....

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by olaf hart

So reading between the lines, the best option would be to buy third party person and property liability insurance from a company that is known to be difficult to settle a claim.

Hopefully they would also be the lowest cost insurance as well....

Nope because ultimately, you are responsible. The injured party can go after you directly.

Shopping for a good price is fine but make sure the coverage is the same.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

And so do you. But neither of us knows how often friends get hurt and don't sue. ............

Friends may not sue but it's likely that the widow will sue.