Should there be mandatory liability insurance for boats?

[seandepagnier]

So, if I go "cruising" in greece in a kayak, arriving from a foreign port, am I required insurance? I doubt it.

Different boats have significantly different risks, and making a minimum liability is injustice.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

We had a large motor boat crash into us and get pinned to our bow by the current in the Brisbane river when we were berthed at Docksides.

The passing ferries scoured both sides of our bow with his mast and steel davits right down to bare steel.

My boat is simply incapable of achieving such damage if I tried my hardest. It would be unfair to impose a "minimum liability" and force me to pay 110 euro a year (which is more than my monthly living budget, a significant burden) so that people who have 10 million dollar boats can crash into each other.

Make the minimum liability 500 euro, with 1 euro a year premium and its ok for me, but also unfair for someone else.

I have had personal experience rescuing a boat, then being refused any reward, even after damaging my own boat, and personal injury. Instead the owner was upset, because he had already claimed insurance. Insurance makes people cheaters.

This is why I don't mind that boats with motors should pay, because they are already cheaters.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

So, if I go "cruising" in greece in a kayak, arriving from a foreign port, am I required insurance? I doubt it.

Different boats have significantly different risks, and making a minimum liability is injustice.



My boat is simply incapable of achieving such damage if I tried my hardest. It would be unfair to impose a "minimum liability" and force me to pay 110 euro a year (which is more than my monthly living budget, a significant burden) so that people who have 10 million dollar boats can crash into each other.

Make the minimum liability 500 euro, with 1 euro a year premium and its ok for me, but also unfair for someone else.

I have had personal experience rescuing a boat, then being refused any reward, even after damaging my own boat, and personal injury. Instead the owner was upset, because he had already claimed insurance. Insurance makes people cheaters.

This is why I don't mind that boats with motors should pay, because they are already cheaters.

Your boat is capable of creating serious damage in the right circumstances, maybe not as much as a larger vessel but still very significant. What does your boat weigh? It's not a dinghy.

[daletournier]

On my old Wharram if you dragged along side and scraped 20ft of paint of, it wouldn't be a big deal, I'd respray it cheaply, a perfect finish would of looked out of place.

You inflict the same damage on my current boat and it would be a big expensive deal, a cheap touch up fix wouldn't be satisfactory..... If you can't afford to self insure and payout of your own pocket the repair bill incurred by damage you caused on an expensive boat then I think you have a responsibility to have liability insurance.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Seems to me that Med Mooring is a major catalyst in needing liability insurance in Europe ...

I definately agree.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

So, if I go "cruising" in greece in a kayak, arriving from a foreign port, am I required insurance? I doubt it.

Different boats have significantly different risks, and making a minimum liability is injustice.

Greece:
Any boat >=8m is required to carry a DEKPA, which you will only get if you present boat papers and insurance. Also see the section "permit to cruise" here:
https://www.theca.org.uk/news/greektax


Other countries have similar requirements:

Noonsite says about Spain:
Yachts must carry their original registration document, insurance policy (and a translation into Spanish) and ship's radio licence. One member of the crew must have a radio operator’s certificate of competence. For EU boats, proof of VAT status is also required.

On another website I found information that this affects any motorized boat even if its just a 2.5hp auxiliary, and sail boats >=6m LOA. The minimum limit of indemnity is 336.566,78 euros (I guess this comes from pre-Euro times).


Noonsite says about Italy:
It is illegal for yachts to sail in Italian waters without valid third-party insurance. Yachts which do not have insurance may not be allowed to leave the harbour until they obtain it. Insurance can be obtained locally from an Italian insurance company.
The minimum liability stated there are wrong, since 2017 its 6.070.00 million euro.



So if you can't afford insurance you are simply not allowed to cruise Spain, Italy, Greece, Croatia. These countries consider this a reasonable way to protect their population from uninsured boaters.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

My boat is simply incapable of achieving such damage if I tried my hardest. It would be unfair to impose a "minimum liability" and force me to pay 110 euro a year (which is more than my monthly living budget, a significant burden) so that people who have 10 million dollar boats can crash into each other.

Your boat is certainly capable of causing a few million dollars worth of damage and we have given you plenty of examples.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Make the minimum liability 500 euro, with 1 euro a year premium and its ok for me, but also unfair for someone else.

Thats not liability, thats a joke. Just the collection of smartphones and tablets present on most boats costs way more.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

This is why I don't mind that boats with motors should pay, because they are already cheaters.

??? Motor = evil ??? strange equation that I can't follow

[Montanan]

Okay let us try for a thread redirect. Recall my original post was: Desiring your thoughts regarding boat owners' responsibility as to liability for recovery, removal, transport and disposal of abandoned, sunk, or beached boats and of the costs of rehabilitation and repair caused by such boats. Also desire your thoughts as to if it is appropriate for jurisdictions [i.e., countries, states, provinces, municipalities, etc.] to require boat owners to have substantial liability insurance to pay the costs of recovery, removal and disposal?
My post was NOT about third party property damage liability and third party personal injury liability, nor about boatists that are uninsured for third party liability, or about insurance for such common liabilities and exposures. Those are separate and rich topic content.

As to whether owning or operating a vehicle, e.g., a car or boat, is a right or a privilege, let's be clear that legal distinction is of little practical consequence as the government can regulate, suspend or revoke either a right or a privilege, and often does, by way of example, such as hunting, fishing, voting, where a sex offender can live or work, or travel, drinking, driving, remarriage, etc.. [Okay Fellow Cruisers, please let's not even begin with any further thread migrations off point of my original post, such as anything to do with the 2nd Amendment to the US Federal Constitution].


Reasons for Suspending or Revoking a License
States have a variety of reasons for suspending or revoking drivers’ licenses. Depending on the state, either the courts or an administrative agency (such as a department of motor vehicles), or sometimes both, can suspend and revoke licenses. Reasons include:

for driving-related behavior, such as when the driver has been convicted of driving under the influence or other reckless behavior, including racing and hit-and-run
for drivers who have used their cars to commit a felony
when drivers who are repeat vehicle code offenders have amassed a certain number of negative “points” in their driving records
when drivers have driven or engaged in any activity that would have justified that state’s denial of a driving license in the first place
when drivers have caused an accident and have no insurance or other financial ability to cover loss and damage
when drivers have failed to pay child support
in some states, when drivers have a medical condition that imperils their ability to drive safely, including visual problems, diabetes, and epilepsy, and
in some states, when the state agency in charge of licensing decides, in their discretion, that allowing the driver to continue to drive would compromise public safety.

All the best to you all. I am so looking forward to the arrival of late Spring when the ice has melted from the marina and can return to sailing in the Last Best Place, say by the end of May.

[CareKnot]

Hi Montanan,

Your query,

Originally Posted by Montanan

...Desiring your thoughts regarding boat owners' responsibility as to liability for recovery, removal, transport and disposal of abandoned, sunk, or beached boats and of the costs of rehabilitation and repair caused by such boats.

...is superfluous. The context of this situation was that of a declared national disaster. These matters are already paid for through federal taxation. I do not want to pay for the same service twice, thank you very much.

Your assertions that legal definition (Supreme Court and Appeals Court rulings) have no practical application is bogus, as proven by Florida's recent attempts to limit boater's rights, a law that was challenged and subsequentially struck down.

Recently a friend, sailing a US documented vessel, was stopped by Florida Fish and Wildlife officer. The officer in question, hand on gun, attempted to board the vessel for an 'inspection' and the Captain refused, quoting both Maritime law and US Coast Guard regulations. The FaW officer got angry.

The officer escalated the situation with threats of physical violence and prosecutions. The Captain responded by issuing a distress call to the Coast Guard via VHF. It took the Station Commander getting the Florida Fish and Wildlife District Commander to call the officer and explain that facts of life before he would back down.

So your position that operating under the 'color of law' is sufficient to claim, legal precedent is not a practical consideration, is completely without merit.

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Since you asked for my thoughts, here goes:

1. You are all wet.
2. Any entity or jurisdiction that attempts to countermand or supercede valid legal precedent in these matters should be resisted and failing that, sued in federal court.
3. Anyone promoting these illegal actions is, by definition, anti-American.

[hellosailor]

The folks who like to board boats in Florida are the "FWC", the Florida Wildlife Commission. (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to use the full name.) FWC are sworn peace officers, the same as street cops, AFAIK. And they are in charge of enforcing all state boating laws and fishing laws, sobriety checks, etc. So, they're used to stopping anything that floats, anytime they get bored.

I'd sure like to know just what state or federal law stops a legally authorized peace officer from coming aboard to conduct a safety check, a head check (pollution regulations) or a similar inspection. I don't agree with "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS! YOU HAVE NO PAPERS!" but I have never heard of any law, except some downtrodden amendment to the Constitution, that prevents that.

[CareKnot]

The only agency (of which I am aware) that can legally board and inspect a US documented and flagged vessel without probable cause or a warrant is the Coast Guard or other Agency exercising jurisdiction under specific agreement with the USCG. That is why DEA uses USCG for drug interdiction on the high seas. However, I am not an Admiralty or Maritime attorney.

The Captain in my story is USCG retired, a Florida native and an active international delivery captain for over a decade. He know his stuff.

Originally Posted by hellosailor

The folks who like to board boats in Florida are the "FWC", the Florida Wildlife Commission. (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to use the full name.) FWC are sworn peace officers, the same as street cops, AFAIK. And they are in charge of enforcing all state boating laws and fishing laws, sobriety checks, etc. So, they're used to stopping anything that floats, anytime they get bored.

I'd sure like to know just what state or federal law stops a legally authorized peace officer from coming aboard to conduct a safety check, a head check (pollution regulations) or a similar inspection. I don't agree with "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS! YOU HAVE NO PAPERS!" but I have never heard of any law, except some downtrodden amendment to the Constitution, that prevents that.

[rabbi]

Well, the above comments are specific for US waters. I have no clue if mandatory insurance is legal or not in the US.
In other countries it certainly is. It doesn't matter what country someone is coming from, if one wants to legally cruise Italy one has to have insurance.


I guess plenty of uninsured boats were sunk by Irma in St. Martin. I wonder if the french / dutch tax payer is also happy about removing uninsured US flagged vessels at their own cost.

I see mandatory insurance in the future for anyone cruising the Caribbean islands.

[Montanan]

Hi CareKnot:

Wow, being a bit prickly there in your response. I am a Montanan and thus an American and won't attempt to speak as to other country jurisdictions, including other of the states.

As to who is authorized to enforce the boating laws in Montana that is defined in Montana Code Annotated. TITLE 23. PARKS, RECREATION, SPORTS, AND GAMBLING, CHAPTER 2. RECREATION, PART 5. BOATS.

23-2-506. Enforcement. (1) The department is a criminal justice agency for the purpose of obtaining the technical assistance and support services provided by the board of crime control under the provisions of 44-4-301. Authorized officers of the department are granted peace officer status with the power:
(a) of search, seizure, and arrest;
(b) to investigate activities in this state regulated by this part and rules of the department and the fish and wildlife commission; and
(c) to report violations to the county attorney of the county in which they occur.
(2) All sheriffs and peace officers of the state of Montana and all United States coast guard law enforcement officers shall have authority to enforce provisions of this part, as amended.

Therefore, the State's Fish Wildlife and Parks personnel and all sheriffs and all peace officers and the U.S. Coasties can enforce the State boating laws and they can board, inspect any and all boats. You will be arrested if you contest their actions.

As to a broader "free" man concept, well that dog don't bark in our civilized society. America is a country where rule of law applies.

Is there an absolute right to travel, e.g., begin by taking the most common form of travel in a car on public roads, which can then be extrapolated to other forms of travel, horse, wagon, vessel, railroad?

Answer: No, a car is a large metal machine filled with both toxic and flammable materials, designed to manuever at high speeds in close proximity to other such machines. Courts have found that legislatures may indeed subject such machines and their operators to reasonable safety regulations. The legal guide below sets forth legal citations that rebut any wishful presumption that courts distinguish between the words "travel" and "drive" or "motor vehicle" and "car". And which would also apply to "boats".

The United States Supreme Court has held repeatedly, as it held in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 526 (1964), that "The right to travel is not absolute". See also, Hess v. Pawloski (1927) 274 US 352, “Motor vehicles are dangerous machines, and even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways.... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents."

Interestingly, the State of Montana has some of the most developed case law on this topic. In State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304, the Supreme Court of Montana made a point of discussing many of the arguments against requiring drivers licenses, and it rejected the argument that if the travel is not "commercial" or not connected to gov’t activity that it is not susceptible to regulation. The court also dismissed the idea that the right to travel is absolute, as it quipped, "This is obviously a growing school of thought which had been misguided [into thinking] the notion of right to travel remains wholly separate from the right or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways.") See also, Montana v. Turk (1982) 197 Mont. 311 (using the term automobile and motor vehicle interchangeably). See also, State v. Folda (Mont 1994) 267 Mont 523 (holding against a man claiming to be a ‘free’ man who is no longer a 14th Amendment citizen and not required to register his vehicle, wear a seatbelt or maintain liability insurance).

Excerpts RE: State v. Folda, JUSTICE TRIEWEILER delivered the Opinion of the Supreme Court.

Defendant Dean Wade Folda was convicted in Yellowstone County Justice Court of four counts of operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance, in violation of § 61-6-304, MCA; four counts of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-3-301, MCA; and one count of not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle, in violation of § 61-13-103, MCA. Folda contends that since he is a "free" man who is no longer a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, he no longer has to abide by any state or federal laws, including registering his vehicle or maintaining liability insurance for his vehicle. Folda also argues that in order to be prosecuted for a statutory violation, a person must injure or damage other persons or property and that, in this case, he has done neither.

Operation of a motor vehicle and abiding by the regulations and statutory licensing procedures that follow is a privilege. State v. Skurdal (1988), 235 Mont. 291, 295, 767 P.2d 304, 307. An individual's ability or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roads is "[a]lways subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power." Skurdal, 767 P.2d at 307 (quoting Gordon v. State (Idaho 1985), 697 P.2d 1192, 1193). Reasonable regulations include Montana's requirements for vehicle registration, insurance, and mandatory seatbelt usage. "[This] . . . privilege . . . [of operating a motor vehicle on public roads] may be revoked for noncompliance [with statutory regulations]. . . ." Skurdal, 767 P.2d at 307.

[5] The statutes that Folda violated "[a]re regulatory in nature and no person in the state is exempt from [regulatory statutes]. . . ." City of Whitefish v. Hansen (1989), 237 Mont. 105, 107, 771 P.2d 976, 977. Persons are not exempt from regulatory statutes, even if they claim they are "free" men who are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens and do not have to obey state or federal law.

City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981 ("Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right; it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures.") The Constitution permits a state to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on its roads. See, e.g., Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959); South Carolina State Highway Dep't v. Barnwell Bros., Inc., 303 U.S. 177 (1938); Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610 (“In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles -- those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And, to this end, it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horsepower of the engines -- a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens, and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the state's action is always subject to inquiry insofar as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress.") Note that it was the dissenting judge in the case of Escobedo v. State of California, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950) that wrote, “Since his right to operate an automobile on the public highway is essential to his livelihood, I am constrained to hold that he has been deprived of property without due process of law, and the statute here involved is unconstitutional." By contrast, the majority ruling in the Escobedo case was, “Fundamentally it must be recognized that in this country 'Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have ... the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner, and subject to proper regulations as to the manner of use.' (13 Cal.Jur. 371, § 59.) 'The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen, subject to legislative control or such reasonable regulations as to the traffic thereon or the manner of using them as the legislature may deem wise or proper to adopt and impose.' (19 Cal.Jur. 54, § 407.) 'Streets and highways are established and maintained primarily for purposes of travel and transportation by the public, and uses incidental thereto. Such travel may be for either business or pleasure ... The use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and [35 Cal.2d 876] individuals cannot rightfully be deprived ... [A]ll persons have an equal right to use them for purposes of travel by proper means, and with due regard for the corresponding rights of others.' (25 Am.Jur. 456-457, § 163; see, also, 40 C.J.S. 244-247, § 233.)
Notwithstanding such general principles characterizing the primary right of the individual, it is equally well established (as is recognized in the texts above cited) that usage of the highways is subject to reasonable regulation for the public good. In this connection, the constitutionality of various types of financial responsibility laws has been often upheld against contentions that they violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 'The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its constant dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.' (Reitz v. Mealey (1941), 314 U.S. 33, 36 [62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21, 24]; see, also, State v. Price (1937), 49 Ariz. 19, 26 [63 P.2d 653, 108 A.L.R. 1156]; Surtman v. Secretary of State (1944), 309 Mich. 270 [15 N.W.2d 471, 474].)" Bell v. Burson (1971), 402 U.S. 535, 539, "If the statute barred the issuance of licenses to all motorists who did not carry liability insurance or who did not post security, the statute would not, under our cases, violate the Fourteenth Amendment." Berberian v. Petit (RI 1977) 374 A2d 791, "The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state law; it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and nothing in that document or in our state constitution has even the slightest appearance or an implicit guarantee of that right. The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel ... is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right."
Nowlin v DMV (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1535-36, “In Penner v. King (Mo. 1985) 695 S.W.2d 887, plaintiffs refused to disclose their SSN's in applying for their drivers' licenses because they alleged the disclosure violated federal statutes, infringed upon their constitutional right of privacy, and infringed upon their religious freedom. (Id., at p. 888.) The court upheld the SSN requirement on the basis that the SSN is an important means of identification and method of avoiding fraud, as well as integral in locating interstate driving records. (Id., at p. 890.) Therefore, the court held, the regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest and justified infringement on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. The court found that the state's right to maintain an accurate roster of those authorized to operate motor vehicles justified any privacy intrusion imposed on the plaintiffs. (Id., at p. 891.) The court also relied on 42 United States Code section 405(c)(2)(C) to hold that the state statute requiring SSN's was valid. (695 S.W.2d at p. 892.) In State v. Loudon (Tenn.Crim.App. 1993) 857 S.W.2d 878, the court expressly followed Penner v. King, supra, 695 S.W.2d 887 in holding that the Tennessee statute requiring applicants for new or renewal drivers' licenses to furnish his or her SSN was constitutional. (857 S.W.2d at p. 882.)… We conclude that the DMV may properly require applicants for new and renewal drivers' licenses to obtain and disclose their SSN's to the DMV under sections 12800 and 1653.5, subdivision (f)(1), (2) and (3)." See also, State v. Wilder, Idaho Ct. of Appeals No.28163 (2003); Penner v. King (Mo. 1985) 695 SW2d 887. State v. D.R. Gibson (1985) 108 Ida. 202, 697 P2d 1216 (man was unable to claim that as a "free man" because he had not "accepted" a drivers license that he is exempt from traffic laws).

Safe travels everyone.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Many of you seem to have an amazing faith in Insurance companies to pay.
My experience is that they will try every dodge possible , to avoid paying. The bigger the claim, the more imaginative the excuses!

His insurance company refused to cover him because he was "close" to the limit....

....and then the legal mess began.....Very Ugly!

My point,.....That was in a "civilized" country where you would expect responsibility and the rule of contract law to be clear. But that is how lawyers make their money!

I have more faith in a simple fisherman who bangs into me, to do his best to repair the damages with his own labor and to make amends , (even if only with fish), than corporate "names"

Other examples of Insurance companies folding, just when they are needed is prevalent in the Superyacht Industry.

So who insures the Insurance Companies?

Spot on! In the movie Gorky Park (from the book of the same name) there is a line where Lee Marvin is asked by a Soviet official if he was saying that in America only the rich can get a fair trial. Lee Marvin's character replies 'No. In America attorneys do very well.

The end result is that the average person has little say in what the rules are, and those that can afford to game the system will. It has always been that way and always will. It may not be right, but it is the way it is.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by rabbi

I agree that a mandate requires enforcement. Otherwise it doesn't work.

The reality we live in is just a result of the collective decisions we take. If US government mandated and enforced a minimum liability insurance then the total boating population would be insured. There would be no reason for an insurance against uninsured.
But as there is no enforced mandatory insurace I would insure myself against uninsured boaters in regions frequented by US folks.
I have no problem doing so but this doesn't make it right.

With regard to insurance:
Here in germany (and that is true also at least for Netherlands, France, Spain) liability insurance for boaters is dead cheap.
Even broke folks can afford a 10 mil insurance, mine costs 110 Euro.

So over here insurance does make a difference. I know the US is different but maybe thats because of their legal system.

Hello Rabbi,

You are absolutely correct about the legal system being a major factor. Another factor here in the U.S. is that politicians are more concerned about being reelected than in long term thinking.

Your comments about enforcement and mandates are theoretically correct but often not correct in practice. Most states in the U.S. require liability insurance and the vast majority of those do enforce it. For example, if your auto insurance lapses, the insurance company is required to send a note to the state's motor vehicle department. Despite this, there are still people who drive without insurance.

I must respectfully disagree with your comment about not having a problem with protecting yourself but that doesn't make it right. A person is ultimately the one who is responsible for protecting her or himself. Government's, bureaucracies, agencies, others, etc. MAY be able to assist you or even save you, but ultimately it is you who must be responsible for protecting yourself. History has shown that when things hit the fan, others are very unlikely to be able to offer immediate assistance. This is true in natural disasters, criminal actions, finances, etc.

[hellosailor]

"A person is ultimately the one who is responsible for protecting her or himself."

Precisely. And most Americans are sadly unaware that there are insurance regulations and an "insurance commission" to enforce them, probably in every state.

I had a little disagreement with an insurer. Their rep made me a lowball offer and said "If you don't take it you'll never see a cent". So I called my insurance commission, which is not easy because you can ONLY leave voicemail (they're out at work) and if you're not in when they call back sometime the next day, you can only leave voicemail again. I said yes, here's the situation, here's what the insurer is doing, here's what they said. And the nice man quoted me chapter and verse out of the insurance regulations and said "You just tell them you got that directly from us". Funny thing, the rep's supervisor called me back, agreed to a value literally 4x higher, and asked what I had done to their poor rep, who was literally on the point of tears. I said tears? Gee, she's lucky I didn't have her statement recorded, because otherwise she'd be looking at charges of extortion as well.

Anytime you think there may be a gunfight, you're a fool if you don't take a loaded gun. Preferably loaded for bear.

Yes, weasels can be sent back into their holes. But they don't teach you that in grade school, do they?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"A person is ultimately the one who is responsible for protecting her or himself."

Precisely. And most Americans are sadly unaware that there are insurance regulations and an "insurance commission" to enforce them, probably in every state.

I had a little disagreement with an insurer. Their rep made me a lowball offer and said "If you don't take it you'll never see a cent". So I called my insurance commission, which is not easy because you can ONLY leave voicemail (they're out at work) and if you're not in when they call back sometime the next day, you can only leave voicemail again. I said yes, here's the situation, here's what the insurer is doing, here's what they said. And the nice man quoted me chapter and verse out of the insurance regulations and said "You just tell them you got that directly from us". Funny thing, the rep's supervisor called me back, agreed to a value literally 4x higher, and asked what I had done to their poor rep, who was literally on the point of tears. I said tears? Gee, she's lucky I didn't have her statement recorded, because otherwise she'd be looking at charges of extortion as well.

Anytime you think there may be a gunfight, you're a fool if you don't take a loaded gun. Preferably loaded for bear.

Yes, weasels can be sent back into their holes. But they don't teach you that in grade school, do they?

Completely agree. Like I wrote earlier, insurance companies make money by keeping theirs, not by paying it out. So just like with legal efforts to minimize taxes, companies will do everything they can to not pay out. It’s just good business. This is why contract language is so important. Understand your exact coverage, including any limitations or possible loop holes, and your legal rights. And be prepared to fight for what is right.