Should there be mandatory liability insurance for boats?

[surf_sail]

I also have a dissenting view from the majority on CF. It's funny that everyone thinks we should have mandatory liability insurance to protect other people's boats. My view is that if you're so concerned about someone hitting your boat get your own hull insurance. The other party having liability insurance won't protect your boat anyways in many cases (e.g. a "hit and run" while you're onshore.

Mike raises a good point. Everyone thinks you should pay your own way, hence have liability insurance. So how much should you have? Sorry but 300k doesn't cut it. All it takes to rack up millions of liability is someone to trip on your messy dock lines and break their necks. Or a guest tripping after a sundowner on your boat. So sorry. You're never fully covered anyways.

In regards to the cost to taxpayers of the coast guard cleanup, here is my view:

First, the cost of the cleanup is mostly a fixed cost anyways. Taxpayers will pay for the cost of personnel and equipment if they are used or not. So I salute the CG for stepping in here and doing a public service after a disaster. That's what I pay taxes for.

Second, if you're so worried about wasted taxpayer dollars let's focus on much bigger fish. Starting with FEMA costs for all the Florida houses built on a floodplain. Cleaning up hurricane boats isn't even a drop in the bucket in comparison.

It's a risky world. Don't like it? Buy a bubble and stay at home.

My 2 cents....

[Montanan]

An addition to my most recent follow on.

Further policy:

Require proof of fully paid insurance of vessel or vehicle before allowing for title transfer and registration to another owner so as to retain the liability exposure on to the owner before releasing both title and assumption of future liability to the newly registered title holder.

The point being to remove loopholes and lapses in coverage so that third parties are protected, including the public such as is the issue with the US Coast Guard picking up the tab for recovery, removal, and disposal of the sunken, abandoned and beached boats.

Yes, I can be a hard ass at times, but if you can afford a boat you should be able to afford comprehensive third party liability insurance.

As Mike OReilly has indicated third party liability coverage is relatively cheap.

It is rather rare that one causes the loss of an entire marina, but it is easy to destroy a much more expensive yacht or two, albeit we don't have any megayachts in Montana.

Now whether you decide to obtain replacement and repair insurance for your own vessel or vehicle, well that is your gamble to decide upon and to take the burden of loss to, albeit if the vessel or vehicle has a lien holder they probably will demand such coverage, at least up to the balance due.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Okay, as a follow up to my original posting, I will float a public policy proposal about sunken wrecks, [pun intended] and comprehensive general liability insurance.

This could apply to automobiles as well, similar issues of concern and avoidance.

Require proof of fully paid, and non-cancellable insurance except allowing for cancellation upon proof of title transfer or disposal, with mandated reasonable minimums and a listing of comprehensive exposure coverage, e.g, property damage and personal injury [to third party], wreck removal / disposal, environmental damage, on an annual basis before issuance or reissuance of vessel [vehicle] registration, or before allowance of entry to country / port. A national / international insurance data base to ease confirmation of insurance by regulators and to avoid fraudulent submissions of proof of insurance.

Provide for confiscation and impoundment of a vessel [or similarly of a vehicle] if not properly registered [which registration is dependent of issued insurance]. Provide for payment of heavy fines for first offense before release of vessel or vehicle from impoundment which release requires proof of fully paid, non-cancellable insurance.

Provide for confiscation / impoundment and subsequent loss of ownership to vessel or vehicle for second offense and loss of further right to ownership / registration of a vessel or vehicle, and a heavier fine and payment of cost of confiscation, impoundment, disposal, court costs, etc.. Loss of any proceeds of sale of confiscated vessel or vehicle, including no payment of proceeds to lenders that may have financed said vessel or vehicle, this way the lien holder will be financially motivated to be sure the vessel or vehicle is appropriately insured and registered and said lein holder will likely include the cost of payment of insurance and registration into their financing payment schedule, similar to how many mortgages are covered as to property insurance and property taxes.

Fine any vessel operator or vehicle operator who operates a vehicle that is not properly insured and registered. Suspend or revoke the license of any said operator offender, and / or revoke their privilege to own a vessel or vehicle. Yes, I am all for requiring licenses of boat operators as there are too many operators that have no training, experience, know-how or who lack responsibility and are dangerous to themselves, their passengers and to other navigators, but then that is another subject all together and would be subject for a different thread, likely there have been many such on that debatable topic.

Provide for policy holders to be able to obtain separate insurance premium financing so as to allow for installment payments, which involves having adequate credit to be able to obtain such "premium financing" but which financing company makes payment in full to the insurance underwriter such that the policy is in place for the duration of the vessel's / vehicle's registration period. This is commonly done.

For repeat offenders, make them chose between:

Keel hauling.
Tied to anchor in deep water.
Brig time with hard labor e.g. defouling hulls, cleaning heads, shoreline [roadside] litter clean up. Hard tack and water.

Feel free to add your own suggestions to the above policy ideas. Just try to be bi-partisan and respectful, that is to say, constructive.

Brussels is calling you.

[deblen]

The problem of personal losses due to un-insured drivers was solved back in the 60's by the introduction of mandatory No Fault insurance.
In most,if not all,Canadian provinces,you cannot renew your annual vehicle registration(plates,tags,whatever) without proof of current liability insurance.
The minimum amount & requirements of liability coverage are mandated by govt. regulation,so that insurance co.s can't screw you.
If you cancel your insurance,your Ins.Co. is reqd. by law to notify DMV.
But the best part of No Fault insurance,if you are struck or injured by an un-insured or hit & run or unknown perp.,your Ins.Co. pays for your damages.
Then,their herd of lawyers go after the perp. at no cost to you.!

Our Ins.co.s ,including Allstate,State Farm,-which are US based-as well as our Cdn. based Ins co.s,went right along with it,with no appreciable rate increases that I recall. The govt. spoke for the market.

No reason this No Fault system can't be govt. mandated for pleasure boats.
But,if you can stand the $$$ cost of someone smashing you,plus the legal cost of hunting them down,I guess you wouldn't want to be "forced" to buy liability ins.
You must be thrilled that the USCG is cleaning up P.R. at US taxpayer expense. I believe that the govt. paying the bill is called Socialism

Len

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Montanan

...As Mike OReilly has indicated third party liability coverage is relatively cheap.

Yes, it’s cheap — because it’s rarely needed. I appreciate your thoughts on this Montanan, but in some ways yours is a solution is search of a problem.

If we want to be unbiased on this, the first thing to do is look at accident rates for boating. Despite all the scary headlines, the data shows that boating in general is very safe. This safety factor is further magnified when considering only larger, cruising sized boats. The vast, vast majority of accidents involve small open boats, and personal watercraft.

I do think liability is worth it, but mainly b/c it is so cheap. And I wish liability-only policies were easier to find and purchase.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Montanan

........

Yes, I can be a hard ass funny at times, ..........

There, I fixed for ya.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

I also have a dissenting view from the majority on CF. It's funny that everyone thinks we should have mandatory liability insurance to protect other people's boats. My view is that if you're so concerned about someone hitting your boat get your own hull insurance. The other party having liability insurance won't protect your boat anyways in many cases (e.g. a "hit and run" while you're onshore.

Mike raises a good point. Everyone thinks you should pay your own way, hence have liability insurance. So how much should you have? Sorry but 300k doesn't cut it. All it takes to rack up millions of liability is someone to trip on your messy dock lines and break their necks. Or a guest tripping after a sundowner on your boat. So sorry. You're never fully covered anyways.

In regards to the cost to taxpayers of the coast guard cleanup, here is my view:

First, the cost of the cleanup is mostly a fixed cost anyways. Taxpayers will pay for the cost of personnel and equipment if they are used or not. So I salute the CG for stepping in here and doing a public service after a disaster. That's what I pay taxes for.

Second, if you're so worried about wasted taxpayer dollars let's focus on much bigger fish. Starting with FEMA costs for all the Florida houses built on a floodplain. Cleaning up hurricane boats isn't even a drop in the bucket in comparison.

It's a risky world. Don't like it? Buy a bubble and stay at home.

My 2 cents....

Please note that the extensive and ongoing costs of clean up are not fixed because this extraordinary disaster recovery effort is being performed by private contractors who have heavy lift cranes on barges and dive crews and which contractual activities under the guidance and command of the U.S. Coast Guard. The transport of the destroyed hulls to the US mainland is also contracted as is the final disposal upon arrival in the USA. The Coast Guard is not doing the recovery, just overseeing such. These are costs above and beyond, just like all the extra linepersons who are restoring the electrical grid and the replacement equipment [poles, line, transformers, etc.] All at great tax payer expense which should be the liability of the boat owners who are evading responsibility.

Wreck removal and environmental remediation are liabilities that boat owners should be held responsible for and which are often public burdens which could be readily covered by appropriate mandated insurance.

Reference the New York times article linked below for details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/u...nes-boats.html

[boatman61]

Third Party Liability plus Accident and Illness coverage for crew.. £225/annum with Pantaenius UK for a 39ft steel boat.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Please note that the extensive and ongoing costs of clean up are not fixed because this extraordinary disaster recovery effort is being performed by private contractors who have heavy lift cranes on barges and dive crews and which contractual activities under the guidance and command of the U.S. Coast Guard. The transport of the destroyed hulls to the US mainland is also contracted as is the final disposal upon arrival in the USA. The Coast Guard is not doing the recovery, just overseeing such. These are costs above and beyond, just like all the extra linepersons who are restoring the electrical grid and the replacement equipment [poles, line, transformers, etc.] All at great tax payer expense which should be the liability of the boat owners who are evading responsibility.



Wreck removal and environmental remediation are liabilities that boat owners should be held responsible for and which are often public burdens which could be readily covered by appropriate mandated insurance.



Reference the New York times article linked below for details.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/u...nes-boats.html

Send the owners a bill, I have no problem with that. I've seen a CG video though where they are doing a lot of the work.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Please note that the extensive and ongoing costs of clean up are not fixed because this extraordinary disaster ...

There’s the other point I was going to make. The worst public policies are usually the ones inspired by unusual events. These grab the headlines, and in this age of social media mob action, can take on a life well beyond their basis in reality.

Again, I do think liability insurance is worth it. I wish it was easier to access as a stand-alone service. But I don’t think there is a big problem to be solved, and in the North American context, I suspect it would be nearly impossible to implement without creating huge additional costs.

[atmartin]

I love these insurance threads. It’s as close as most of us get to a values/ethics debate and that’s sorta refreshing.

Unfortunately, I think we mostly break on budgetary lines. Wealthier property-owner types are going to go with the “it’s unethical not to have liability” coverage line, but their position is self-interest because they have more valuable property to protect.

The more anarchic among us know we have less to lose and the premium represents a larger (although frankly still small) portion of our budget, so we argue for responsible seamanship and all that jazz

That’s a bummer cause some guy said an act only counts as moral (or was it “ethical”?) if it’s against your self-interest. So I guess we’re all just a bunch of hedonists

On a serious note, I have tried google about commercial insurance law in the US and get a lot of people who want to sell me policies, but not a lot of info on the law. Anyone here on CF with a small marine charter/fishing business who knows how insurance works in that world?

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

There’s the other point I was going to make. The worst public policies are usually the ones inspired by unusual events. These grab the headlines, and in this age of social media mob action, can take on a life well beyond their basis in reality.



Again, I do think liability insurance is worth it. I wish it was easier to access as a stand-alone service. But I don’t think there is a big problem to be solved, and in the North American context, I suspect it would be nearly impossible to implement without creating huge additional costs.

Completely agree! Especially the last point. Just think of the government administrative costs that would be required.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In regards to the cost to taxpayers of the coast guard cleanup, here is my view:

First, the cost of the cleanup is mostly a fixed cost anyways. Taxpayers will pay for the cost of personnel and equipment if they are used or not. So I salute the CG for stepping in here and doing a public service after a disaster. That's what I pay taxes for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Very astute analysis.

Parceling out individual efforts and trying to impose capitalistic roi or cost benefits makes little sense when it comes to govt services. Like paying for police and firemen if you only get mugged or have a fire. My kids left school ages ago, I still pay taxes. Govts are FOR community efforts that benefit all of us, and you don't get to pick and choose. Gee, maybe those boats were fouling harbors needed for relief efforts. It'd be nice if they could get the power back in PR, too. Those poor forgotten and ignored people. The folks who perpetrated it have no shame.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

. It'd be nice if they could get the power back in PR, too. Those poor forgotten and ignored people. The folks who perpetrated it have no shame.

Thanks Stu.

Completely agree regarding PR power too. We should be mobilizing an army of resources to get that taken care of. American citizens are dying and hospitals are resorting to field medicine. Really unacceptable in the world's richest country. I don't really care whose fault it is either...

[Montanan]

Well here is a link to feel good video of a recovery of a modest sized sail boat for a native live aboard owner at St. John.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100...ast-guard.html

Clearly a large expenditure of resources for recovering the yacht from the rocks and mangroves requiring two days, fifteen people, large barge and crane and likely some significant repairs to be made. But this is his home,sweet home which will be provided to him from such effort. This makes the taxpayer outlays feel a bit less burdensome. This boat owner found out the hard way the limits of his insurance coverage did not include salvage and he was at least fortunate that his boat appears salvageable, many if not most are total losses and the owners of much higher value yachts are avoiding claiming or owning up to the removal and disposal costs.

I was fortunate to be able to provide financial assistance to an aid group before leaving Puerto Rico; so wished I could have included another week to perform personal carpentry assistance before returning to Miami as there are so many homes in need of repair, but alas the aid group stated that there were not materials available to assist in rebuilding and there are many modestly skilled laborers in need of employment, so my money was more valuable then my reconstruction skills.