Should there be mandatory liability insurance for boats?

[fatherchronica]

There are people like the lawyer in Florida that recently filed a lawsuit for $300,000 in damages against a hotel because the valet gave the his keys to his Ferrari to a conman who went on a joyride. No damage at all to the vehicle, just the worthless lawyers brain. Which, if all but one of the lawyers I have hired in my lifetime are any indication, it was a birth defect anyway.

[Boatyarddog]

In my Marina in WA state, mandatory insurance is required on the slip in which the owner of a vessel primarily moors their vessel.
As there is much less "traffic"on the waterways, as well the waterways are State or Federally managed areas, mandatory insurance is usually not required.
A boater education card is mandatory for boaters with vessels operating an engine above 10 HP. in Washington.
REQUIRING Boaters to hold minimum liability insurance excludes many individuals from boating legally, due to costs associated with insurance.
Unless insurance companies are regulated, mandatory insurance will be out of reach of many.
As well, many boaters that can't afford it, will be out there anyway.
Mandatory Insurance is a win only for Insurance Companies.
My personal opinion is, I insure my own vessel, others could try to, as well.
I don't want to exclude others less able to pay, for those costs.
SV Cloud Duster

[Dave22q]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

In my Marina in WA state, mandatory insurance is required on the slip in which the owner of a vessel primarily moors their vessel.
As there is much less "traffic"on the waterways, as well the waterways are State or Federally managed areas, mandatory insurance is usually not required.
A boater education card is mandatory for boaters with vessels operating an engine above 10 HP. in Washington.
REQUIRING Boaters to hold minimum liability insurance excludes many individuals from boating legally, due to costs associated with insurance.
Unless insurance companies are regulated, mandatory insurance will be out of reach of many.
As well, many boaters that can't afford it, will be out there anyway.
Mandatory Insurance is a win only for Insurance Companies.
My personal opinion is, I insure my own vessel, others could try to, as well.
I don't want to exclude others less able to pay, for those costs.
SV Cloud Duster

if u can insure your car and have nothing left to insure the boat? Sell it! I don't want you near me!

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Since this discussion started over the USCG having to remove wrecks caused by last year's hurricanes, I am wondering why boaters should be treated any differently by the government than any other victim of these hurricanes. Does the government track down all the home owners whose houses were destroyed and charge them for debris removal or require them to have liability insurance for removing their roof from the mangroves or the harbor or the local forest? How about removing their cars from the trees or streams? I don't think so. These things are just part of the disaster cleanup and rebuild. So these boats ended up on the beach somewhere or on the bottom, how is that different from the roof in the trees. So did these boats end up there because the mooring fail, or the dock broke loose. Did the mooring owner have liability insurance for his failed mooring or the marina owner because his dock failed and took out half the harbor. How about a roof that flew off and took out three down wind houses. Who is responsible for the cleanup of all the debris from those houses. If all of this had to be litigated in court the courts would be tied up for decades trying to apportion blame. In a disaster situation, things are just cleaned up, there is no attempt to determine which scrap of debris was owned by whom and how much they should pay for its removal. Why treat boats any differently?

+1. I should also point out that many policies have a force majeure clause, which may render a liability policy moot.

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by jmschmidt

Agreed. Let's please make this thread even more helpful. Your US umbrella coverage and boat coverage is worthless outside of US territorial waters. I have both, as well and a homeowner's.

My Boat coverage is good in the US and the Bahamas.
Your comment is worthless.

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

My Boat coverage is good in the US and the Bahamas.
Your comment is worthless.

Bahamas is easy to get through just about any insurance agency. It's further off places that are almost impossible unless the stars align properly.

Matt

[CSY Man]

. REQUIRING Boaters to hold minimum liability insurance excludes many individuals from boating legally, due to costs associated with insurance.

Perhaps they should be excluded if they are not responsible enough to get insurance, or too poor to pay for any damage they may cause...?

[Locquatious]

A boat owner should have liability and live up to it. But purchasing insurance should be up to the boat owner as a means of keeping that responsibility.
The yards in the BVI's and USVI's insisted on liability insurance. But no one here is talking liability in the aftermath of a cat 5 hurricane. The insurance companies just pocketed the liability premiums. Nature is the cause and no one is at fault. (Unless you want to start looking at political posturing vis a vis climate change.) Tie down straps just broke. Hurricane stands fared no better than regular stands.

We hear stories of 12 tornados snaking around Medusa like in Nanny Cay harbor. One boat, another house untouched. The next several in ruin.

Deal with your problem. Don't blame others. Live up to your responsibilities. You wanted to own a boat. Quit looking for someone else to pay for your bad luck.

[SURV69]

There are benefits to liability insurance, even for a person who is legally "untouchable".

First ... I have found liability insurance to be very cheap for the piece of mind one gets.

Too, is the piece of mind one gets, that after giving insurance information, one can feel a sense of closure to the situation at hand, similar to when parties exchange insurance information in a car accident, then go their separate ways.
Who knows ... an insurance requirement might well be required in some states ... although I don't know ...

[tomfl]

Back in the 1950s when I started sailing on my Dad's boats no one I knew had insurance and it was unthinkable that a marina would ask for it. It was common to leave Dinner Key in Miami and sail down to Sands Key for the weekend and not see another boat once we reached the Featherbed Flats.

Fast forward to today and it would be a fool's errand to try and count the number of boats one would see on a similar trip. Not to mention that back then it was simple to get dock space around Miami; but how things have changed.

Another consideration is back in the day it was rare to see what today we sometimes call a credit card captain. So today we not only have a lot more peeps on boats but a lot more peeps on boats who probably should not be on boats.

I suspect this accounts for a lot of the reason ideas like mandatory insurance is being discussed. In many places there are simply too many boats and a significant portion of them have captains in name only. I have been in several marinas in Florida and some do require insurance while others do not. But there does seem to be an increase in the number of places where insurance is asked for.

Bottom line is like it or not more and more you will be required to have insurance to get in many places whether the government mandates it or not.

[jbd3dmd]

My marina frequently requests proof of insurance before virtually anything being done or agreeing to dockage, etc. I think liability insurance is not inclusive of dereliction though. Please educate me if I'm wrong about this..

Sent from my SM-N920R6 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[bobfnbw]

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.

Didn't even have to read it all to say "NO THANKS!!"
Guess some of you people haven't had much experience with insurance as I have. It sucks. It's not there to help you but for them to make money on you. Doesn't matter what kind of insurance it is. And basic liability won't cover what the original post was for. Then when you have a claim and find out your insurance was cancelled, and no one will cover you any more.
No thanks. Yeah if your living in the US or Europe I guess your stuck if your in a marina. But what if your not?
It's a tough situation for sure but insurance and legislation is not always the answer.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

REQUIRING Boaters to hold minimum liability insurance excludes many individuals from boating legally, due to costs associated with insurance.
Unless insurance companies are regulated, mandatory insurance will be out of reach of many.
As well, many boaters that can't afford it, will be out there anyway.
Mandatory Insurance is a win only for Insurance Companies.
My personal opinion is, I insure my own vessel, others could try to, as well.
I don't want to exclude others less able to pay, for those costs.
SV Cloud Duster

Anyonoe operating a boat has a liability. If he damages something or hurts someone he has to pay for it. Period. This is something that no serious person can question.

I personally don't care if someone is excluded from boating because he can't afford insurance.
If someone can't afford insurance he is certainly unable to pay for the potential damage. If this person goes boating he is acting completly irrsponsible.

I'm not bothered by the dents someone makes into my boat. Thats just an annoyance.
Im more concerned what happens if an uninsured broke guy drives his dinghy over my head and either kills me or injures me significantly, like being disabled afterwards? Who is going to pay for HIS liability? Me? My insurance?


And what happens if this guy sinks his old ferrocement boat in the middle of the entry of a larger port or right in front of the cruise ship dock? Who pays for this damage? The anonymous tax payer?

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Locquatious

A boat owner should have liability and live up to it. But purchasing insurance should be up to the boat owner as a means of keeping that responsibility.

The problem is that without insurance only millionairs are capable of living up to their liability.
Think of driving over someone with the dinghy.

Originally Posted by Locquatious

The yards in the BVI's and USVI's insisted on liability insurance. But no one here is talking liability in the aftermath of a cat 5 hurricane. The insurance companies just pocketed the liability premiums.

If the salvage compies send an invoice to the boat owner these will e forwarded to the insuance companies.
If this doesn't ahppen in desaster relief effort, so be it.

[SURV69]

In many places, long gone are the days when a person can build a 16'x24' home to legally live in ... regardless of the quality of construction and the protection of the environment. In many places the minimal floor area allowed, even for a single person is thrice the noted size. Issues, such as this is no more than the issue of money and power. The affected value of nearby homes and the power that better funded citizens have to force their will.

It seems the last bastions of rights of living in a "home", an adobe, of choice(in size), exist on water, on the road and in the deep wilderness(sometimes).

Government has taken control to over-regulate the very act of a person being able to live in what he/she determines to be a suitable, but minimal, dwelling ... on land ... soon, maybe on water, on the road and in the wilderness.