Insurance--DIY fixes that your insurance might not like

[CptCrunchie]

Very interesting thread! I have a question. If you were the surveyor, is there times when you see something that - in the best interest of both the insurance company and the boat owner - that you recommend they not insure a boat?

I was recently looking at a sailboat to buy. It's a 52' Pilothouse with all the bells and whistles. Looking through the boat, I saw a number of odd 'quick fixes'. But when I inspected the bow thruster, I was stunned into silence. The first photo is the tube and motor located in the V berth. Directly behind it is the fuse and switching box.

That's a shunt, ...a jumper across the fuse. Since bow thrusters are below the waterline and only meant to run a few seconds at a time, a minute at most, this idiot found a way to extend that time. Unbelievable.

IMHO, anyone who would do this is a danger to themselves, their family and anyone they take onboard. The only redeeming quality of this is that he'd be using it in bay or marina, where jumping overboard from a burning ship is a pretty safe option, then make it to the dock to watch it sink.

[Fore and Aft]

I have never recommended a boat not be insured. I just write an honest report with photos and let the insurance company make their own decision.
Most boat owners are not keen on drowning so they take any recommendations you suggest pretty seriously.
There is the occasional Darwin Award nominee and I am not sure how they go about getting insured? I know of one right now and I actually asked the marina manager if he had sighted the insurance documents. He had, so some how my report was considered good enough for that insurance company.......
Cheers

[john61ct]

It is just a numbers game, up to a point, the bigger the pool lower the risk.

Especially when the fine print does give escape clauses. . .

[transmitterdan]

The 8 ton elephant in the room:

How many of us know or suspect there is insurance fraud going on and sit quietly or maybe speculate in whispers with neighbors at the doc? A boat mysteriously sinks in the slip, or burns right outside the jetty, or or or...

I think outright fraud is a real problem. But it seems the insurers don’t do much about it. Ever wondered why?

Think of the insurance business as the insurance company surely looks at it. The more they pay out the more premium they can charge. Since they get a percentage of the premium as profit the more claims the more the profit. Sure sometimes a natural disaster puts an insurer under but that’s pretty rare.

Now consider a hypothetical insurance company that sticks to their rules and denies claims brought by idiots. What would happen? Well, they might make a little more profit for a while. But 60 Minutes or CNN would start producing stories about the mean old insurance company against grandma or grandpa. And regulators would start forcing them to reduce premiums to “help the consumers”. That insurance company isn’t going to survive either.

Can you think of any other industry that operates with a “cost plus” business model? Who wins? The customer? The company? Hint: Think healthcare....

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Fiveslide

I think if they thoroughly investigated some claims, those that are caused by shoddy DIY work would absolutely be denied. Beyond finding obvious fraud, like cutting a raw water hose with a knife causing a sinking, your average insurance investigator doesn't have enough knowledge of boats to make a determination that it should be denied. Then then there would be the court proceedings and it quickly becomes extremely expensive for both owner and insurance company to determine if a claim is paid.

If the surveyor doesn't mention it in a purchase or subsequent survey, the insurance company would be very hard pressed to prove wrong after a sinking or fire.

If boatpoker starts investigating sinkings or fires and such, boat owner's would never get a check from an insurance company again.[emoji44]

Policies terms differ a lot in marine insurance. If you have a policy that covers consequential damage then if you failed to maintain a seacock and it caused the boat to sink, then you may not get covered for the cost of the seacock but the other damage to the boat, consequential, should be covered. Nothing is clear cut when it comes to these coverage contracts.

[GrowleyMonster]

I look at insurance as a gamble. When taking out a policy I am placing a bet that my boat or car or home or whatever will meet with catastrophic damage or loss. Betting against myself, in other words. I can change the chances of the bad stuff happening, and thereby reduce the likelyhood of my bet against myself paying off, which of course makes the bet less attractive in the first place. I can change the chances of bad stuff happening and increase the chance of the bet paying off, but then I am still out a boat, car, home, whatever was insured, so (usually) no actual gain. What other form of gambling has essentially zero chance of the payout exceeding the bet? Who DOES win? Only the insurance company. And any vendor or service provider making money off the insurance company's requirements for coverage.


For the total ignoramus, insurance is a good thing. It forces the insured or wannabe insured to take certain steps to increase safety. For a truly safety conscious and knowledgeable boat owner insurance mostly only offers a benefit in the case of a stupid or careless boater causing a calamity that the conscientious boater has no way of preventing. Or possibly an act of nature that cannot be forseen and avoided. For instance, a volcano suddenly sprouting up in the middle of Orleans Marina, spewing gigatons of molten lava all over boats. Or an earthquake sending a 30 foot tsunami into the same harbor. I don't count hurricanes since the boat is movable and storm tracks are usually more or less somewhat predictable. In other words, a very rare occurence indeed.



The above of course may be regarded as my opinion, and we don't have to meet under the oaks at dawn just because you don't agree.

[Paul L]

GM
You can view insurance as a gamble and then decide how you play the odds. I look at it as paying someone else to share a part of the risk that I don't want to shoulder. Insurance is a pool of people who essentially agree to take on the risk of loss. Within the pool only a few of the people will suffer the loss.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by john61ct

... EFF scores a huge appeals court victory: the law cannot be copyrighted
https://boingboing.net/2018/10/24/fr...ead-write.html....

That is brilliant, unless I'm missing something.

[zboss]

This is why you get surveys. You get your survey and fix the items the insurance company asks you to.... that’s it.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

For a truly safety conscious and knowledgeable boat owner insurance mostly only offers a benefit in the case of a stupid or careless boater causing a calamity that the conscientious boater has no way of preventing. .

And this is why our boat is insured. There are some real bozos out there. I've seen enough of them. And you can bet the one who writes your boat off will be uninsured.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Not relavent to my point. It is business decision as to how to control the specs. I've worked on industry specs and gone to meetings overseas at considerable personal expense and certainly didn't get paid anything for my work. But did get to see a spec that had practical considerations as a priority.

I don't see how it is not relevant. Am I to understand that you think you should receive these for free ? Who do you think should pay for all the testing done to come up with these standards ?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The 8 ton elephant in the room:


Think of the insurance business as the insurance company surely looks at it. The more they pay out the more premium they can charge. Since they get a percentage of the premium as profit the more claims the more the profit. ..

I'm sorry, but this is completely demented.

If an insurance company recieved NO claims, then the premiums paid are 100% profit.

Insurance companies don't like paying claims.

[dfelsent]

Yes but there are sure to be appeals up to the Supreme Court. That particular case as I recall was about published interpretations of the Georgia code as opposed to incorporated standards. Related but not identical.
That being said building codes that incorporate private standards that must be paid for are still secret law and are unfair. Vested interests including the standards bodies and their members benefit and the public pays.

I have designed lots of equipment that has had to comply with standards. I have no issue with that.
I have paid for copies of those and third party inspections and approvals.

ABYC however is not part of law, just best practices and insurance and other private business terms. Buy a copy, find a copy, or pay for qualified advice if you need it.
I have sat on standards committees. I have benefited from the existence of standards. We all have benefitted from standards.
It’s a really mixed bag.
As a boat owner I want to read about best practices. I want to follow them. I don’t want to spend hundreds of dollars for a copy. And the ABYC is following the path of many orgs by tightening up access to standards and certifications in a protectionist way.

My opinion is that if someone wants me or requires me to follow a standard it should be available to me as part of the requirement to follow it. Not an additional hidden cost.

Can you tell I’m a bit conflicted on and interested in this?

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by dfelsent

My opinion is that if someone wants me or requires me to follow a standard it should be available to me as part of the requirement to follow it. Not an additional hidden cost.

That's just it .... You are not required to follow ABYC if you choose not to.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I don't see how it is not relevant. Am I to understand that you think you should receive these for free ? Who do you think should pay for all the testing done to come up with these standards ?

I'll try one more time then lets just say we look at business differently. It is purely a business marketing decision whether to keep the specs proprietary or make them publically available. A business has numerous revenue streams, including a business that is listed as a non-profit. You can charge for the full cost of developing and maintaining the specs plus overhead on each page of the document. You could charge a fixed, smaller amount to get some revenue while getting other income from certification, membership, tradeshows, etc. You could publish the specs freely and gather revenue from the other sources. Simply a business marketing decision.

Think charging for each use of Facebook versus Facebook is free to users and advertisers pay. Just a business decision.