Left hanging by Pantaenius

[TrentePieds]

Why do people not understand that the insurance industry is merely a fancy betting shop - "Turf Accountant" to use the UK term?

You go to an insurance agent and offer to bet, the agent looks for someone, an "underwriter", who will take your bet on the terms you offer. That someone sez "You are on" or "Hop it, Mate!" as he lists. There is no legal obligation on an underwriter to take your bet, and you have no right in law to have your bet taken.

So where is the beef?

One would think that in a world so enamoured of "free ennerprize" such fundamental things would be thoroughly understood.

It's the offeror's job to make the offer attractive to the offeree

TrentePieds

[NorthCoastJoe]

In the past ( 30+ years ago ) I used my sisters address as my address for everything. She got my mail there and it was never a problem.

Do you have someone that you could do the same with in a desired country?

[chrisr]

we find that insurers are quite happy to accept "constantly cruising" as an alternative to "living aboard"

thinking it means something different is a bit of a mind slip, but munich re are happy with it

we then use the address of a rental property we own as our address

cheers,

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Sailor Sailor

You should not misrepresent the facts of your situation in an insurance application. An insurer can deny coverage for fraud. Insurance companies now pull credit on prospective customers. A credit report shows your reported addresses and employments. With satellite or Google street photos, any address can be investigated to determine if it is legitimate. Sometimes, the investigation only begins with the reporting of a claim. Earlier on, if an underwriter discovers you are lying, you would likely be denied coverage on that basis. Even if you get a policy, how would you like to pay high premiums for an extended period of time only to discover that you actually have no coverage when you report a claim?

Insurers may reject liveaboards for good reasons as a greater risk they are not willing to cover. You should shop around and find one that will insure you on the actual facts, not misrepresentations. “Residence” has a particular legal meaning. It is more than just a chosen mailing address for the sake of convenience.

I have read the real problem for insurers these days are due to several related factors: (1) relatively inexperienced boaters (2) buying large, expensive craft, and (3) using financing. No one seems to want to admit to that while they complain about the unavailability of insurance. Global warming and more unsettled, unpredictable weather seems to be causing more catastrophic losses as well.

One's permanent residence as defined legally by the country of residency is of keen importance as to which jurisdiction of law will apply.

With regard to insureds suing their insurance companies for denial of coverage, establishing a court’s personal jurisdiction over the insurance company is accomplished by showing either (1) general personal jurisdiction or (2) specific personal jurisdiction.

Never misrepresent, inaccurately or not fully disclose all the relevant facts of your situation as doing such can lead to nullification in ab initio of the policy or a cancellation of the policy.

A true nomad / person without a country will be exceptionally difficult to have any underwriting of risks. There should be no expectation that insurance can be provided.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Montanan

One's permanent residence as defined legally by the country of residency is of keen importance as to which jurisdiction of law will apply.

Never misrepresent, inaccurately or not fully disclose all the relevant facts of your situation as doing such can lead to nullification in ab initio of the policy or a cancellation of the policy.

A true nomad / person without a country will be exceptionally difficult to have any underwriting of risks. There should be no expectation that insurance can be provided.

i believe that is only partially correct

for marine insurance it is the flag of the vessel that determines which law applies - not the domicile of the owner

(and in passing : a person without a country will be without a passport and lack of insurance would be the least of their problems !)

cheers,

[Montanan]

FYI, as to USA law regarding yacht insurance:

https://www.propertyinsurancecoverag...and%20disputes.


Snipet:

"Marine insurance policies are often thought of as being under admiralty law, but is it? It is important for the policyholder to analyze which law is applicable in order to properly evaluate coverage.
Marine insurance policies along with vessel service contracts, are maritime contracts within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts.1 From this statement, it may be reasonable to think that maritime law would then apply when interpreting these types of contracts and disputes. Nevertheless, this is not the case.

Prior to a Supreme Court landmark decision,2 maritime law was the controlling law with a very a limited exception for state law. That changed when the Court reversed it’s ruling by holding that state law should govern the interpretation of marine insurance contracts except in areas where federal maritime precedent to the contrary is firmly entrenched. In its decision, the Court paid deference to the States’ paramount interest in regulating insurance.
This holding allows the federal district courts to apply substantive state law to the issues before them. Of course, there have been a split of decisions among circuits. The Eleventh Circuit stated that:

When neither statutory nor judicially created maritime principals provide an answer to a specific legal question, courts may apply state law, provided that the application of state law does not frustrate national interests in having uniformity in admiralty law.

In the same case, the appellate court also reversed a district court’s denial of attorney fees where the insured alleged breach of contract and demanded attorney fees pursuant to a Florida Statue. The court stated that since there was no controlling rule entrenched in maritime law regarding the award of attorney fees and since the controlling Florida statue was substantive for the purposes of Erie, an award of fees may be had pursuant to state law.

Prior to this decision, the 11th Circuit also upheld a Florida Statue which granted third-party beneficiaries a direct action against a maritime insurer.4 The court affirmed:

Federal admiralty law confers no general right to sue an insurance company directly, nor does it contain any specific bar against such action. A state may, however, create a direct action against a maritime insurer, at least where the state action is not in conflict with any feature of substantive admiralty law or any remedy peculiar to admiralty jurisdiction.

One must identify the state law involved and determine whether there is a principle which state law conflicts, and if there is no such admiralty principle, consideration must be given to whether such an admiralty rule should be fashioned. If none is to be fashioned, the state rule should follow. If there is an admiralty-state law conflict, the comparative interests must be considered. They may be such that admiralty shall prevail, or if the policy underlying the admiralty rule is not strong and the effect on admiralty is minimal, the state law may be given effect.

In summary, the court elaborated that since no admiralty principle existed that conflicted with Florida state law, the court had the option to create an admiralty rule to cover the matter in issue. The court declined to do so, and in doing so, allowed the Florida statue to govern noting the importance of state interest in the regulation of insurance.

Courts have agreed that the regulation of marine insurance contracts should be left to the states and decided on the basis of state law unless there exists a judicially established admiralty rule governing the question.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Montanan

FYI, as to USA law regarding yacht insurance:

https://www.propertyinsurancecoverag...and%20disputes.


Snipet:

"Marine insurance policies are often thought of as being under admiralty law, but is it? It is important for the policyholder to analyze which law is applicable in order to properly evaluate coverage.
Marine insurance policies along with vessel service contracts, are maritime contracts within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts.1 From this statement, it may be reasonable to think that maritime law would then apply when interpreting these types of contracts and disputes. Nevertheless, this is not the case.

Prior to a Supreme Court landmark decision,2 maritime law was the controlling law with a very a limited exception for state law. That changed when the Court reversed it’s ruling by holding that state law should govern the interpretation of marine insurance contracts except in areas where federal maritime precedent to the contrary is firmly entrenched. In its decision, the Court paid deference to the States’ paramount interest in regulating insurance.
This holding allows the federal district courts to apply substantive state law to the issues before them. Of course, there have been a split of decisions among circuits. The Eleventh Circuit stated that:

When neither statutory nor judicially created maritime principals provide an answer to a specific legal question, courts may apply state law, provided that the application of state law does not frustrate national interests in having uniformity in admiralty law.

In the same case, the appellate court also reversed a district court’s denial of attorney fees where the insured alleged breach of contract and demanded attorney fees pursuant to a Florida Statue. The court stated that since there was no controlling rule entrenched in maritime law regarding the award of attorney fees and since the controlling Florida statue was substantive for the purposes of Erie, an award of fees may be had pursuant to state law.

Prior to this decision, the 11th Circuit also upheld a Florida Statue which granted third-party beneficiaries a direct action against a maritime insurer.4 The court affirmed:

Federal admiralty law confers no general right to sue an insurance company directly, nor does it contain any specific bar against such action. A state may, however, create a direct action against a maritime insurer, at least where the state action is not in conflict with any feature of substantive admiralty law or any remedy peculiar to admiralty jurisdiction.

One must identify the state law involved and determine whether there is a principle which state law conflicts, and if there is no such admiralty principle, consideration must be given to whether such an admiralty rule should be fashioned. If none is to be fashioned, the state rule should follow. If there is an admiralty-state law conflict, the comparative interests must be considered. They may be such that admiralty shall prevail, or if the policy underlying the admiralty rule is not strong and the effect on admiralty is minimal, the state law may be given effect.

In summary, the court elaborated that since no admiralty principle existed that conflicted with Florida state law, the court had the option to create an admiralty rule to cover the matter in issue. The court declined to do so, and in doing so, allowed the Florida statue to govern noting the importance of state interest in the regulation of insurance.

Courts have agreed that the regulation of marine insurance contracts should be left to the states and decided on the basis of state law unless there exists a judicially established admiralty rule governing the question.

thanks

that may be the case in the US, but i don't see the relevance here

the OP said ;

1. Me, EU citizen, with a boat in the med
2. UK registered part 1
3. Not a permanent address (we are currently living aboard)

cheers,

[Montanan]

Relevance = Jurisdiction

Insurance policy is a contract, contract law is based on the place of legal jurisdiction to which maritime law also applies as to establishment of liability but not as to governance of performance of the insurance contract.

If one does not have a residence then it becomes difficult to determine which court has jurisdiction to the establishment and interpretation of the contract.

Same issue for all countries and subjurisdictions within a country

[SailingHarmonie]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Relevance = Jurisdiction

Insurance policy is a contract, contract law is based on the place of legal jurisdiction to which maritime law also applies as to establishment of liability but not as to governance of performance of the insurance contract.

If one does not have a residence then it becomes difficult to determine which court has jurisdiction to the establishment and interpretation of the contract.

Same issue for all countries and subjurisdictions within a country

In the USA (sorry OP) the answer for these kinds of things in Marine Insurance has for a long time had nothing to do with the residence of the insured. Rather the jurisdiction with the laws applied and the court with authority in any dispute was always specified in the contract, which everybody signed and agreed to. Look at your policy, it's in there, I promise.

There is actually a case coming up before the US Supreme Court that is challenging this. The boat was damaged in Florida, and the boat's owner lives in Pennsylvania. The policy states that New York is the state with the law that applies. The boat owner feels he will get a better deal if the laws of PA are applied.

We all better hope that the court throws this nonsense out. Having a policy holder able to "venue-shop" the rules that apply to their policy after making a claim, will be a disaster. If insurance companies can not have a known and predictable set of rules governing the policies they write, even more underwriters will bail on the marine market, at least in the short term, until that stupidity settles down.

[CarlF]

Originally Posted by SailingHarmonie

In the USA (sorry OP) the answer for these kinds of things in Marine Insurance has for a long time had nothing to do with the residence of the insured. Rather the jurisdiction with the laws applied and the court with authority in any dispute was always specified in the contract, which everybody signed and agreed to. Look at your policy, it's in there, I promise.

There is actually a case coming up before the US Supreme Court that is challenging this. The boat was damaged in Florida, and the boat's owner lives in Pennsylvania. The policy states that New York is the state with the law that applies. The boat owner feels he will get a better deal if the laws of PA are applied.

We all better hope that the court throws this nonsense out. Having a policy holder able to "venue-shop" the rules that apply to their policy after making a claim, will be a disaster. If insurance companies can not have a known and predictable set of rules governing the policies they write, even more underwriters will bail on the marine market, at least in the short term, until that stupidity settles down.

The “venue shopper” in this case is the insurance company. They want to use New York because NY state law allows them to deny a claim for a reason unrelated to the accident. For example, denying a grounding claim because the fire extinguishers were not inspected annually. Even if no fire occurred. It’s claimed that this “gotcha” clause has been used to deny $1 billion of claims in the US.

Many US insurance companies (including mine) use NY in all policies for this reason. Another example of the US yacht insurance industry’s underhanded practices to end run state consumer protection laws.

You folks in the EU have a much better insurance situation.

https://loosecannon.substack.com/p/s...boat-insurance

[Killy]

Hi There , Exactly the same as my situation all be it i have an address in Austria. Now insured with Pantaenius Austria -Germany ! I don't think we can blame the insurance offices but the idiots who brought on Brexit !!

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Precisely.

It is not fraud to use your address that is on every single document, your passport, all forms of ID, every single account and your credit report and everywhere all over the place while you are away on your boat. Ridiculous posts.

By the logic in this thread, anyone traveling on their boat does not have an address to use. Therefore you don’t qualify for a bank account, you don’t qualify for insurance, you don’t qualify for a driver’s license. You might as well just tie the anchor around your neck and throw it overboard. At least according to you guys.

So tell me. How do you get a bank account then? You are going to tell your bank that you are off on a boat and you have no address? Do you think that’s going to work? Or are you all committing bank fraud right now? Same thing.

Or are none of you actually doing anything and just staying home?

That is some pretty bad and completely incorrect advice you are giving to people who are actually traveling

The problem Chotu is when you give an address as your residence but you do not, or have never, lived there (or at least not for many moons).

I, like you, have a permanent address which is used for bank accounts and every other document where I am asked to list an address. But is not a house, it is a mailbox company, and of course I have never lived there. Nor have any of the other 2000+ persons who list that as their address.

But technology is a noose drawing tighter. For a variety of reasons, including security, agencies want to know where you live. They use address verification companies and they can easily see that the small building at my address is not a house or apartment building. They are not interested in my truthful answer, "I live on my boat, it moves, I am now in Mexico."

"You must list your actual residential address, where you live."

This has caused me trouble with voting registration, driver's license, and car registration as well as banking accounts. A helpful agent at Washington Dept of Licensing asked me, "Where do you keep your boat when not travelling?" I answered, "It was in Shilshole Marina". He said, "Use that address." Which I now do whenever a place of residence is required. This passes the "Giggle test" but they could easily check with the marina and see if I am listed as a tenant.

I have no problem with my Liability Only Boat Insurance or full coverage car insurance, they both understand my life style and address situation, no fraud is happening there.

Many people in our situation use the address of a relative, (son, daughter, brother, etc) who lives in a house, receives and forwards their mail and allows it to be listed as their residence. What happens when they move or die? I am old, all of my relatives are also old, (or the young ones are not responsible enough to deal with their own issues let alone mine) so I have decided to keep my status and address the same now as I have for 40 years.

But I feel vulnerable. I feel that one day I will get notice that this jig is up, and I may be powerless to do anything to correct that.

My banking situation is one of those which cause me to worry, With the passing of my wife I am now down to one account with two cards at a single bank. If, for some reason, such as an address issue, they block my access I'm screwed. Other banks have not been very interested in giving me an account. I feel I am living on the edge of a disaster (one of many) and it gives me stress.

[Bloodhound]

Country of Residence is usually defined as the country in which one spends 183 or more days per year. We spend 5 months in Canada, 3 months in the USA, and 4 months in Australia. We pay property tax in all three countries and income tax in the USA where my salary is paid. What's my country of residence? Or do even have one?

[MHTinkler]

I could be wrong, but, anyone who uses a mail forwarding company gives the company's mailing address as their own. The company then tracks your whereabouts and forwards your mail wherever you want. My daughter serves as my mail forwarder and when I am not on my boat, I live at my daughter's home. I don't own her house, but her address is my permanent residential address.
Just because you are not there, like me, you are on an extended vacation. The insurance company just wants a place where you live, be it a Marina, a campground, or a house.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Bloodhound

Country of Residence is usually defined as the country in which one spends 183 or more days per year. We spend 5 months in Canada, 3 months in the USA, and 4 months in Australia. We pay property tax in all three countries and income tax in the USA where my salary is paid. What's my country of residence? Or do even have one?

Good question.

I think the answer will fall under the laws of a given country. My guess is that one's passport will come into play, even though that defines citizenship not residency, along with where one votes, has a drivers license, and bank.

It seems that in some countries, and the US seems to be heading the same way or already is, one must have a resident address to open a bank account.

Then there will be people like you who move around to avoid the 183 day rule. We have spent quite a bit of time discussing some travel ideas where where this would be an issue. Not really sure of the answer.

Later,
Dan