Merry Christmas from Guardia Civil (Spain)- insurance q

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by geoff3nebel

As an aside and in reply to the French being all over your ass if you fly the red duster - this is not the case in the northern French ports facing the English coast where they welcome British yachties - especially Cherbourg which actively encourages British visitors and offers discounts for members of recognised associations

Dunno about that... been hauled in by French Customs 3 times after passing Ushant on my way up channel delivering boats..
Full search while having to stand on the jetty for hours in the rain.. even had to have an escort to get some sandwiches.

[markxengineerin]

Where a law exists, it is immoral to intend to break that law, and illegal to actually break that law. If you don't agree with a law you may work,within stated boundries, to change it, but while it exists it should be complied with.

I think this is oversimplified: an extreme case- government requiring obviously immoral behavior- plenty of examples in history where the moral thing is to ignore laws. Nazi germany.

A more realistic case: the government requires something stupid, because the law is outdated, and it makes better moral and logical sense to ignore it. I can't think of a good example right now, but surely they exist.

A more realistic case, already alluded to in this thread: a disreputable insurance company sells a low cost policy which is obviously not meant to be used. This is now "legal" by the law, but just as unethical as not having insurance. Or another- a policy looks fine at a glance (by whatever authority first looks at it), but the fine print prevents it from being used (later discovered by lawyers). I also think this is just as bad as not having any insurance in the first place.

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by Farbrook

Perhaps I could ask a question:

Are you insured?

If yes
Then what's the problem: your insurance will pay up (less an excess/deductable which you can ask the uninsured party reimbursement for if you can be bothered).

If no
Then you are in the same position, taking the same risks, as all other uninsured yachtsmen.

My point, if I may repeat what I said before, is that insurance is for your own gain, not someone else's.

This is really a very simple concept.

YOU are responsible for the damage that you cause to other people's property, and the environment.

IF you choose not to, or cannot pay for those damages out of pocket, then get insurance.

There is no 'gain' in insurance. You're having what you lost, restored. And more often than not, you're never fully 'made whole' again. You end up with a repair that either not quite as good structurally or cosmetically as it was prior to the incident. Deductibles and partial payouts force the owner to frequently have to cover gaps out of pocket.

When you force someone to submit claims to their own insurance co. to cover their losses due to someone else's liability, this risks that persons insurance premiums increasing or possibly not getting renewed.

In this case, you are being a potential financial burden to others for your own financial gain.

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by Farbrook

Perhaps I could ask a question:

Are you insured?

If yes
Then what's the problem: your insurance will pay up (less an excess/deductable which you can ask the uninsured party reimbursement for if you can be bothered).

If no
Then you are in the same position, taking the same risks, as all other uninsured yachtsmen.

My point, if I may repeat what I said before, is that insurance is for your own gain, not someone else's.

You seemed to have missed the point entirely. Liability insurance is what is required by law in some countries, NOT Fully Comprehensive insurance.

Boat 1 is insured "liability" and Boat 2 is not.

a. Boat 2 crashes into Boat 1, the owner of Boat 2 becomes liable to pay for the damage to Boat 1. Boat 1's insurance will NOT pay for any repairs.

b. Boat 1 crashes into Boat 2. the insurance cover on Boat 1 will pay for the repairs to Boat 2 but not to Boat 1.

[Farbrook]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

You seemed to have missed the point entirely. Liability insurance is what is required by law in some countries, NOT Fully Comprehensive insurance.

Boat 1 is insured "liability" and Boat 2 is not.

a. Boat 2 crashes into Boat 1, the owner of Boat 2 becomes liable to pay for the damage to Boat 1. Boat 1's insurance will NOT pay for any repairs.

b. Boat 1 crashes into Boat 2. the insurance cover on Boat 1 will pay for the repairs to Boat 2 but not to Boat 1.

1. Boat 1's insurance will NOT pay for any repairs.

If you mean that Boat 1 only carries third party insurance then you are correct. However if Boat 1 is fully insured Boat 1's insurance company will pay for the damage to Boat 1, and will subsequently seek recompense from Boat 2.

My point again: insurance is for your own gain not that of others, using your example...

Boat 1 (if 'liability only') is under-insured so he will face a potential loss (unless he recovers from Boat 2);
Boat 2 is not insured so he will face a loss if Boat 1's insurance company (assuming now that Boat 1 is fully insured) catches up with him.

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by MultiCountryDon

Where a law exists, it is immoral to intend to break that law,

Are you saying there are no immoral laws? There are, and always have been immoral laws. Being financially responsible for the damage you do to another person is not one of them, but even those laws that require it have led to immoral behavior and gain.

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by Farbrook

Boat 2 is not insured so he will face a loss if Boat 2's insurance company catches up with him.

I have seen boats impounded and owners incarcerated by the authorities not just insurance companies chasing hit and run sailors. Thankfully most cruisers take their obligations seriously.

[barnab]

I am glad everyone is required to have insurance - because when you dock near my boat I want to know that if you hit me, your insurance will pay for the damages.


Not having liability insurance means you risk ruining someone else's dream. I don't care if you don't mind loosing your own boat, but if you care so little about fellow sailors, please get another hobby.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by SailingHarmonie

If you boat starts a fire than burns MY boat and 5 others in the marina I am guessing you don’t have the ability to cover those damages out of your pocket, so you are putting that risk on ME.

No it doesn't. It puts the risk on your insurance company, because obviously you're the sort of sailor who maintains full coverage.

The solution is simple, if a country has rules you are unwilling to follow you just do not go there. If you have chosen to go somewhere and knowingly and deliberately ignore they rules of the people who live there, don’t be surprised if I experience a bit of schadenfreude if the authorities throw the book at you.

Yeah. Also, put your grocery cart back in the corral, bus your own dishes at McDonald's, and tip your barista 25%. And remain seated in the departure lounge until your row is called.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by markxengineerin

I think this is oversimplified: an extreme case- government requiring obviously immoral behavior- plenty of examples in history where the moral thing is to ignore laws. Nazi germany.

A more realistic case: the government requires something stupid, because the law is outdated, and it makes better moral and logical sense to ignore it. I can't think of a good example right now, but surely they exist.

A more realistic case, already alluded to in this thread: a disreputable insurance company sells a low cost policy which is obviously not meant to be used. This is now "legal" by the law, but just as unethical as not having insurance. Or another- a policy looks fine at a glance (by whatever authority first looks at it), but the fine print prevents it from being used (later discovered by lawyers). I also think this is just as bad as not having any insurance in the first place.

In this case, however, as in auto insurance, the intent is to have an effective means of protecting participants from causing financial damage to themselves or others.

I'm not saying insurance requirements are perfect, but it's in the community's interest that people have either insurance or the means to make others whole if there is an incident involving their boat.

It is incumbent on boat owners to have some provision for damage their boat may cause, and it's not unreasonable for governments to require liability insurance.

As a visitor to another country, one may fall outside the normal scope of boat registrations, but should make a reasonable effort to comply with their requirements.

[NorthPacific]

On the west coast of USA everyone in marina’s coastguard inspection asked to see insurance. Mexico you have to buy 3rd party from Mexico.

Now in the med everyplace we have been asked for insurance. Greece makes you have extra coverage. Turkey asked to see coverage.

You often need a land based address. Like it says on your drivers license. As a Canadian buying a British built boat Australian reg in Greece I got no joy in Canada. Got it in the uk. Also an offer from New Zealand.

[donradcliffe]

My experience is that in every location here liability insurance is required it is locally available at a reasonable price.

The most important thing to remember is that the insurance company has to have local licenses and claims agents in every location they sell coverage for. When I go to Mexico I buy Mexican liability insurance. When I was in the Med, I found a decent policy from Pantaneus in England which was good for all of Europe. For an American boat, they canceled that policy mid Atlantic.

[Timreyn]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

$350 a year for liability insurance for a Lagoon 570?

I can't imagine that's worth the paper it's printed on. Or that it offers the boat owner (or other boaters) much protection.

Any payouts while in the EU would be in accordance with EU laws, no? Seems odd that insurance companies can't sort out that kind of nuance.

Well Liability insurance is cheap for any boat, just like your response! So my policy is acceptable to me and to all in the EU that have requested to see our coverage. So it is worth at least the paper it is printed on and more since I operate legally.

The insurance companies in the EU all refuse to write liability on USA boats. Trust me I have tried extensively. This changed a two or three years ago. My boat has been in the Med for 7 years. Yes, the country of the claim should be the place a suit would be filed, But the possibility of a demand from the USA has resulted in a ban by the EU industry.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Timreyn

Well Liability insurance is cheap for any boat, just like your response! So my policy is acceptable to me and to all in the EU that have requested to see our coverage. So it is worth at least the paper it is printed on and more since I operate legally.

The insurance companies in the EU all refuse to write liability on USA boats. Trust me I have tried extensively. This changed a two or three years ago. My boat has been in the Med for 7 years. Yes, the country of the claim should be the place a suit would be filed, But the possibility of a demand from the USA has resulted in a ban by the EU industry.

No offense intended.

It likely has more to do with not being able to get ahold of a non-EU owner than it has to do with lawsuits coming from the U.S.

How can one keep a U.S.-registered boat in the Med for 7 years? I can see why that might pose a problem for E.U. insurers.

What you're doing works for you, and that's great.

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

How can one keep a U.S.-registered boat in the Med for 7 years? I can see why that might pose a problem for E.U. insurers.

You can keep a boat of any flag in the EU for as long as you like provided you have paid VAT. The registration of the vessel is not relevant.