Insurance

[BandB]

Marty,

So you know the risk, why would you not avoid it? And if you hired a boat yard guy on the side, you get what you paid for.

And what was the bill to fix the jet ski crash?

Again....poppycock. Just a non issue.

For the record. how many times has this happened to YOU?

So, someone has an opinion differing from yours and you call it poppycock?

Whether to have hull coverage is a matter of one's own ability and willingness to accept risk. However, incidents happen every day that are not the fault of the boat owner but his insurer has to cover. Sometimes cause is not determined. Other times it's caused by someone who is unknown or who is judgement proof.

There's nothing wrong with self-insuring if you're comfortable with it. Just to one who does it, not saying you, don't want to hear the whining or anger when they have damage due to another's acts or acts of nature and have to pay out of pocket.

 

[CaptSteve53]

Marty,

Good points, but there some other points to be made, too.

First, with liability: To have a liability judgement against you there are four things that must happen, and one is negligence... you must be negligent to be responsible, thus my comment about just not doing something stupid. You'll be fine if you don't do something stupid. (from my insurance agent).

Second, will hull insuring: You examples are just poppycock. Who the heck is going to a foreign country and have a jet ski run into them? Has it EVER happened? And who the heck lets and unknown workers on their precious boat? We certainly have a choice there.

Now, I've got NO problem if one wants to buy these products, and I do myself, when I feel the risk is appropriate. Right now, I've got both boats fully covered, and based on my comments here, I bet you're surprised. One boat I have partners in which insist on full coverage, which I'm trying to talk them out of. The other is a new boat, that will do a lot of traveling in new area with a new skipper... relatively high risk, and the premium is dirt cheap, so perhaps it makes sense.

Just with the numbers.... if one is a AVERAGE person, and partakes things with AVERAGE care and safety, and pays the AVERAGE premiums for his toys, and has the AVERAGE number of claims, he will end up loosing about 1/3rd of his dollar spent. But, I know that's not the answer folks like to hear. They all mention the multi million dollar award from someone that slipped on your boat. Heck, there's even a limit to how much liability you can purchase and if you hit a tour boat full of kids when you're drunk, you won't have enough.

Just a different view point... not good or bad.

All

Here's couple of recorded /copied issues regarding water borne(Jet Ski') from the NTSB Files,

1) Recreational-boating accidents are the second-largest transportation-related cause of injury in the U.S. (after automobile accidents).[4]
2)The vast majority of accidents (over 90 percent) were caused by operator error.
3)There is a significantly higher association with accidents for rental operators (nearly 25 percent) than is the case for the general boating population; however, this may be related to the higher percentage of rental operators.[10]
4) As a general rule of thumb the Coast Guard believes that it receives about 10% of the "property damage only" accidents, but 90% of the serious personal injury accidents.
5) According to the NTSB, 24 percent of reported PWC accidents list steering problems or loss of control as contributing factors;[17] in Florida, it is the second-leading cause of PWC-related accidents. PWC manufacturers have been working to develop a system to prevent off-throttle steering. Modifications have been made to solve this problem in newer PWC models.[22]

HERE'S JUST A FEW of the more than hundreds of accidents a year involving strikes to moored craft


6) Police said initial inquiries suggested the DEAD teen, who was on holidays from overseas, was riding a jet ski when she collided with a Sunlover Reef Cruises vessel that was moored at the Marina.
7)Emergency personnel were on scene at Modesto Reservoir after an accident involving a boat and a jet ski led to the death of one person and injuries to two others on Sunday, May 28, 2017. Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department
8)Mayday call after jet-ski starts to sink after collision and yacht runs aground
9)Yacht capsizes after incident with jet-ski crashes into wall: At ... by NSRI Vaal Dam back to the couples mooring at the Stillbay Yacht ...


And here's why: One of the most common types of collisions(with moored craft) is caused by PWC's inherent lack of steering whenever water isn't being shot out of the stern. There is no rudder. Some newer models have devices that assist off-throttle steering, but the boats still have very limited slow-speed maneuverability and nearly no maneuverability at high speeds when the throttle is suddenly closed.


Makes you think!


Cheers Steve

 

[CaptSteve53]

And if your still not convinced, Picture's worth a thousand words,

 

[Art]

Carrying insurance policy portrays a somewhat reverse similarity to buying a lotto ticket.

In that:

Lotto cost over a lifetime can be small in the scope of things. But... Its not needed fun potential is for "maybe" making you suddenly rich.

Insurance cost over a lifetime can be relatively large in the scope of things. But... Its much needed safety potential is to make sure you can stay a little bit rich and don't suddenly go broke!

 

[BruceK]

Good grief! What are you guys doing?
The OP newbie WANTS to get insurance. How is this bickering helping him?
Why not start you own thread about the wisdom of insuring or not insuring.

 

[Seevee]

So, someone has an opinion differing from yours and you call it poppycock?

Whether to have hull coverage is a matter of one's own ability and willingness to accept risk. However, incidents happen every day that are not the fault of the boat owner but his insurer has to cover. Sometimes cause is not determined. Other times it's caused by someone who is unknown or who is judgement proof.

There's nothing wrong with self-insuring if you're comfortable with it. Just to one who does it, not saying you, don't want to hear the whining or anger when they have damage due to another's acts or acts of nature and have to pay out of pocket.

BandB.

I'm referring SPECIFICALLY to Martys comments, which actually are pretty far fetched:

<<<If you go outside of the US, Canada or Australia beware of the rental operations. They claim no responsibility when their jet ski or Hobi crashes into your boat. You are left to chase the renter who may be from distant country where you will not find justice.

The second is even more frequent. You hire a workman who appears competent, but causes a fire, sinking or other damage only to find out the workman has no assets.>>>

First, the vast majority of us don't go outside of the US, Canada or Australia, and
how many are really hit by uninsured jet ski operators that have customers from other countries? And as for the incompetent, uninsured mechanic that burns your boat down.... I'd bet there's just as many ones working for legit companies that do that.

I'm not criticizing Marty's opinion, I'm point out the his examples are just a non issue.

 

[Seevee]

All

Here's couple of recorded /copied issues regarding water borne(Jet Ski') from the NTSB Files,

1) Recreational-boating accidents are the second-largest transportation-related cause of injury in the U.S. (after automobile accidents).[4]
2)The vast majority of accidents (over 90 percent) were caused by operator error.
3)There is a significantly higher association with accidents for rental operators (nearly 25 percent) than is the case for the general boating population; however, this may be related to the higher percentage of rental operators.[10]
4) As a general rule of thumb the Coast Guard believes that it receives about 10% of the "property damage only" accidents, but 90% of the serious personal injury accidents.
5) According to the NTSB, 24 percent of reported PWC accidents list steering problems or loss of control as contributing factors;[17] in Florida, it is the second-leading cause of PWC-related accidents. PWC manufacturers have been working to develop a system to prevent off-throttle steering. Modifications have been made to solve this problem in newer PWC models.[22]

HERE'S JUST A FEW of the more than hundreds of accidents a year involving strikes to moored craft


6) Police said initial inquiries suggested the DEAD teen, who was on holidays from overseas, was riding a jet ski when she collided with a Sunlover Reef Cruises vessel that was moored at the Marina.
7)Emergency personnel were on scene at Modesto Reservoir after an accident involving a boat and a jet ski led to the death of one person and injuries to two others on Sunday, May 28, 2017. Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department
8)Mayday call after jet-ski starts to sink after collision and yacht runs aground
9)Yacht capsizes after incident with jet-ski crashes into wall: At ... by NSRI Vaal Dam back to the couples mooring at the Stillbay Yacht ...


And here's why: One of the most common types of collisions(with moored craft) is caused by PWC's inherent lack of steering whenever water isn't being shot out of the stern. There is no rudder. Some newer models have devices that assist off-throttle steering, but the boats still have very limited slow-speed maneuverability and nearly no maneuverability at high speeds when the throttle is suddenly closed.


Makes you think!


Cheers Steve

Steve,

See my answer to BandB, above.

 

[Seevee]

And if your still not convinced, Picture's worth a thousand words,

And these are from the NTSB, not foreign countries. Nothing is known about who was insured or not.

 

[Seevee]

Good grief! What are you guys doing?
The OP newbie WANTS to get insurance. How is this bickering helping him?
Why not start you own thread about the wisdom of insuring or not insuring.

Bruce,

Agreed. When I made the suggestion to Tegan to consider self insuring, it was a legitimate consideration for a solution, and one person simple said it's bad advise... which isn't necessarily true. I apologize for responding to him, which led into the off thread discussions.

I then suggested he consider a broker who can go to bat for him, which is another option, as he indicated his choice was to be insured. I'll leave that advice to Tegan, and drop the debate.

 

[BandB]

Bruce,

Agreed. When I made the suggestion to Tegan to consider self insuring, it was a legitimate consideration for a solution, and one person simple said it's bad advise... which isn't necessarily true. I apologize for responding to him, which led into the off thread discussions.

I then suggested he consider a broker who can go to bat for him, which is another option, as he indicated his choice was to be insured. I'll leave that advice to Tegan, and drop the debate.

Seavee. Your feelings on self insurance are well known and perhaps appropriate for you. I appreciate you did direct him to a broker. I do caution a couple of things on self insurance. Most people who come on here do not have your financial means and can't as easily absorb the loss. For some, it's their home and they couldn't replace it. Second, most don't have your risk tolerance. You are unique and your situation is. What is right for you isn't right for the majority of people here.

That's something I have to regularly remind myself of and I think many here do, that our situation is very different from many others and doing things the way we do them might not be right for them. The prime example is we never worry about fuel consumption, but the vast majority do.

You don't come across sometimes as saying it's your way but might not be right for others. Sometimes it's more like "Anyone buying insurance is an idiot."

 

[psneeld]

It comes across to me as buying insurance you don't really need is idiotic.

I am usually as guilty as the next guy for insuring expensive things, but as I got/get older, I do scrutinize the sideshow stuff like deductibles, etc.....

 

[Seevee]

It comes across to me as buying insurance you don't really need is idiotic.

I am usually as guilty as the next guy for insuring expensive things, but as I got/get older, I do scrutinize the sideshow stuff like deductibles, etc.....

Yea, I hope that's the message. I'd think that the vast majority of us haven't spend our last dime on a boat, but if it's a huge part of the program, a total loss would be devastating. Also, one could "group" their boat with other loss items and spread the risk among the items. So without any claims, the premium saved adds up fast, so one could suffer a loss every now and then without an issue.

I wish the actuarists would look at the trawler group a bit closer. If one digests the stats, I'd bet we are an extremely safe group. Most of the accidents posted were other boats or people doing really stupid things. We have all of the characteristics of a very safe boating group.

I could be sold on a really high deductible policy to protect for a huge loss, but that's not available, for boats, cars, planes or houses. It should lower the insurance claims dramatically and lower premiums, but still save one's butt from the big one.

We have some 11 million boats in this country and a total of 4400 accidents. That's pretty good odds, even with the less prudent crowd.

 

[BandB]

We have some 11 million boats in this country and a total of 4400 accidents. That's pretty good odds, even with the less prudent crowd.

Accidents are not the only thing that sinks boat...or burns boats...or otherwise causes damage to boats and a very large number of small accidents are not reported but they're the easy ones so that's ok. Still sinking, fires, etc. Marina fires are not at all unusual.

 

[rwidman]

The message keeps getting blurred here. Many of us could afford to lose our boats. We wouldn't be happy but unless they were our homes, we would still have our homes, vehicles, savings and retirement plans. We could choose to replace our boats or not.

I suspect very few of us could afford a million dollar liability claim. And remember, without liability insurance, the cost of defending that claim is on you.

The big risk is not sinking someone's boat, it is being the cause of someone losing their life or a limb or two. Even a million dollars can go quickly in a death or injury case. And remember, you don't have to own a large or expensive boat to kill or seriously injure someone.

When you pay for the liability insurance, you are doing two things, insuring your own financial future and taking financial responsibility for your actions. This is the message that needs to be understood.

 

[Seevee]

The message keeps getting blurred here. Many of us could afford to lose our boats. We wouldn't be happy but unless they were our homes, we would still have our homes, vehicles, savings and retirement plans. We could choose to replace our boats or not.

I suspect very few of us could afford a million dollar liability claim. And remember, without liability insurance, the cost of defending that claim is on you.

The big risk is not sinking someone's boat, it is being the cause of someone losing their life or a limb or two. Even a million dollars can go quickly in a death or injury case. And remember, you don't have to own a large or expensive boat to kill or seriously injure someone.

When you pay for the liability insurance, you are doing two things, insuring your own financial future and taking financial responsibility for your actions. This is the message that needs to be understood.

WesK,

I love to banter back and forth with you, and you certainly have some good arguments.

But I could argue strongly that the odds against a million dollar claim are so remote that it's probably not worth considering. And if it's a million dollar claim, it could be a 10 million dollar claim and how many of us insure to that limit?

So are we being hypocrites, saying the liability insurance is an ABSOLUTE MUST, but we don't insure to the maximum possibility? I'd wonder how many folks here have a 10 million dollar policy... and that won't be enough if you run over a boat with a bunch of kids or burn down a marina where folks die.

BUT, you have to be proven negligent ... period. And most insurance companies settle rather that go to a trial, regardless of who's at fault.

I've got no problem with liability insurance and have it on some items but not all. I expect some folks to be responsible for themselves, which is prudent and reasonable. The likelihood of you ruining your financial future is very very slim, and even then you really have to do something negligent and proven so.

But get some sort of liability if it's your thing, at least it will pay for the defense lawyer who will defend you. It's cheap.

As for the hull, nice to see that you agree that many of us can afford to loose our boats.... true.

 

[BandB]

But I could argue strongly that the odds against a million dollar claim are so remote that it's probably not worth considering. And if it's a million dollar claim, it could be a 10 million dollar claim and how many of us insure to that limit?

So are we being hypocrites, saying the liability insurance is an ABSOLUTE MUST, but we don't insure to the maximum possibility? I'd wonder how many folks here have a 10 million dollar policy... and that won't be enough if you run over a boat with a bunch of kids or burn down a marina where folks die.

Actually discussing it in the past, there are quire a few of us here with umbrella policies of $10 million and more. Once you cross $500k or so the incremental costs are far less than one might imagine and they're not just for out boats. However, for something to be covered under an umbrella policy you must have it covered under regular insurance. So, have a liability policy of a modest amount and the umbrella will cover anything above it.

 

[Seevee]

Actually discussing it in the past, there are quire a few of us here with umbrella policies of $10 million and more. Once you cross $500k or so the incremental costs are far less than one might imagine and they're not just for out boats. However, for something to be covered under an umbrella policy you must have it covered under regular insurance. So, have a liability policy of a modest amount and the umbrella will cover anything above it.

BandB,

You're absolutely right, but I wonder how many folks have that coverage....

 

[psneeld]

The real discussion is tsking the chance...

Out of hundreds of people I know, many of whom are idiots and have serious accidents, not one has ever been successfully sued.

One could look at the probabilities and roll the dice.

I don't, but could see the logoc for some.

 

[BandB]

BandB,

You're absolutely right, but I wonder how many folks have that coverage....

Several. In fact, very high coverages are required in Australia from what I remember of conversations, perhaps $5 million? I don't recall the details.

 

[Seevee]

Several. In fact, very high coverages are required in Australia from what I remember of conversations, perhaps $5 million? I don't recall the details.

Most of us are not in Australia, but still wonder how many in the US have those coverages.....

And $5mm won't cover a nasty marina fire where people and kids end up dead, but only if negligence is found....

 

[BandB]

Most of us are not in Australia, but still wonder how many in the US have those coverages.....

And $5mm won't cover a nasty marina fire where people and kids end up dead, but only if negligence is found....

Well, I think most aren't going to post here what coverage they have. We sure aren't.

 

[Wxx3]

Yep, it's bad advice to assume all people need full coverage on their boats.


There are boaters who self insure for hull loss., and possibly other sections of insurance. Not many, but there is the low end of the spectrum that insurance costs seem disproportionate.


The advice here is given to spark the idea, not necessarily convince someone to do it. If they are unsure, legal advice with respect to losses should be discussed with an expert in the field.

Exactly.

I have full coverage, most of the time.

 

[Art]

I calc our boat ins this way:


First - Liability and uninsured others and bodily damage and hazardous waste clean up and parts damage or loss are quite inexpensive with the first three mentioned being mandatory in my opinion.


Second comes boat [hull] value... well... we've got her insured for a nominal 39K with couple K deductible. Value ins is running us about $800 a year.


So, the way I figure it:


We've owned this boat over 9 yrs. = $7,200 so far paid to ins co for value ins. Then lets say we own boat for another 9 years = $7,200 more spent for a total of $14,400 for piece of mind over an 18 yr. period. That means that after 18 yrs. the ins cash reserve still available to us if calamity happens = over 2.5 X the ins cost that was deferred over an 18 yr. period. What's not to like about that?!?!


I break it down to this minutia - $14,400 -: by 6552 days in 18 yrs. = $2.20 per each day of our lives to make sure that if anything ever goes wrong where our toy boat self-ruins or gets ruined by others we're covered for some $37,000 pay back. IMO - that's great betting odds! With deferment calced in the daily rate of $2.20 becomes meaningless in the long run and compared to many other pleasure boating costs.

 

[BandB]

Wifey B: What's the dollar value of piece of mind?

 

[Art]

Wifey B: What's the dollar value of piece of mind?

I NY - It's: "A dollar three eighty plus tax" - Thought everyone knew that!

 

[psneeld]

Wifey B: What's the dollar value of piece of mind?

Depends if you have enough dollars to keep your mind peaceful to begin with.

And your lifestyle is where you can accept it.

 

[Scary]

Old wood boats

Whether you insure the boat or not, before you take off and expose this old wooden boat to rough coastal conditions you really need to know if it's going to survive. You will need to haul the boat and pull a few fastners from the bottom and sound the hull for decay. Fresh water and wood boats leads to rotten planks and frames. Fastners only last 20 years or less, when was the last time it was refastened. A lot of wood boat spring planks and sink in the ocean.

 

[Art]

I advise listen to Scary... He knows of what he speaks.


Hi Scary, been a while. good to hear from you again.

 

[BruceK]

How`s it going Tegan?(said he,carefully avoiding the old Aussie greeting "How`s it hanging").
Did you get cover?

 

[TDunn]

I carry full insurance not because I can't absorb a complete hull loss but because I wouldn't mind getting a check for the agreed value. My break even point on the hull coverage is about 90 years from now so I am confident I will never reach that point.