|
|
02-27-2021, 10:33 PM
|
#21
|
Guru
City: Sydney
Vessel Name: Sojourn
Vessel Model: Integrity 386
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13,329
|
Most cases involve negotiation. But once, in the case of a claim by family(dependents) arising from the death of a worker, the family`s lawyer put an offer, the insurer I was acting for said "we don`t chisel widows and orphans, if that`s what they want, we`ll pay it", and we did. Biggest difficulty was the family`s lawyer, a decent and earnest guy, chiding himself for not asking enough if his first offer was met in full. I explained the insurers somewhat atypical attitude and that he`d got the figure just right, no more no less.
Insurer attitudes vary, some are fair, some are awful. I`ve even said once, if the claims manager wants to make that offensive offer(a one way ticket to an overseas country) he can come here and do it himself, because I`m won`t.
__________________
BruceK
2005 Integrity 386 "Sojourn"
Sydney Australia
|
|
|
03-06-2021, 08:49 AM
|
#22
|
Guru
City: Deltaville
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,069
|
All of this is an excellent reminder to thoroughly review your insurance policy, and if you are unable to fully understand it (pretty common), take it to an attorney who specializes in insurance litigation to explain any shortcomings. I recommend this approach for many of my clients, to ensure they aren't under insured or unnecessarily exposed. It's a small but worthwhile investment. Problems often arise after a claim, wherein the boat owner/insured, often says, "I didn't know that about my policy". Avoid being that person by having your policy professionally reviewed, preferably by an attorney who specializes in representing plaintiffs in insurance claims.
In many cases, I'm also guiding my clients to an attorney who specializes in this type of law, in the case of a damage loss claim, as these can be very complex issues to navigate. I find adjusters almost always amend their initial proposal after the right language is used by the insured, when he or she is being guided by an attorney.
|
|
|
03-06-2021, 11:28 AM
|
#23
|
Guru
City: st pete
Vessel Model: 430 Mainship
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,502
|
Help me out here a bit...
Why are we so hell bent on "insurance"? Why are we not more concerned about our actions that could cause injuries?
Seems to me, to pay damages, one has to be negligent. If a mechanic comes onto your boat, he should know the risks of being hurt. If one is a reasonable boater and takes reasonable precautions, why would he be negligent? If he stores an open can of gas in the engine room and it explodes when he drops his cigarette, perhaps he's negligent. If the mechanic slips, falls into a hole or wrenches is back, HE'S negligent. The boat owner didn't cause that.
I could argue stronger for being a good steward of your boat, and back up with good asset protection. And a good liability policy (which is your first line of defense).
I'm not a subscriber of disclosing policy limits. I've seen that backfire a few times. Gut feeling, if there's no money for the lawyer, why would he even take the case and that's what we want to have happen.
Comments?
Toni?
__________________
Seevee
|
|
|
03-06-2021, 12:36 PM
|
#24
|
Moderator Emeritus
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Vessel Name: DOS PECES
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,266
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctjstr
Has nothing to do with being chiselers. its about risk. One of the first thing the carrier does, or tries to, is assign an amount as a reserve for the claim. So, barring unforeseen circumstances, they have at least some idea what their exposure is. They also know that as cases develop, the damages can often get higher the longer the case goes unresolved. So they will settle. Closed head injuries are a perfect exampple. They often do not show up for a while, but when they do, they can add enormous sums to the value of the case. Same with disc problems or joint replacements. So they will often try and get a case resolved by paying the limits knowing that if it goes on too long, they can have much higher exposure. They choose not to take that risk. just like I will sometimes resolve a case quickly at a lower number that I might otherwise have thought, if I suspect that my client is going to make a terrible witness, or is doing something else that will eventually make his case worse. Its risk on my side as well.
An example of what i said earlier: I have a case for a fellow that was a passenger in a van, so he is fault free. As a result of the wreck, he has medical bills close to 250k. I know the policy limits are less than 100k. The way I work on the case differs knowing that. For example, I will not hire an economist to calculate wage loss. I will not hire a life care planner to calculate the cost of his future care. I won't worry about some sort of forensic medical expert to review and explain the treatment and bills. I also know that unless the carrier is the village idiot, they will pay the policy limits because if they do not, I'll be forced to hire those experts, at a cost of 30k or so and no way will I be willing to accept the policy limits. They had their chance and turned it down, so now they will likely pay what a jury awards.
there can be excesses on both sides. I'm an expert at what I do, but so are insurance adjusters and their lawyers. If I were to bet, I'd wager that insurance companies short change claimants far more often than us unscrupulous lawyers take advantage of the poor insurance industry. For every "frivolous" claim made, there are just as many "frivolous" defenses thrown up to reduce claims. Its just the way the system works. Its adversarial, no matter how much we wish it weren't.
|
That is a wonderful explanation, and a sad example of an accidents results.
Here is a question... and this is important.
If you have a case like the one you described and the at fault party has significant assets like a house, boat, or other non protected assets is there a real risk of a injured party suing for their actual damages Vs their policy limits?
|
|
|
03-08-2021, 10:11 AM
|
#25
|
Senior Member
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Name: Wataworld
Vessel Model: Defever 44+5
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 145
|
Workers Compensation
I am wondering if Florida is the only state with Workers Compensation Insurance. The original Post was about a mechanic who entered the boat why would he be entitled to any of the boat owners policy. Now his employer might be liable let's say the mechanic hurt his back and the employer new the job would take two people to resolve the repair,. No fault of boat owner.
Gregg Ditzian
|
|
|
03-08-2021, 10:32 AM
|
#26
|
Guru
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,021
|
To sum up...you pay for "insurance" but you are not insured.
|
|
|
03-10-2021, 10:23 PM
|
#27
|
Senior Member
City: Yelm, WA
Vessel Name: "Convergence"
Vessel Model: Camano Troll
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders
That is a wonderful explanation, and a sad example of an accidents results.
Here is a question... and this is important.
If you have a case like the one you described and the at fault party has significant assets like a house, boat, or other non protected assets is there a real risk of a injured party suing for their actual damages Vs their policy limits?
|
sorry this took a while to respond. The answer is yes. if the injuries are bad enough and insurance "light" enough, you can bet there is a good chance that the claimant will have an asset search done, and perhaps make a claim. In 40 plus years, I've done it maybe a couple times, very rarely.
toni
__________________
Toni Froehling
Day Island Washington
1994 Bayliner 4788
"Satisfaction"
|
|
|
03-10-2021, 10:27 PM
|
#28
|
Senior Member
City: Yelm, WA
Vessel Name: "Convergence"
Vessel Model: Camano Troll
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wataworld
I am wondering if Florida is the only state with Workers Compensation Insurance. The original Post was about a mechanic who entered the boat why would he be entitled to any of the boat owners policy. Now his employer might be liable let's say the mechanic hurt his back and the employer new the job would take two people to resolve the repair,. No fault of boat owner.
Gregg Ditzian
|
No, most states I know of there is workers comp. It protects the EMPLOYER, not third parties. So, if joe is working for acme marine, who sends him out to work on my boat, and joe gets hurt, yes, he'll be covered by workers's comp, but if he can make the case that I did something negligent, he can sue me. If he's been covered by workmens comp, and IF I recover from the at fault boat owner, I have to reimbursed workmen's comp according to their statutory schedule.
__________________
Toni Froehling
Day Island Washington
1994 Bayliner 4788
"Satisfaction"
|
|
|
03-10-2021, 10:34 PM
|
#29
|
Senior Member
City: Yelm, WA
Vessel Name: "Convergence"
Vessel Model: Camano Troll
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seevee
Help me out here a bit...
Why are we so hell bent on "insurance"? Why are we not more concerned about our actions that could cause injuries?
Seems to me, to pay damages, one has to be negligent. If a mechanic comes onto your boat, he should know the risks of being hurt. If one is a reasonable boater and takes reasonable precautions, why would he be negligent? If he stores an open can of gas in the engine room and it explodes when he drops his cigarette, perhaps he's negligent. If the mechanic slips, falls into a hole or wrenches is back, HE'S negligent. The boat owner didn't cause that.
I could argue stronger for being a good steward of your boat, and back up with good asset protection. And a good liability policy (which is your first line of defense).
I'm not a subscriber of disclosing policy limits. I've seen that backfire a few times. Gut feeling, if there's no money for the lawyer, why would he even take the case and that's what we want to have happen.
Comments?
Toni?
|
its never that simple. Yes, as the owner most often you don't owe unless you do something negligent, or leave something in a dangerous condition. EG, the workman slips on some water in the galley that you shoudl have spotted and cleaned up, you could be liable. To make it worse, there can be cases of "strict liability", where all you have to do is prove you've been injured, and if so, the property owner is liable simply because its a known dangerous condition that he has a responsibility to inspect and keep clean. Floors in front of the veggie aisle where the veggies get sprayed every half hour or so. If I fall on one of those areas, its almost strict liability. The owner has a duty to inspect and clean,, or warn, regardless if he knows there is a wet spot. That its often wet and he didn't inspect it enough. That's why you see so many "wet floor"signs everwhere.
__________________
Toni Froehling
Day Island Washington
1994 Bayliner 4788
"Satisfaction"
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Trawler Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|