Probably a boaters worst nightmare

Are wireless smoke alarms still effective through steel bulkheads and soles?

GoneDiving said:

Are wireless smoke alarms still effective through steel bulkheads and soles?

Click to expand...

Don’t know my boat was fiberglass.

I just watched these poor folks 2nd video.

Imagine you were them. You are in your own home country thousands of miles from your boat which is in a foreign country.

Based on all that their response seems pretty darn reasonable and timely.

Sorry, but all this criticism of them seems pretty petty.

They are working with their insurance carrier to make a claim, and they have handled this unfortunate situation in a pretty responsible manner.

Rule 1 of liability. mitigate further damage as quickly as possible.
Rule 2 do not admit fault.

As far as the boat owners being responsible, that may or may not be true. I think they would be responsible for the environmental cleanup of their boat regardless, but they may or may not be responsible for damages to others property or injuries to others.

That aspect would come under idea of negligence. If they were found negligent then they could be held responsible and they or their insurer would have to pay.

If they were not found negligent then the opposite would be the case.

First glance is that being thousands of miles away would tend to mitigate negligence unless something they did prior to leaving the boat was in and of itself negligent in nature.

twistedtree said:

Exactly the context of the term, as I know it.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, "reglaze" was used in a conventional/traditional sense. Often hard to know what meaning is intended, so many words are corrupted in meaning, eg existential,decimate, stakeholder(meaning is actually reversed),even epicenter(used below). After a while, the misuse becomes the meaning.

If the owners used the services of contractors working in their area of activity I`d wonder about owners liability, but there`s so much that could affect the position.

[Mod edit] Removed Covid comments per TF Rules

BandB said:

Well, sadly, it is their responsibility. I hope they're well insured through a reliable company although sounds a bit problematic, but often determining cause slows things down. But also hope they have a nice umbrella policy for anything not covered by insurance. Doesn't take a lot to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage and responsibility.

I'm sorry but the public whining episode does nothing to make me feel worse for them. All the "it's not my fault". Well, yes it is. Your boat, your responsibility. Then the shock at salvage and Coast Guard? Do you think you'll be allowed to just let it sit and cause more damage? In Australia, you'd be charged for reef damage. I don't know why they're just talking to an insurance agent and not the claims department of the insurer, through the number on their policy. That's the first call they should have made. Public crying doesn't move me and it is just a boat but led to destruction of another boat and environmental damage. They resent being told it's their responsibility, well who do they expect to be held responsible if not them?

I watched the entire video. While I do understand the sense of loss of a house or boat, no lives lost, no one hurt and I'd be rejoicing in that aspect. If they're underinsured, that's on them. Whatever they get paid, they'll still be wealthy compared to those they profess to want to help. A huge setback, but watching them cry and listening to them whine about not their fault just doesn't impress me. I think they lost me when it started with "In this week's episode." Too much like reality tv and all the drama of it.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you said! They did not start the fire on purpose, but they own the boat and are the ones responsible.

As aircraft pilots we learn well that it's basically always your fault with very limited exceptions. It's a good lesson to apply to anything under your responsibility. I see the points made regarding their unfortunate circumstances but if I ever find myself in similar circumstances, I hope to act much more humble.

Now, the boat in front of them, they have reason to be pretty upset.

You are not allowed to leave Australia without Government permission, which is mainly granted for business and occasionally family reasons.
Few are allowed into the country - mainly celebrities and business people - and there are still literally tens of thousands of Australians trapped overseas and unable to return.
If you do, it's two weeks of self-paid mandatory hotel quarantine, where you are likely to catch COVID.
My state, Victoria, has been in lock-down for weeks, with a night-time curfew and only a few reasons for being able to leave home, and then only a 5km radius.
So no, they can't just jump on a plane and head to Florida.
Most of you have absolutely no idea what it is like here.
I am just so fortunate to have escaped Victoria before the current lockdown, and am cruising unrestricted around the Queensland coast.

FrogmanUDT21 said:

I agree with what you said! They did not start the fire on purpose, but they own the boat and are the ones responsible.

Click to expand...

Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?
(Note laws may be different in USA to Australia, and consider "Dorset Yacht".)

Dave L said:

You are not allowed to leave Australia without Government permission, which is mainly granted for business and occasionally family reasons.
Few are allowed into the country - mainly celebrities and business people - and there are still literally tens of thousands of Australians trapped overseas and unable to return.
If you do, it's two weeks of self-paid mandatory hotel quarantine, where you are likely to catch COVID.
My state, Victoria, has been in lock-down for weeks, with a night-time curfew and only a few reasons for being able to leave home, and then only a 5km radius.
So no, they can't just jump on a plane and head to Florida.
Most of you have absolutely no idea what it is like here.
I am just so fortunate to have escaped Victoria before the current lockdown, and am cruising unrestricted around the Queensland coast.

Click to expand...

Happy cruising Dave!
PS.Just took my 89 yo widowed next door neighbour, she lives alone, a vase of freesias growing wild in my lawn. A little joy in lockdown times I hope won`t offend.

BruceK said:

Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?
(Note laws may be different in USA to Australia, and consider "Dorset Yacht".)

Click to expand...

Bruce, locally the word responsible has been legally interpreted to mean you as owner are responsible because you or your designate alone may have access to the property in order to have prevented ...................?

Soo-Valley said:

Bruce, locally the word responsible has been legally interpreted to mean you as owner are responsible because you or your designate alone may have access to the property in order to have prevented ...................?

Click to expand...

That would mean it has to be kept under 24 hour guard. But of course,I accept, laws vary place to place. But here, if I contract with a tradesman to do work on my house and he somehow negligently kills one of his workers, unless I was somehow negligent,I`m not liable.
Even if the marooned expat boat owners are somehow liable, they should have recovery rights against whoever really messed up,assuming of course that party "is worth powder and shot".

BruceK said:

That would mean it has to be kept under 24 hour guard. But of course,I accept, laws vary place to place. But here, if I contract with a tradesman to do work on my house and he somehow negligently kills one of his workers, unless I was somehow negligent,I`m not liable.
Even if the marooned expat boat owners are somehow liable, they should have recovery rights against whoever really messed up,assuming of course that party "is worth powder and shot".

Click to expand...

Bruce

our laws here in America are very similar, contrary to what some TF members believe.

In general liability flows from Negligence.

The only caviat to that is I believe but am not certain the environmental cleanup associasted with in this case a burned up boat. I am pretty sure that responsibility flows to the vessel owner.

That is why it is so important that vessel owners carry hull and environmental insurance.

BruceK said:

Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?
(Note laws may be different in USA to Australia, and consider "Dorset Yacht".)

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true lawyer!

Well said

ksanders said:

I just watched these poor folks 2nd video.

Imagine you were them. You are in your own home country thousands of miles from your boat which is in a foreign country.

Based on all that their response seems pretty darn reasonable and timely.

Sorry, but all this criticism of them seems pretty petty.

They are working with their insurance carrier to make a claim, and they have handled this unfortunate situation in a pretty responsible manner.

Rule 1 of liability. mitigate further damage as quickly as possible.
Rule 2 do not admit fault.

As far as the boat owners being responsible, that may or may not be true. I think they would be responsible for the environmental cleanup of their boat regardless, but they may or may not be responsible for damages to others property or injuries to others.

That aspect would come under idea of negligence. If they were found negligent then they could be held responsible and they or their insurer would have to pay.

If they were not found negligent then the opposite would be the case.

First glance is that being thousands of miles away would tend to mitigate negligence unless something they did prior to leaving the boat was in and of itself negligent in nature.

Click to expand...

I couldn’t of said it better myself . nothing I can’t stand is being lectured by somebody that have no idea what they’re talking about . everybody looking to point fingers because it gives them a sense of power or something I don’t really know .they just love to assign blame.They’re also the first ones to lie to authorities and skirt blame themselves when it happens to them.

FlyWright said:

Spoken like a true lawyer!

Click to expand...

Thanks, though I suspect many US TFers would say "lawyer" and "truth" are but distantly related. The "Dorset Yacht' case gets drummed into you with the law of negligence, Dorset Yacht Co gets pinged for not securing a charter boat stolen by some escapees from a borstal( youth prison) who then cause damage to others. ( I doubt the lecturer used the word "pinged".)

Negligence of course must be proven, however responsibility is more matter of fact implied. New law is what the sitting judge decides that day until another finds new meaning to a word.

Seems clear:

1. Always carry ample insurance

2. Do not cause occurrence of negligent conditions from result of your own volition/actions

After both those items have been closely followed... you have every right to fight IT out to eventually reach the conclusion of remedies. Inc lawyers etc. Also... speak of nothing to anyone about the circumstances/conditions/happenings... except in discussion with your attorney.

Hippocampus said:

I’m not a lawyer so to me fault and responsibility mean two different things. I understand courts, admiralty law may in effect use those words as a equivalency. We don’t know if they personally did some revision or action before they left that was the direct or indirect cause of the fire but from what they say they personally were in Australia and don’t report such an action. They admit responsibility and even in the prior episode didn’t deny responsibility. Rather to my understanding they use “fault” in the non legal common usage meaning.Perhaps a lawyer may educate us as to the legal meaning of fault and responsibility.
I’ve left my boat from weeks and sometimes months in a foreign country. Work has been done in my absence so only supervised by my yacht management company. In that setting I have only the reputation of the yacht management company and selected vendors to assure me the workers are acting responsibly and safely. I’m told what I’m told by those two entities and what I see on shared videos and pictures.
Hence, understand how they could feel not being at fault but being responsible. Wonder if some here are being too harsh. Don’t subscribe to any channels. Don’t like that ecosystem at all. But that’s another issue. Wonder if other posters here who have had occasion to leave their boat in another country have a similar view of how this couple could feel the way they do.

Click to expand...

ksanders said:

I just watched these poor folks 2nd video.

Imagine you were them. You are in your own home country thousands of miles from your boat which is in a foreign country.

Based on all that their response seems pretty darn reasonable and timely.

Sorry, but all this criticism of them seems pretty petty.

They are working with their insurance carrier to make a claim, and they have handled this unfortunate situation in a pretty responsible manner.

Rule 1 of liability. mitigate further damage as quickly as possible.
Rule 2 do not admit fault.

As far as the boat owners being responsible, that may or may not be true. I think they would be responsible for the environmental cleanup of their boat regardless, but they may or may not be responsible for damages to others property or injuries to others.

That aspect would come under idea of negligence. If they were found negligent then they could be held responsible and they or their insurer would have to pay.

If they were not found negligent then the opposite would be the case.

First glance is that being thousands of miles away would tend to mitigate negligence unless something they did prior to leaving the boat was in and of itself negligent in nature.

Click to expand...

Negligence is not necessarily a factor in damage claims of this nature. That's actually fortunate or otherwise your own insurance wouldn't pay for your losses. Typically your insurer is going to take responsibility and then take legal action against others if it feels appropriate to recover all or part of what they paid. This is also a case in which policy limits could come into play and hopefully the owner has high limits or a good umbrella policy.

The main instructions most lawyers would give is to say nothing. They would allow release of statements they'd approved such as one saying the cause was to be determined but their thoughts were with the injured. Most lawyers would be greatly disturbed by a telecast such as the ones they did.

BandB said:

Negligence is not necessarily a factor in damage claims of this nature. That's actually fortunate or otherwise your own insurance wouldn't pay for your losses. Typically your insurer is going to take responsibility and then take legal action against others if it feels appropriate .
...

Click to expand...

You seem to be saying an insured is not covered when at fault, ie negligent. Not so here, one reason people insure is to protect themselves against their own "errors".
As regards 3rd parties making claims, if you are not liable your insurer is not,there is nothing to indemnify. Though a decent insurer would conduct the defence of the 3rd party`s claim I`ve seen one that would not.

BandB said:

Negligence is not necessarily a factor in damage claims of this nature. That's actually fortunate or otherwise your own insurance wouldn't pay for your losses. Typically your insurer is going to take responsibility and then take legal action against others if it feels appropriate to recover all or part of what they paid. This is also a case in which policy limits could come into play and hopefully the owner has high limits or a good umbrella policy.

The main instructions most lawyers would give is to say nothing. They would allow release of statements they'd approved such as one saying the cause was to be determined but their thoughts were with the injured. Most lawyers would be greatly disturbed by a telecast such as the ones they did.

Click to expand...

The way I see it is that your insurance is going to take responsibility for the things that are easily determined as part of your contract language and then look at the things not so easily determined.

I would expect that in this case the insurance would pay for salvage and disposal of the wreck and any environmental costs. They would also pay the agreed to values for hull and belongings. Why? Because they agreed to do that as part of your insuring contract (your policy document).

They probably would not pay for the other boat that was destroyed unless a determination of liability is made against you. Why??? Because your insuring agreement will have specific language that it will pay amounts you are liable for, and again liability flows from negligence. Just because your boat caught on fire does not in and of itself make you liable for property damage to another boat. Negligence needs to be established to have liability. What did you do that was negligent and cause that damage.

That does not mean they will never pay. That just means that they will make a determination of liability first. They may for example agree with the other boats insurance to pay a portion of the other boats damage claim by accepting partial liability.

One thing is certain... Your insurance company is not going to pay anything it does not have a legal obligation to pay. That would not be good business on their part.

As to going after third parties... Yes they might attempt to collect from third parties for amounts they paid out, but I would expect that to be for amounts paid to you or paid on your behalf for things like the salvage costs.

I would NOT expect an insurance company to pay for property damage to the other boat and then try to recover those amounts from a third party. The reason being is that if a third party is liable then you are not liable and the insurance contract is between you and your insurer to pay for your liabilities.

BruceK said:

Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?
(Note laws may be different in USA to Australia, and consider "Dorset Yacht".)

Click to expand...

Let me be clear....it was not their fault....but they own the boat so they are responsible. That is just the way it works! That is why you carry enough insurance to cover all of these things. If your dog bites someone, you did not do the act, but you are responsible for your dog since you own it.

BruceK said:

You seem to be saying an insured is not covered when at fault, ie negligent. Not so here, one reason people insure is to protect themselves against their own "errors".
As regards 3rd parties making claims, if you are not liable your insurer is not,there is nothing to indemnify. Though a decent insurer would conduct the defence of the 3rd party`s claim I`ve seen one that would not.

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying negligence isn't always a factor in coverage.

Shame of this is the reality that the individual(s) at fault (common usage) such as a negligent worker may not be the one responsible as regards liability. Even worse if those individuals are tort proof having neither assets nor deep pockets to go after. Due to this we don’t engage those folks not working under the aegis of a significant company to work on our boat unless we are present and actively overseeing the work and their behavior. We do ask about vendors insurance and bonding before engaging them.
The owners of the nearby vessel want to be made whole. That request seems reasonable to me. Don’t think they care much where the money comes from. Know admiralty court often assigns varying percentages of liability in some manner totally opaque to me given my fortunately limited experience and total absence of formal education. Is anyone here more versed in the particulars and will educate us all.

First, fault has not been determined and as such I am not inferring were such fault is.

What I am doing is pointing out something few people think about. Every large marina has those casual labors that polish boats, refinish varnish and other odd jobs. Some have business licenses most don’t and most likely none of them have worker compensation or liability insurance. What happens when something goes catastrophic? Everyone looks to the boat owner. Now you might have a valid defense but you will need to hire a lawyer to defend yourself. Good Insurance steps in and does this for you. Except in worker compensation claims. This is an area that can get you in a lot of trouble. Hire a casual laborer to wash your boat. He slips, falls and ends up with a lifetime injury. Next out of desperation he files a workman comp claim and claims he was an under the table employee. Suddenly everyone is looking at the boat owner to pay and there is no insurance to back you. Moral of the story, be careful who you hire to do work on your boat.

tiltrider1 said:

. Hire a casual laborer to wash your boat. He slips, falls and ends up with a lifetime injury. Next out of desperation he files a workman comp claim and claims he was an under the table employee. Suddenly everyone is looking at the boat owner to pay and there is no insurance to back you. Moral of the story, be careful who you hire to do work on your boat.

Click to expand...

Actually this works a bit differently, but only further substantiates your point. If he was an employee, covered by workers compensation, then the liability is capped and also handled through workers compensation. Worker's Compensation did not originate to help employees but to protect employer's by limiting their exposures.

If he's not an employee then your liability insurance kicks in. Unfortunately, most liability policies are very limited in what they provide for medical coverage and in other areas that would be applicable here. Another place an umbrella policy is critical.

Now, back to the case at hand. Boat owner is liable for all damage to the environment and the other boat. His insurance company will assume the responsibility to their limits of coverage.

Now, whether others are liable or not remains to be determined. But, if liable, their liability will be to boat owner and owner's insurer and that may or may not include damage to the owner's boat, the other boat, and/or the environment. The boat owner's insurer will play the lead in any recovery, but the direct liability to the other boat and for the environment will be that of the boat owner, not the workers. All this sorting and recovery will depend on the specifics of what happened, employment of persons involved, contracts for work, leasing contract for dock space, maritime laws, state laws, and more and it may not be sorted out for years. Meanwhile, the owner's insurer will have paid all claims. Boat owner responsible until proven otherwise.

It's not going to be simple. It's going to involve a lot of parties. And we will never know all the details.

Other thing to think about pursuant to my post #84 is in conversations with other cruisers it’s seems common to carry $1m in liability (minimum marinas will accept now a days) and $5m for an umbrella. From what I can gather these coverage limits are peanuts compared to actual claims. The hope is injured parties will accept those limits in order to avoid legal actions and get timely payment. But that’s a thin thread to climb. When you look at raising limits depending upon your claims history it may be cost effective in lowering your risk to go much higher. We have never made a claim. Had a sistership strike us on the stern. Windy day and he came in too hot. Fortunately a friend. After discussion he paid out of pocket for the repair. He realized it benefited both him and me. Boat Bristol even the gelcoat match after 5 years. Believe avoid insurance companies and lawyers whenever you can.
Lastly use a insurance company licensed in your home country if at all possible. Know too many stories where owners didn’t have “standing “ in the courts involved so we’re forced to hire lawyers with “standing” at significant costs. This also may increase the time to resolution. Even if half the stories I’ve heard are really true it’s something to avoid. This seems prevalent in the past with Pantaenius (not pantaenius US) and Lloyd’s but it’s hearsay. Still, think especially when you’re far from your home port having a company licensed in your home country maybe better.

First off, I would doubt the owners of the boat caused the fire.

I think that most of us here just cringe a bit at the way the owners are, and how they relay their part and views on the incident. I'm sorry but they are a bit creepy and they like to show a bit too much T&A in their videos.. especially for their age. They lost some respect when they didn't seem to move fast to secure salvage and remarked they wanted time to get competitive bids. The boat obviously is a environmental issue and navigation problem, the government knows the longer a boat sits in a situation like this the likelihood it becomes the governments responsibility goes up considerably.
The owners being foreigners, the time zone factor, covid restrictions all play a part in this.
As I have personally witnessed typically the insurance company gets salvage started immediately to mitigate further environmental damage, then works on establishing value to pay the claim and then may go after others if they had a part in the situation that caused the fire.
If they were not so creepy and obviously loving the part of look at me social media types we would probably have more sympathy.

Hollywood

As I have personally witnessed typically the insurance company gets salvage started immediately to mitigate further environmental damage,

I would like the know the stats on that.
I have not noticed that in the non boating scenario where I see many similar cases. Property water damages are leading insurance claim, yet there is no rapid response measure in place.

These people were waiting for quotes. That in itself is a problem, costs are mostly higher with quotes in advance rather than sending in your preferred contractor to mitigate damages. In the boat world, our insurance agents should have speed dial.

My only boat sinking occurred to a boat that sank inside a boathouse held in place by lines. I knew the right people and we jumped into action pumping and haul out. Insurance was called and an adjuster assigned who arrived 4 days later. By this time the boat was stripped out of anything not nailed down and sent to a dry out dry clean facility. The boat inside was washed and sterilized like it was on day of construction.

The first words from adjuster was this boat did not sink, are you scamming insurance. We then showed him the well documented photo gallery.
Needless to say neither adjuster or insurance would have done the same in a matter of days.

You did great Steve but let’s say you live in the states. You left the boat in the Bahamas or Caribbean to be home for Xmas or work. Now how can you run the scenario your diligence accomplished? Just not realistic imho. Not even realistic in your home country unless in very local home waters.