Disturbing report from New Bern, NC

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
O C Diver said:
...
I believe in all states, if you own a car (which most would classify as a necessity) it is a crime for which you can be held financially and criminally liable to have licensed to use without insurance.

Why should boats be any different?

Ted
Click to expand...

In VA you just have to pay $500 when you register your vehicle to avoid the insurance requirement. This $500 you pay to the state does not get you any sort of coverage. In most cases, $500 is less than the annual premium for auto insurance (in my case it is less than half). If something happens you have no protection from damages. However, if you can't afford insurance, you might not have enough to worry that much about protecting.
 
ssobol said:
In VA you just have to pay $500 when you register your vehicle to avoid the insurance requirement. This $500 you pay to the state does not get you any sort of coverage. In most cases, $500 is less than the annual premium for auto insurance (in my case it is less than half). If something happens you have no protection from damages. However, if you can't afford insurance, you might not have enough to worry that much about protecting.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that goes to the uninsured motorists fund. What happens to you if you don't pay it? I wouldn't be opposed to that kind of fee to deal with the removal of derelict and sunk boats without insurance.

Ted
 
Just having flood insurance doesn't mean much. For those of us that have had to buy it at one time or another, we know that it is expensive for no reason and covers almost nothing if you are in a flood plane. Furthermore, storms like the past few that hit Eastern North Carolina dumped SOOOooo much rain, that areas that have never flooded, and thusly are not required or able to even buy flood insurance, were put underwater. And that IS the tax payer's responsibility to make right. So until the national flood insurance program does what it supposed to do, or acts more like private insurance, just having (or being required to have) flood insurance is about pointless.
 
O C Diver said:
I'm assuming that goes to the uninsured motorists fund. What happens to you if you don't pay it? I wouldn't be opposed to that kind of fee to deal with the removal of derelict and sunk boats without insurance.

Ted
Click to expand...

Since when you don't check the "no insurance" box you don't pay the fee but you also don't actually have to prove you have insurance, I guess they can get you if there is an accident (but only if the cops show up) for not having insurance and lying on a government form.

Part of the annual insurance or registration fees should go to the general fund to remove derelict vessels.
 
Tom.B said:
... So until the national flood insurance program does what it supposed to do, or acts more like private insurance, just having (or being required to have) flood insurance is about pointless.
Click to expand...

The problem with the national flood insurance program is that it pays to rebuild on the same spot that flooded. This results in a lot flooded homes and buildings being rebuilt over and over at a cost to the government many times the revenue from the premiums. IMO, flood insurance should only pay if you rebuild on someplace else that hasn't previously flooded (or only flooded due to some exceptional condition like a dam burst).

However, like in Hawaii, when lava destroys your home you still own the piece of land that the lava covered, so most people's only choice is to rebuilt on top of the hardened lava. Insurance covers the loss of the destroyed property, but does not pay damages for the land the property is on.
 
The insurance cos have us by the throat. Period......... Insurance is supposed to spread the risk among many people of varying risks to save everyone money. But Ins Cos have narrowed everything down to specific fields so they can refuse coverage to those at risk, forcing government to pick up what they dont want because its too expensive. By separating the risks out they pit us against each other because the guy with low low risk gets a low rate and says "F*** the others, I got mine."
 
jimisbell said:
The insurance cos have us by the throat. Period......... Insurance is supposed to spread the risk among many people of varying risks to save everyone money. But Ins Cos have narrowed everything down to specific fields so they can refuse coverage to those at risk, forcing government to pick up what they dont want because its too expensive. By separating the risks out they pit us against each other because the guy with low low risk gets a low rate and says "F*** the others, I got mine."
Click to expand...
Insurance is supposed to spread the risk over a group with the same risk factor. Costs are supposed to vary based on your risks and the insurance company's exposure. A good example is car insurance. Do you really want to share premiums with 16 to 21 year old males who aspire to be race car drivers? The way all insurance use to work, you were graded on risk factors and your premiums were based on those risks. Statistics show that people who speed and broke traffic laws were more likely to get in accidents and when they did, the accidents were more costly. So insurance premiums go up as a result of traffic tickets. You get rewarded for good behavior and penalized for bad behavior.

Why should a person who chooses to avoid or reduce risks have to subsidize those who don't? We own a home 30 miles from the coast. Why should my premium be based on the same risk factor as the homes 100 yards from the ocean? I see nothing wrong with incentivizing good choices and good behavior.

Ted
 
Abdolutely Ted!

Boating insurance is generslly reduced by training, eqipment and areas boated..... but it hardly seems like a huge dip in premiums, so I am to assume there is some shared risk in there too.

Insurance companies discuss mitigating risks ( BoatUS has a magazine always talking about it)....and they hope you do something when appropriate. My insurance will pay $500 for me to haul my boat OR have a captain move it. Unfortunately, hauling at my marina in a Cat2 or better storm would be pointless as I know the boats would aash off stands and the wind damage would be horrific.

So I generally ignore hauling....but di include hauling it at a marina further inland or in a getter protected spot. If I couldn't move it myself, I probably would use the money to pay someone.

So my insurance, one that specializes in boating and even liveaboards understands damage mitigation.... and I am sure they expect you to try.
 
"We own a home 30 miles from the coast. Why should my premium be based on the same risk factor as the homes 100 yards from the ocean?"

Because the government has decided you will.

The gov will insure at low cost areas that any true insurance company would avoid.


They claim its a service.
 
FF said:
"We own a home 30 miles from the coast. Why should my premium be based on the same risk factor as the homes 100 yards from the ocean?"

Because the government has decided you will.

The gov will insure at low cost areas that any true insurance company would avoid.


They claim its a service.
Click to expand...

No, the government hasn't mandated that, yet. For the same house value, my home has much lower insurance premiums than the beach front property. While I don't have flood insurance (government insurance) on this home (higher land elevation), my previous home did with the premium partially based on risk factors.

Ted
 
jimisbell said:
The insurance cos have us by the throat. Period......... Insurance is supposed to spread the risk among many people of varying risks to save everyone money. But Ins Cos have narrowed everything down to specific fields so they can refuse coverage to those at risk, forcing government to pick up what they dont want because its too expensive. By separating the risks out they pit us against each other because the guy with low low risk gets a low rate and says "F*** the others, I got mine."
Click to expand...

Why should I shoulder the risk for those who choose to own a boat in hurricane country or build and re-build in defined flood zones. Life is about risk mitigation.
 
Just as I said, "Pit us against each other"
 
O C Diver said:
Insurance is supposed to spread the risk over a group with the same risk factor. Costs are supposed to vary based on your risks and the insurance company's exposure.
Click to expand...


And yet, premiums and claims are rarely based on this. Things like credit score and how many times you call to ask simple questions about coverage weigh more on how you are charged and treated than the ACTUAL risk. :banghead:
 
Nine million dollar houses on gulf coast sand bars are tricky to average out. Somehow they justify putting me in the same pool. It is probably more reasonable for me to rebuild at my own expense.

They don't want to sell just fire and liability for a house. Even though it's paid for, no mortgage. They sell the whole package - or nothing. And want to average you in with the sandcastles.

What do you get when you give someone a license to steal?
 
jimisbell said:
Just as I said, "Pit us against each other"
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense!
I practice severe risk avoidance and am fine with what I pay for most forms of insurance. I'm guessing you may not be as risk averse and think I should shoulder more of your insurance burden. Socialist style insurance (where everybody pays the same regardless of risk) discourages risk avoidance, which ultimately raises everyone's premium.

Ted
 
As I said, "Pit us against each other" Your anger shows.



When you separate the group so that all people with100% chance are separated from those with 50% chance you have defeated the purpose of "spreading the risk". I all the people in the group have 100% chance then the risk is not spread.
 
Tom.B said:
And yet, premiums and claims are rarely based on this. Things like credit score and how many times you call to ask simple questions about coverage weigh more on how you are charged and treated than the ACTUAL risk. :banghead:
Click to expand...

No, that's not true. Credit scores may have a modest impact, but most property and liability policies are still mostly based on risk. Depending on how you want to look at it, I reduced the premium on my boat insurance by almost half for keeping it out of Florida during hurricane season. My truck insurance for liability and collision is about $600 per year because I have a clean driving record and own a 16 year old truck worth $10k, not a bad driving record and a new truck worth $60K. My home in Florida meets almost every requirement for the highest level of hurricane protection. As a result, I had no claims from last years hurricane while others around me had substantial claims. Guess what, no premium increase on my replacement cost policy.

Property policies are mostly about risk and what you do to lower your risk.

Ted
 
If risk should be spread so evenly, then homeowners and liveaboards should be lumped together too.....

Actually I know that would be BS....

So I, and guessing Ted, is being reasonable by saying if you don't mitigate, pay the brunt.

If that is pitting against one another, well so be it as in reality it has a lot of more socially better names like "fair".... in my world where people were taught a high level of respondibility.

But I would rather the thread get back on track on WHY it IS or ISN'T possible to mitigate boat damage when a hurricane threatens.
 
Last edited:
jimisbell said:
I dont think so, you are on a boat!!!!
Click to expand...
I've been a licensed merchant mariner for 35 years with an unblemished record. Apparently my insurance companies (professional and recreational) don't think I'm at much of a risk on a boat (as compared to the average weekend warrior), based on my premiums. :)

Ted
 
psneeld said:
But I would rather the thread get back on track on WHY it IS or ISN'T possible to mitigate boat damage when a hurricane threatens.
Click to expand...

Kudos Ted. You get it.

In Fl and other Caribbean locales hurricanes threaten every year. Where and intensity is a short term guess but long term it is rising up very high in % occurrence for most of the Gulf Coast and Islands. For this reason most big yacht policies have a move it or lose it clause. Some big yacht Captains move it very far, like to the Med.

PSN is raising valid points about relocating. For good reason. With so many boats hardly ever moving anytime from their slip, the direct, environmental and peripheral damage caused by these dock queens is guaranteed and enormous when hurricane season arrives.

The insurance industry will continue to tighten the screws, move it or lose it may well become a standard for smaller at risk boats and marinas. Kinda makes one yearn for a nice trailer boat, like a Ranger Tug or Sea Piper.
 
jimisbell said:
As I said, "Pit us against each other" Your anger shows.



When you separate the group so that all people with100% chance are separated from those with 50% chance you have defeated the purpose of "spreading the risk". I all the people in the group have 100% chance then the risk is not spread.
Click to expand...

I see the problem.

You don't understand insurance. You seem to think that if a person is 100% at risk, he should be able to buy insurance. If you wrecked a new car every year, you think that you should have insurance for the same price as everyone else. What's the incentive to keep people from "accidentally" driving their car into the river? Let's see, I blew the engine in my car, and it accidentally went swimming.

Property and liability insurance is designed to cover you for a very unlikely event. If an event is likely to happen, insurance premiums should be high to get you to reduce the risk. Can you not see that offering lower premiums for people who make an effort to reduce their risk, is a good thing?

I think you equate property and liability insurance with health care insurance. 50 years ago, health insurance was just that, insurance against illnesses and accidents. Most people didn't use their insurance each year. Now health insurance is really more a healthcare plan that everybody is expected to use each year. As a result healthcare has morphed into a right regardless of how risky a lifestyle a person has. Want to be a heroine addict? No problem, insurance has to cover it, again and again and again. You're probably wondering why your healthcare costs keep going up also.

Ted
 
Last edited:
O C Diver said:
Why should a person who chooses to avoid or reduce risks have to subsidize those who don't? We own a home 30 miles from the coast. Why should my premium be based on the same risk factor as the homes 100 yards from the ocean? I see nothing wrong with incentivizing good choices and good behavior.
Click to expand...


I agree completely.

I know a guy that had a beach house that was destroyed by Sandy. He couldn’t rebuild what was destroyed. The gov authority (not sure if it was the county, municipal, or New Jersey) wouldn’t give him a building permit unless he met certain requirements. He was able to build on the land he owned but he had to build it raise 10’ on pilings. He was willing to do it, he put a carport and some storage below the beach house.

To me that makes sense. Let folks rebuild IF they take into account the known risks.
 
jimisbell said:
Just as I said, "Pit us against each other"
Click to expand...



Not at all. It is about having individuals and groups pay for their own decisions. Choose to live in an area at risk for flooding, then you get to pay the premiums for insurance coverage. I live in a location that simply can’t flood. I certainly am not going to subsidize someone’s decision to accept a flood risk.

Likewise, I live in an area that is at serious risk for earthquake. Why should someone else pay to mitigate the risks that I choose to take by living where I do?
 
Jimibell, you are making some statements about insurance that are based on emotion, rather than facts.
 
Fletcher500 said:
Jimibell, you are making some statements about insurance that are based on emotion, rather than facts.
Click to expand...

Amen....it's popular to hate insurance and all involved, but the reality is the insurance industry provides services most of us need. They aren't the enemy. I disagree with the industry and specific insurers sometimes, but that doesn't make me turn on them or label them the devil.

Now, we have people railing on insurance companies and far away from the thread about New Bern and others hurt so badly by this storm. I just saw this morning the video of the firemen washing the dead fish off of I-40. Something else no one anticipated.
 
Simi 60 said:
I don't know the area but wouldn't somewhere like upper broad creek or offshoots of the trent river provide good shelter?
Seems to be reasonable depth a long way up into it.


I had a boat in New Bern and did this up the Trent for an earlier hurricane. Took many precautions. No damage. Still with the size of this past one, it would've been dicey the way I did it. But the Trent has high banks and lots of wind shielding. Plus it's deep. It can be done, but you'd need to anchor away from falling and blowing projectiles and that can be a roll of the dice. Marinas have more projectiles and things to bump. One of the other posters had it right - lots more responsibilities on land to worry about the boat. Keep your insurance current.
Click to expand...
 
Simi 60 said:
I don't know the area but wouldn't somewhere like upper broad creek or offshoots of the trent river provide good shelter?
Seems to be reasonable depth a long way up into it.
Click to expand...

So, more on what Ben said. Upper Broad *IS* a great place to ride out a storm at anchor. In fact, most of Blackbeard Sailing Club marina, which is located right there in Upper Broad, anchored there and they had a 100% survival rate. It's wide with a soft, muddy bottom that holds great. Additionally, the east wind was definitely favorable for that anchorage.

Ben and I are friends, but I always felt that, while successful, riding out a storm as he did, tied to a tree in a narrow creek, was pretty reckless. And I have told him that. However, it worked for him... It was his "plan". So I can criticize it until the cows come home, he had his own reasons for doing it and it is his call --- NOT mine. All I can do is hope he doesn't die. Period.

What's my point? I guess is that there are no absolutes. We stayed in a hurricane hole marina and survived while others didn't. (see attached image from a marina friend) Some say that was reckless. One marina in New Bern with floating docks got destroyed while another one, just like it, survived without a scratch. These storms move around. One change of direction that causes the wind to come from the west or the south would have changed everything.

If everyone that owns a boat with the means to move hundreds of miles out of the way of storms like this were the only people that made up the community, that community would be TINY. There would be no West Marine, no Defender, all marinas would be expensive, and towns wouldn't roll out the welcome wagon for the few people visiting by water. It's boaters like us, the middle-class boaters that DO need loans to afford it, that have raised the boating experience for everyone. Well, and Ronald Regan's huge tax cuts in the 80's that flooded the market with overseas built boats. So don't fault us for having to stay put when storms come. I can assure you, we do not WANT to stay. The anxiety Bess and I went thru I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.


I can assure you, the insurance companies study the risks and apply things like 5x deductibles to manage their own risk. The next time you're in an airplane over, say, Miami. Look down. Every house has people in it that are paying some form of insurance... well, maybe 99%. It may not all be marine insurance, but regardless, that pool is huge. That is the reason insurance companies rarely go bankrupt.


Sorry... I ended up rambling.



42486131_1969400233357940_1439481645286555648_n.jpg
 
I recognize and respect Tom’s caution on storms. He and I differ on the limits of storm preparedness and actions. My experience comes from growing up on the Chesapeake Bay the first 20 years of my life and having 15 years more direct boating ownership time on the Neuse since the early 90s.

Knowing the flow pattern, depth, wind shear, bank height, and hydrodynamics of the narrow and lengthy Trent River against the wind tides of the Neuse is extremely important. The Trent is a perpendicular branch off the Neuse and there is a significant lag in the timing effects of the regional wind tide.

Experiences of past hurricanes Emily, Fran, Floyd, Irma, Irene, Matthew, Arthur with boats give an incredible portfolio of data for the region. In the picture above, my boat would have been tied on the upper dock with at least eight (of 31) boats showing damaged or on the docks (30%+ major damage probability). Some marinas farther south on the Neuse have an anchoring plan to avoid this scenario and have escaped this in the past.

Everyone must consider the least risk options for their experience, comfort level, and judgment based on their individual and family priorities. Hurricane anchoring plans are one option which I personally have found to be successful.
 
As much as I talk about mitigating possible damages, I am just as adamant that not all solutions work all the time...no matter what they are.

Having just one plan is just as potentially disasterous as no plan. If you can't be flexible changing tactics or plans....best to just follow the best average shot and execute to the fullest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JoeKel
Liveaboards in south Florida - What are our rights?
2
Replies
57
Views
10K
rwidman
rwidman
C
New to Great Lakes Cruising and in Need of Guidance
Replies
20
Views
1K
Cartouche
Cartouche
R
Hurricane Ian sank our boat... but not our dreams.
Replies
13
Views
4K
Fletcher500
Fletcher500
Mac2
A new type of "Coastal Cruiser"?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
10K
Art
Art
J
Two feet in!
Replies
20
Views
2K
AlanT
AlanT

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom