# How many insure their boat with only liability insurance?



## pyewackette (Apr 2, 2011)

I raised this question on another thread concerning insurance, however I left out an important detail about liability insurance.

I was interested in finding out how many average people, (by average I mean, individuals who struggle to enjoy sailing on lower incomes) insure their boats with only liability insurance?

I agree, liability insurance would be a required facet of owning a boat, just like marine towing insurance, but when it comes to comprehensive insurance, how many do without and what would be the value that most go uninsured?

I know a lot depends on what reserves a person has but, let's say a person who does not have a lot in reserve except the boat itself. Is it worth the money to insure it if it cost less than, say 30K, 50K, or 100K, and not what one would call a perfect boat but one that is seaworthy and comfortable to sail to any destination.

I am in the process of having to decide if I want to go the route of liability only coverage or not and your responses would be appreciated. I have an older boat and I am tired of jumping through the insurance/surveyor hoops and I wanted to find out if their are others out there or do I need to just suck it up and just get the insurance.

Other thread:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...rant-how-would-you-respond-2.html#post1024802


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

In my experience your ability to get insurance is ALL or NONE and to get liability only does NOT remove any hoops 

The wife and myself did take the risk while Seafever was in the driveway because we had to as it was not insurable BUT were are sure not prepared to roll the dice at the 20 k level 

Pretty much nothing ever happened in my 55 year life until 6 weeks after a 20 month refit when my mooring neighbor put his bow pulpit through the cabintop

I get rather nervous in my mooring area as there are four well know 30' boats with extensive bow pulpit and rail damage from collisions


----------



## Squidd (Sep 26, 2011)

I have a (maybe) $6,000 boat that I bought for $760 off e-bay and have been fixing on...

I have 300 k liabilty (marina required)... only...actually I think they might give me my $760 back if it sinks....


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

Full replacement coverage for boat, motor and trailer. $1 million liability, $10,000 medical, coverage for items stolen from the boat.

I sleep at night with this coverage.

I, too, am worried about collisions. Know a guy couple boats down who hit the opposite marina's dock 2x so far this year.


----------



## ABH3 Boyer (Sep 27, 2012)

I was unable to get insurance without going through major hoops for my latiest boat because my boat is a kit boat and is consitered home made. I got it for free but put 5k in cash into materials and at least 200 hours overhauling her. I think I'm ok with only liability. Rolling the dice may also be easier for me because I'm at a dock and I'm on the great lakes not the ocean. I also redisigned the boat so that it would still float if it were cut into pieces. Really sick of giving my hard earned money to insurance companys just to get screwed when you do have a problem. Insurance is a scam to make the rich richer. I only keep it to protect my family.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

I insured my first boat during building. When I asked about insuring her after launching the broker came up with a policy which covered lightening( we get lightening every few years at most) theft of entire vessel.( She was not rigged. ) explosion( there was nothing to explode on her, and fire( there was no stove nor heater on board.) I told him where to stick his policy, and have had no insurance of any kind since.
I once made a claim for medical insurance and the company( world wide mediclaim, travel underwriters) refused to pay because I didnt have a credit card for them to put my expenses on, and force me to go to court to get paid. My brother, and others I have met also had bad experiences with them. I have little confidence insurers will pay any claim made .


----------



## Hesper (May 4, 2006)

I've got my insurance through the US POwer Squadrons (carrier is The St Paul) and it's so affordable, it doesn't make sense to skimp. If you have a built-in engine/fuel tank, you'd damn well better have environmental insurance too.


----------



## MarioG (Sep 6, 2009)

our boat is our house so full coverage is the only way for us to go, even with it being a problem finding insurance for an older boat.

I wouldn't have thought this was a problem untill I heard of a sailboat hitting a million dollar yacht at a fuel dock causing a few thousand in damage and the sailboat owners had no insurance. The yacht owner brushed it off but if I was the one that was hit I would either own another boat or be in jail for assalt.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

We currently carry agreed-value insurance as well as liability. We do that b/c our yacht club insists on it. When we head off to become full-time cruisers next spring we will likely only carry liability. The reason, once again, is b/c it seems more and more marinas are insisting on boats having liability coverage just to dock. 

Personally, if I could avoid buying any insurance, I would. This seems to be increasingly hard to do, at least in the rich parts of the world, so it will be liability-only for me.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

When we go, soon please Neptune, we will carry only liability. We can afford the loss of the boat. We can not afford the fines for a fuel spill or recovering the hull should she sink.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Lawyers tell me the ability to collect on a civil court judgement is dependent on the mark's ability to pay. Best research that before paying for a law suit you have no chance of collecting on.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

I have a liability only policy with $300k limit and the environmental coverage...it's amazingly inexpensive and helps me sleep at night. Not having comprehensive also keeps me focused on not letting her sink!


----------



## Flybyknight (Nov 5, 2005)

Captainmeme said:


> When we go, soon please Neptune, we will carry only liability. We can afford the loss of the boat. We can not afford the fines for a fuel spill or recovering the hull should she sink.


That's exactly the point. If you hit someone, or if she sinks, the environmental authorities will want your head on a platter.
imho
Dick


----------



## finding41 (Jul 19, 2011)

I had 2 million liability last year. (rider through the house/ business) This year I will have it covered for agreed value as well. It's worth more this year...


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

I got liability (300k maybe?) with no survey and no questions asked. At like $130 a year it's not worth skipping.


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

bigdogandy said:


> I have a liability only policy with $300k limit and the environmental coverage...it's amazingly inexpensive and helps me sleep at night. Not having comprehensive also keeps me focused on not letting her sink!


+1. I've got about 85k in my boat and carry liability only to keep the occasional marina happy.


----------



## geehaw (Jun 9, 2010)

It was only $15 a year to cover my boat and trailer for $8000. I wasn't going to get full coverage but for $15 I couldn't pass it up. They said book value was only $3200 for my boat but still gave me the $8000 coverage. But if I were to sell my boat I would be asking that much. Would I get that much,well.........


----------



## pyewackette (Apr 2, 2011)

I guess another consideration is the length of the vessel.

It seems it is easier for vessels that are 35' or less to get reasonable insurance, where as vessels over that size, and older than 20 years, to get anything that seems reasonable.

To further define the question, how many people with vessels over 35' carry only liability only?

But even that is curious, do vessels greater that 35' sink more than vessels that are less than that size? Wonder why the distinction is not about whether a boat is trailerable or not? That seems realistic? Is it that much harder to take care of a 40' than a 35'?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

In my talks with insurance brokers they seem to be concerned about your ability to dock bigger boats without doing to much damage to the neighbors 

Seriously around here its like parking cars at a Ferrari dealer NOT to many cheep incidents


----------



## pyewackette (Apr 2, 2011)

tommays said:


> In my talks with insurance brokers they seem to be concerned about your ability to dock bigger boats without doing to much damage to the neighbors
> 
> Seriously around here its like parking cars at a Ferrari dealer NOT to many cheep incidents


I carry a 100 Ton Master, with towing and sailing endorsements, I have yet to have an insurance company give me a break for my experience. Age of the boat seems to be more of a factor than operator experience.

And if marina location and the value of my neighbors boat is important, then give me a run down marina with people who are not so concerned about the value of their boat more than they are about the fun they had out on the water. A well weathered boat is more pleasing to my eyes than a shiny Clorox bottle with strings attached.


----------



## Frogwatch (Jan 22, 2011)

I believe in doing a lot of sailing on a cheap boat. My 1981 28' S2 has a declared value of only $10,000 but prob isn't worth that much. If anything happed to her, I'd shrug it off and think "Now I've got a GOOD reason to build what I want". Liability only for me.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

I have 4 old cars (newest is 23 years old) and carry only liability coverage. I can manage the risk of damage by driving well (at least trying to), and parking in relatively safe places, as well as not being concerned about minor bangs, scrapes and scrathes others may inflict on these well broken in modes of transport.

My boat harbor requires $300,000 liability (which I would carry in any case to pay for damage I might cause, and pontential pollution and recovery cost I might inflict). I also carry comprehensive to cover the cost of my boat- it is cheap and will offset the cost of fixing or replacing the boat in case of damage. With a boat there is a lot of damage that may at times be out of your control, since everthing entails some risk- like potential sinking at the dock, lightning strikes, collisions by others, the high cost of a tow in case of a demasting or rig failure, or engine problems, hitting an object just below surface, and grounding.


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)

Just liability for me.. but my dockmates have boats that are pretty inexpensive too, we're on freshwater, and my boat is a write-off at $5k (insured for $10k)... bluebook says it's worth $8k. I have $5k in sails on it. Yep, never seeing the money I put into my boat again, but I'm ok with that!


----------



## jameswilson29 (Aug 15, 2009)

I have two separate policies, a full coverage Boat/US policy for the Chesapeake Bay and a relatively inexpensive liability-only Progressive policy for my ocean/coastal sailing out to 75 nautical miles.


----------



## richardb123 (Apr 11, 2009)

Some may 'sleep well at night' with full insurance, but consider this. I have done much consulting for insurance people. The claims agents are paid bonuses based on how many claims they DENY. Yes, deny. So if one claims agent pays out 80% of his claims and another only 60%, the latter is the superstar and the former is fighting for his job. If there is any doubt, wiggle room or uncertainty you may not get your claim accepted. The percentage of rejected claims varies, but I've heard its as high as 30%. So forget your security blanket, you don't have one. If there is damage, there is an excellent chance you will hear "sorry, not paying".

There are vast risks all around us. You'd have to stay in bed to live safe. There are thousands of situations in which you might get sued, or be liable for something, and you simply cannot be insured for many things. And if you could find the coverage, they'd try to wiggle out of paying.

Outside of the US, people do not face bankruptcy due to massive fines if their diesel tank leaks, or if their boat sinks. Ah, the land of the free....


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Thanks for this Richard. It's part of the reason I'm no fan of insurance. My main objection to being forced into buying insurance has to do with risk vs cost. 

By any measure the actually risks associated with cruising for most people is exceedingly small. The cost for full coverage insurance is not. The problem is that many of us are forced into buying this product, and therefore have little ability to make a rational choice.


----------



## jppp (Jul 13, 2008)

We pulled our 20' fishing boat and brought her home for safe keeping with Sandy approaching. Huge maple crushed her into the ground. One phone call, no questions asked, 3 pics emailed and two weeks later a check for $10k arrived. They said it's ours to do with now. We sold the outboard for an additional $2500.


----------



## Tallswede (Jul 18, 2012)

Just have liability required by marina on my boat. It's a Hunter 23.5 I keep on a trailer there. I guess it's in case the mast falls on someone else's boat? Most of the boats in my marina never move and any fuel in them probably wouldn't burn if you threw a match on it. I could definitely see the case to be made for spill remediation though. LOL.

Kevin


----------



## richardb123 (Apr 11, 2009)

jppp said:


> We pulled our 20' fishing boat and brought her home for safe keeping with Sandy approaching. Huge maple crushed her into the ground. One phone call, no questions asked, 3 pics emailed and two weeks later a check for $10k arrived. They said it's ours to do with now. We sold the outboard for an additional $2500.


Excellent. You are one of the 70-80% that has their claims accepted. A clear, cut and dry situation. But rest assured, if it were not so simple, an agent would have appeared, looking for ways not to pay. That is there job. They get paid well to reject claims. They try hard to do this.

There were wild fires in my friend's neighborhood a few years back. her neighbor's house burned to the ground, but fortunately my friend's house was undamaged by flames. However, the smell of smoke was strong. It really stank in there. She said two agents came to her house, and looked around for an hour Then they sat at her kitchen table, looked her in the eye and said "what do you mean you smell smoke? WE don't smell smoke". She had the choice of litigation, but was advised against it. Her costs to repair the home were about $30,000.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

richardb123 said:


> Some may 'sleep well at night' with full insurance, but consider this. I have done much consulting for insurance people. The claims agents are paid bonuses based on how many claims they DENY. Yes, deny. So if one claims agent pays out 80% of his claims and another only 60%, the latter is the superstar and the former is fighting for his job. If there is any doubt, wiggle room or uncertainty you may not get your claim accepted. The percentage of rejected claims varies, but I've heard its as high as 30%. So forget your security blanket, you don't have one. If there is damage, there is an excellent chance you will hear "sorry, not paying".
> 
> There are vast risks all around us. You'd have to stay in bed to live safe. There are thousands of situations in which you might get sued, or be liable for something, and you simply cannot be insured for many things. And if you could find the coverage, they'd try to wiggle out of paying.
> 
> Outside of the US, people do not face bankruptcy due to massive fines if their diesel tank leaks, or if their boat sinks. Ah, the land of the free....


So what are you saying here? Do you have a liability only policy? Is this your self-deluding excuse to not carry any insurance? If so, please stay away from my boat.

You're welcome to think that comprehensive insurance coverage is a ripoff. That's your right, even if you're exaggerating. But if your boat catches fire and burns down my marina and my boat, I don't want you running and hiding, or declaring bankruptcy to escape your responsibility. I want all my boating neighbors to have liability insurance to make me whole if you screw up my boat.

It's what responsible boaters do. It's what reputable marinas require.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

richardb123 said:


> Some may 'sleep well at night' with full insurance, but consider this. I have done much consulting for insurance people. The claims agents are paid bonuses based on how many claims they DENY. Yes, deny. So if one claims agent pays out 80% of his claims and another only 60%, the latter is the superstar and the former is fighting for his job. If there is any doubt, wiggle room or uncertainty you may not get your claim accepted. The percentage of rejected claims varies, but I've heard its as high as 30%. So forget your security blanket, you don't have one. If there is damage, there is an excellent chance you will hear "sorry, not paying".
> 
> There are vast risks all around us. You'd have to stay in bed to live safe. There are thousands of situations in which you might get sued, or be liable for something, and you simply cannot be insured for many things. And if you could find the coverage, they'd try to wiggle out of paying.
> 
> Outside of the US, people do not face bankruptcy due to massive fines if their diesel tank leaks, or if their boat sinks. Ah, the land of the free....


If you have documentation of this method of rejecting claims I would like to see it. It sounds like a great lawsuit for fraud. Not to mention the criminal prosecutions that it would result in for wire fraud, mail fraud, ect...

As for the environmental issues. The US is the developed country least concerned about our environment. The basis in law for the owner being responsible for environmental cleanup comes from a 1935 English case called Whippingham, that recognized a salvage claim for preventing damage the owner of the salvaged vessel would have been responsible for (a barge running into a bridge). This concept is called 'liability prevented' and became an additional factor in determining a salvage award. Btw it wasn't recognized in the US until 1987. More than 50 years later.

The US didn't recognize this for environmental issue until The International Convention on Salvage 1989, when it was forced to by treaty obligations, until then it didn't matter.


----------



## 06HarleyUltra (Oct 27, 2011)

We have full coverage policy, 500k liability/environmental and an agreed value for the hull and trailer. It's about 200 bucks a year. Seems like a no brainer decision for us. 
Let's face it, sheet can and does happen.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

I had it in berkeley, ca because it was needed for a slip

I used progressive, like above was only like 300 a year and I remeber it being liabiliity only or something...never once did I think about it as a safety or payback insurance , simply as a ways to have a berth...and thats that


----------



## richardb123 (Apr 11, 2009)

TakeFive said:


> So what are you saying here? Do you have a liability only policy? Is this your self-deluding excuse to not carry any insurance? If so, please stay away from my boat.
> 
> You're welcome to think that comprehensive insurance coverage is a ripoff. That's your right, even if you're exaggerating. But if your boat catches fire and burns down my marina and my boat, I don't want you running and hiding, or declaring bankruptcy to escape your responsibility. I want all my boating neighbors to have liability insurance to make me whole if you screw up my boat.
> 
> It's what responsible boaters do. It's what reputable marinas require.


Thanks for the lecture on what responsible boaters do. I don't tie up in marinas, I don't run and hide, and yes, I have liability insurance. So you can relax a bit.
I don't think I'm exaggerating. Here's a quote from another boater, from Cruisers Forum, who got nothing from his insurer after a barge severely damaged his vessel. i know, with 100% certainty, that the adjusters are under significant pressure to deny claims. I've worked with dozens of these guys. I know their world. If you think the insurance company is like a friendly uncle who will help you out when the chips are down you are really fooling yourself. Any doubt about the circumstances, the blame, or any complexity, and they will try to avoid payment, as this story illustrates.

Boat US, Liability Only? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

He writes:

About the early-to-mid 90's, I had a Newport 27 which I'd purchased in Chicago. I got an amazing deal on her, simply because her owner had developed MS and was bedridden. She had the boat insured with Boat U.S., so I just phoned them up to transfer coverage. After asking about my experience, they lowered the premium a good bit. Regarding coverage, I said to just keep everything the same as it was, including the agreed value of $15,300 which is what she paid for the vessel a year or two before. (Mind you, none could be found in the papers for anything under $12,500, and this one was in excellent condition, full compliment of sails, etc.) So they send me a bunch of pages, as promised, having told me to just sign 'em and return 'em with a check for the premium. I noticed that they said the engine was 10 years older than the boat, but shrugged it off. Such are details, right? Yes, but that's where the Devil is often found.

Three weeks later, while tied off on a seawall I'd rented (as the Mississippi was flooded and They weren't allowing anyone through,) a drunk barge pilot came the 200' across the Chicago River, slicing a 12' long gash into the Newport's hull, crushing both bulkheads, and kept on going. I wasn't on board at that moment, but was nearby. I came out, saw the damage and, as luck would have it, caught the vessel still waiting for a draw bridge to open. The Coasties would take 4 hours to get the pilot to answer. One can reasonably presume they were waiting for him to sober up first. Shortening up, CG report showed that they were primarily at fault, with me contributing by the fact that she was tied off there (even though it had been used for that purpose for years, including a 50' sailboat that had come in all the way from Italy.) But I don't have to worry, right, because Boat U.S. is YOUR advocate. What if your advocate is also your adversary. They didn't want to pay. Even their own surveyor said she was worth 12,500, and only got halfway through his inspection before agreeing that she'd been totaled. When they got to hunting up the Devil, they required proof that I'd paid $15,300 for her. I pointed out that I had never said that, that I had simply said to keep the same coverages. Blah, blah, blah, long story short? Since I hadn't PAID $15,300, they didn't want to pay for it... at all. Claiming that it was null and void from inception, they sent me back the premium (which my attorney said not to cash.) In short, I was screwed. Yes, I could file against them, and in a decaade or so when it got before an Illinois judge, I'd be awarded triple damages because of bad faith on their part. But who has money and time for all of that?

And what of the barge owner and pilot? Turns out the barge was owned by an ex state senator who has contracts with the city for the fireworks on the 4th of July, etc. Yet again, after jerking my chain for months, he finally admitted he wouldn't pay either.

I ended up selling her for just about what I'd paid, to some guy who thought he'd fix her back up. The sails and engine were worth that much or more... but if I'd sold her parts, I'd have had to pay for removal of hazardous waste (fiberglass hull). Was I burned? I think so, and it ended plans of a fantastic voyage.

That the politician didn't pay isn't surprising. It's Chicago. I hope somebody fixed his kneecaps for him over something like that on one day or another. But still... sucks but he wasn't the worst villain.

Boat US, on the other hand, was PAID to cover me. At the very least, they should have cut a check for what their surveyor said she was worth. Moreover, all that hyperbole about them being their members' advocate, and then they themselves put the screws to me?

No way will I EVER give them another red cent, let alone my trust.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

boat us sucks!


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

In NZ liability insurance appears to be less expensive than elsewhere.

Our boat is comprehensively insured for replacement and gear etc. and we have NZ$1m liability. The difference between a million and 500k is hardly noticeable so we take the million - we boat alongside some very expensive/exotic boats. Also a fire in a marina started by our boat would almost certainly amount to a million and probably more.

As it happens we are not in a marina but we do visit them from time to time and for the amount of money the liability covers costs, I would not do anything less. I have rented a berth in a marine for a week over the Christmas weekend and the two sport fishers on either side of me are worth in excess of $1m each.

Another thing that is common for voyagers to be aware of is that insurance companies (at least in our experience) will not cover boats on blue-water voyages for component damage (mast, sails, etc), only total loss. So if you're planning a voyage don't expect to get comprehensive cover that will pay for storm damage, etc.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> ... if your boat catches fire and burns down my marina and my boat, I don't want you running and hiding, or declaring bankruptcy to escape your responsibility. I want all my boating neighbors to have liability insurance to make me whole if you screw up my boat.


This is the kind of "if you're not with us, you're against us" kind of argument that really ticks me off (sorry TakeFive ... not trying to be personal). I'm sorry, but we've been sold a load of BS by those who profit from our collective ignorance and fear.

Insurance is a way of mitigating risk. Risk is a calculation based on probability of an event x impact of event. I've posted stats numerous times, but the probability of a reportable event happening to the vast majority of boaters, let alone cruisers, is tiny. By most measures it would be a statistical anomaly that would be discarded in any rational analysis.

Yes, if my boat burns in a marina it may take other with it. How many boats burn in a marina each year? I don't have the number at my finger tips, but it is very small, and completely inconsequential compared to the number of boats out there. IOW, Risk is nearly zero. Nada. Nothing. You face far greater risks walking in a city, or eating soft ice cream from a fast food vendor.

There is no such thing as a zero-risk world. Cruising and sailing represents a very tiny risk to most participants. If you want to mitigate this risk by using money, that's fine. But don't make it a moral stance. For most sailors there are far better ways to mitigate the risk.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> This is the kind of "if you're not with us, you're against us" kind of argument that really ticks me off (sorry TakeFive ... not trying to be personal). I'm sorry, but we've been sold a load of BS by those who profit from our collective ignorance and fear.
> 
> Insurance is a way of mitigating risk. Risk is a calculation based on probability of an event x impact of event. I've posted stats numerous times, but the probability of a reportable event happening to the vast majority of boaters, let alone cruisers, is tiny. By most measures it would be a statistical anomaly that would be discarded in any rational analysis.
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I can take the heat. OP has insurance, so my ire at him was overblown. But my ire at others who refuse to buy insurance is properly directed.

Your "almost zero risk" argu,emt is lame. You could apply the same faulty logic to car insurance too. Fortunately, the states realize this, and require insurance for cars. They aren't as concerned about protecting us "rich boaters." :laugher

Multiply the small percentage risk by the huge cost of a marina burning down, and you can see why marinas require it. And there are lots of other far more likely events, like a line chafing through allowing your boat to bang into other boats. Or a hurricane (imagine that!).

I'm not looking for a zero risk world. I'm looking for neighbors who accept responsibility for damaging others. I don't know what kind of marina you're in, but the vast majority of my neighbors would claim to be penniless when asked to pay up. That's why my marina requires them to have insurance.

I also believe in a free-market economy. If the probability of an event x impact of event was as small as you claim, then insurance companies would be lowering rates to win more business. That's how the free market works - when profit margins get too fat in a business, new competition enters to market to drive the prices down. There's a good reason why that's not happening. Here on the east coast we've had two hurricanes in the past two years. Your argument probability of event is near zero is outdated and quaint.


----------



## jwing (Jun 20, 2013)

My BoatUS insurance policy (purchased in October 2013) has a clause that exempts damage done by a named storm. WTF? When I move to Florida/Bahamas/Carribean how do I protect myself and others from hurricanes and tropical storms? Is this exemption the reason that winter storms are now named?


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Takefive - you have no right to order anyone not to take their boat anywhere,near yours or otherwise - nor do you or anyone have any right to assume a risk free sail, lake, ocean or world. Stuff happens. If you want to be 100% safe and risk free, stay home and watch TV. We all take the risk of damage. 

If you think every insurance company is just going to make you whole to make you happy, then overblown isn't the word. Naive is. You might find an uninsured owner who is decent and would pay cash or check on the spot. And insurance companies that say " see me in court" Insurance companies protect the policy holder, not neighboring boats who happen to get dinged.

To the Op - We have liability only. $300k.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> Don't worry, I can take the heat. OP has insurance, so my ire at him was overblown. But my ire at others who refuse to buy insurance is properly directed.


See ... this is the moralistic attitude I object to. Some of us actually chooses to rationally consider the real risk, and dare to think for ourselves. If boat insurance is the best solution for your risk management plan, then fine, but don't force it on everyone. Please take your "properly directed" ire elsewhere.



TakeFive said:


> Your "almost zero risk" argu,emt is lame. You could apply the same faulty logic to car insurance too. Fortunately, the states realize this, and require insurance for cars.


Thanks for making my point. The real risk of being in a car accident is high ... much higher than a boating accident, and many magnitudes higher than the risks most cruising boaters face. Insurance makes perfect sense in a high-risk activity like driving a car. It makes a lot less sense in the case of low-risk activities like sailing and cruising.

You can look up the incident data yourself. For the US, it's publicly available from the USCG. Interestingly, it's almost impossible to get similar stats from insurance companies...



TakeFive said:


> Multiply the small percentage risk by the huge cost of a marina burning down, and you can see why marinas require it. And there are lots of other far more likely events, like a line chafing through allowing your boat to bang into other boats. Or a hurricane (imagine that!).


Yes, agreed. But how many marinas have burned down? In the US I can find none, zero, nadda in the last 10 years of data. Perhaps you can point to the incidents of this happening. There are a small number of cases over the past 10 years of boats burning in marinas, and in some cases this spreads to other boats, not whole marinas. But even here we're talking single-digit numbers. Once again, compare that to the millions of boats that in ownership and you arrive at a real risk of almost zero.

BTW, most insurance will not cover named storms (imagine that!).

If you insist on buying insurance for everything that produces any risk above zero, then you are going to be wasting a lot of money, but if that makes you feel safer, then fine. Just don't force your irrational fear on me.



TakeFive said:


> I'm not looking for a zero risk world. I'm looking for neighbors who accept responsibility for damaging others.


Insurance could be one way for people to "accept responsibility" for their actions, but it is only one. In most cases it is not the best way. Good maintenance, proper equipment, good skills development, being aware of weather and surroundings... all these things are far more important than off-loading your responsibility to a third-party so you can "accept responsibility" after the incident.



TakeFive said:


> I also believe in a free-market economy. If the probability of an event x impact of event was as small as you claim, then insurance companies would be lowering rates to win more business. That's how the free market works...


I won't get into a discussion of your so-called "free market." I will say that even if you believe this fantasy, then you must also realize that forcing people to buy insurance means we're no longer operating freely.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here. If you want insurance, then I've got no problem with that. But to state that someone who chooses a different solution is somehow not accepting their responsibility as a boater, especially when the data shows the risk to be tiny, is insulting.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Insurance is about loss recovery. 

I have full comprehensive insurance because I can't afford to buy a replacement out of pocket; and I do the same for my car's. 

My insurance is roughly 500 a year total. 

Liability only insurance would run me 2/3 of my total, what's the point?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

chucklesR said:


> Insurance is about loss recovery.
> 
> I have full comprehensive insurance because I can't afford to buy a replacement out of pocket; and I do the same for my car's.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a good deal Chuckles, although we'd have to know the value of your boat, and where/how you sail to be able to truly assess the $500 bill.

As I said, I'm not opposed to insurance. If it works for your situation, then fine. Great. Fill your boots! What I'm opposed to (my point, if you like) is the moralistic attitude some people have towards others who choose a different path -- especially considering the real risks involved here. And I'm further opposed to the increasing trend of forcing boaters to carry insurance, again in the face of a risk that is smaller than most other activities we all routinely undertake.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

Fires in marinas happen.

This summer there was a fire in the marina next to where I keep my boat. Lots of flames and billowing smoke, but we are only a few blocks from the fire department who brought the fire under control quickly. If the fire department had not been as quick the fire may have spread and depending on the tide may have spread to the adjacent marinas.

We have had fires, sinkings, oil spills, collisions and floating docks break free among the 7 or 8 marinas on our section of the Delaware River over the past few years. Stuff happens and insurance is a relatively low cost way to hedge the potential lose slightly in your favor. It is also required by most marinas for obvious reasons.


----------



## delite (Nov 2, 2009)

richardb123 said:


> Outside of the US, people do not face bankruptcy due to massive fines if their diesel tank leaks, or if their boat sinks. Ah, the land of the free....


Isnt that exactly why you need liability coverage? I'm no environmentalist but if your diesel tanks are leaking and you are unable to afford the repair you should reconsider your boat. Maybe a laser would be more appropriate. 
The regulations that exist today are in part the result of many years of to many people with similar attitudes. Its always the worst actions that attract the attention and lead to over regulation. 
Just like the few really bad live aboards have resulted in a significant loss of marinas accepting live aboards, one persons leaking fuel tank is bad for all of us. I dont need to subsidize others mistakes or lifestyles or have my expenses go up because others dont want to accept responsibility for their actions and possessions. It seems to me those that need insurance the most (old boats in disrepair) are least likely to have it and that costs all of us.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> ...What I'm opposed to (my point, if you like) is the moralistic attitude some people have towards others who choose a different path -- especially considering the real risks involved here...


If your inexpensive boat breaks loose from a mooring and causes extensive damage to someone else's $300,000 yacht, what is your "different path?" This is not a rhetorical question - I'm interested in hearing what you would do.

To the extent that liability insurance involves taking responsibility for the damage that your boat can cause to others in excess of what you are able/willing to pay out of pocket, it is a moral issue. If that means I have a moralistic attitude, so be it. I do not consider that an insult.


----------



## delite (Nov 2, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, agreed. But how many marinas have burned down? In the US I can find none, zero, nadda in the last 10 years of data. Perhaps you can point to the incidents of this happening. There are a small number of cases over the past 10 years of boats burning in marinas, and in some cases this spreads to other boats, not whole marinas. But even here we're talking single-digit numbers. Once again, compare that to the millions of boats that in ownership and you arrive at a real risk of almost zero.


So in your mind the marina has to burn to the water to be a fire or do damage? Marina fires are far more common than you claim:
Nov 11, 2013 LYNN - Officials are investigating a fire at a marina on the Saugus River that destroyed five boats, a personal watercraft and a section of dock early Sunday morning. 
July 25, 2013 EDGEWATER, Md. (WUSA9) -- Anne Arundel County firefighters battled an early morning blaze that consumed three large boats docked at Oak Grove Marina in Edgewater.

While you may be correct in saying there is no case of an entire marina being destroyed by fire in 10 years it clearly doesnt require the entire thing to burn in order to do significant damage. Its also not the number of fires/accidents but the resulting damage that is important in setting insurance premiums and that includes environmental damage these days. Suppose those boats are $1 million powerboats and as a result of this fire have now spilled thousands of gallons of fuel into a river and estuary. How does your $300k liability policy look now assuming you are responsible for this?
Marina fires can spread quickly given the close proximity of boats and structures which are often coated in creosote or other flammable wood preservative. About 15 years ago I watched a powerboat with engine problems catch fire while tied to a coast guard dock. The entire dock was fully engulfed within 5 minutes and the other boats and coast guard station lost.

I'm sure those that lost their boats in the fire will find great comfort in your post Mike, after all it was single digits. I'm sure they will find even more comfort when the person responsible is under-insured or has none and they have to litigate.

If you think insurance is expensive, try being responsible for a problem and having none.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> If your inexpensive boat breaks loose from a mooring and causes extensive damage to someone else's $300,000 yacht, what is your "different path?" This is not a rhetorical question - I'm interested in hearing what you would do.


If the fault was mine, then I would do my best to make things right. Through money, hard work and any other means at my disposal. But I would already have put in a lot of effort to ensure my mooring was in top-notch condition. I may even have put in more effort than some people who feel protected by insurance.

My turn: What's your liability limit? $2M? If so, what would you do if your negligence causes $3M worth of damage? Since you seem to be suggesting the risks are a lot higher than the data shows, you must have considered what happens when your insurance coverage is not enough.

What are the odds of causing $3M worth of damage? Surely less than causing $2M, or $1M? But all you're doing is playing the odds, or more accurately making a risk assessment based on your purchased liability limit. It's the same assessment others make who go without insurance. The only difference is the dollar mark.

BTW, we can play "what if" games all day. What if my cooking oil grease wafted out my galley port and landed on the dock, causing it to be slippery. What if my taller mast attracts lighting, leading to damage to a neighbours boat? What if a meteor hits??? As I said, if you want to try and buy your way out of all possible risk, then go for it. It's fundamentally irrational, but it's your money.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

delite said:


> So in your mind the marina has to burn to the water to be a fire or do damage? Marina fires are far more common than you claim:
> Nov 11, 2013 LYNN - Officials are investigating a fire at a marina on the Saugus River that destroyed five boats, a personal watercraft and a section of dock early Sunday morning.
> July 25, 2013 EDGEWATER, Md. (WUSA9) -- Anne Arundel County firefighters battled an early morning blaze that consumed three large boats docked at Oak Grove Marina in Edgewater.


First off, I was responding to TakeFive's comments. He is the one that used the "marina burning down" benchmark. I simply pointed out there have been none that I could find. I already said there are a lot more boats that burn, and do cause damage. The numbers are very low.

If you are really worried about the risk associated with boats burning in marinas, then you should never get in a car, never eat at restaurants, and you better not be breathing the air in most urban environments. All these things bring greater risk of loss.

Look, I'm not saying shyte doesn't happen. I'm just pointing out that the real risk for most sailors and cruisers is very, very low. I'm not making this up. The data is readily available. Look it up.

We in the rich western world, and I would say particularly in Canada and the US, are trained to be fearful. Fear is a great way to sell us crap we don't need. Everything that is possible is not probable. Citing individual events is meaningless. Put it in context. Look up the data. Heck, ask your insurance company what the risk is. If you really can't live with it, then buy insurance ... buy as much as you can possibly afford. But don't impose your irrational choices on others.


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

I insure through foremost a hundred a year not worth loosing everything I have to save a c note and marina fires happen here we have had loss of life in a couple of them. Imho the statement the whole marina burning down was for dramatic effect even most house fires don't completely destroy the home. But for insurance purposes are a total loss. That's how I interpreted the statement


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

I think the real problem here is that despite your best intentions things happen, and there are very few of us that could possibly cover the resultant damage. If you want to put yourself at risk, that's fine and I appreciate it, but marinas have to deal with everyone, not just the 1% who actually take care of their boats. 

And frankly most people greatly undervalue the risks involved. Just take a pretty common problem that doesn't require the drama of a marina fire. A simple diesel tank leak can easily cause the stored fuel to dump into the bilge, the bilge pump cuts on and pumps the diesel fuel overboard.... Fuel spills carry potential environmental fines of $10,000/gallon released, with $1,000/gallon being more common. In addition to this if it's your boat you may also be buying everyone in the yard a new bottom job from the fuel etching the bottom paint. At $2,000 a bottom...

I worked on a case where this happened, and the guy who actually took very good care of his boat wound up with a $300,000 bill from the release of about 40 gallons of diesel fuel. No fire, no major drama, just a bad spot of corrosion on an aluminium fuel tank, and all of a sudden this guy was looking at having to sell his house and declare bankruptcy because he couldn't afford the bill. 

Does everyone need insurance, probably not, as long as you either have enough money you can afford this type of bill, or are poor enough you are judgment proof. For the rest of us at a minimum of catastrophic insurance is a pretty smart buy. 

As for me, I carry $5 million in liability with a $25,000 deductable. Because in a worst case scenario I could afford to loose that much.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

what is to stop an insurance company from using admiralty law to say - "your boat is worth $300k, but under admiralty law here is a check for the value of my clients boat, that is what you are entitled to. if you want more tell the judge... have a nice day...."????

The main benefit is to the insured who doesn't even have to deal with you at all, just put duck tape over the scratch, goes sailing and lets the insurance handle it, including legal expenses. Which is my point ; my liability insurance protects me. Its not there to pay off some one else's gel coat scratch. Its for if someone is seriously hurt, or something else beyond what I can pay.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Stumble said:


> I think the real problem here is that despite your best intentions things happen, and there are very few of us that could possibly cover the resultant damage. If you want to put yourself at risk, that's fine and I appreciate it, but marinas have to deal with everyone, not just the 1% who actually take care of their boats.


I fully agree Stumble. Stuff happens. We cannot control everything. Despite our best efforts bad things can still occur. This is true of every aspect of life. But the possibility of an event occurring says nothing about the probability. And since *R*isk ∝ to *P*robability x *I*mpact, as either P or I approach zero, so too does R.

So here's the actual data, (again). This data is USCG, so US-only. Go play with it yourself. 


In 2012 there were 12.1 million registered boats. Federal law requires owners of recreational boats to register them. 
In 2012 there were 4515 reported accidents. "An accident occurring on a recreational boat must be reported to the Coast Guard if a person dies or is injured and requires medical treatment beyond first aid, if damage to the boat or other property exceeds $2,000, if the boat is lost or if a person disappears from the boat."
Of these, there were 264 fire-related accidents.
There were 1010 "Collision With Recreational Vessel".



OK, so lets crunch the numbers. 4,515 accidents / 12,100,000 registered boats = 0.00037314049587 accidents / boat. So in 2012 you had a 0.037% of being in some sort of accident with your boat in the US. But that is for all types of boats, from canoes to huge power yachts. Sailboats (all sailboats, from dingys to huge cruisers) were involved in 330 of the 4,515 accidents. So Sailnetters real odds of being involved in an event in 2012 was:

330 / 12,100,000 = 0.00002727272727, or a 0.0027% chance of being involved in an accident.

Once again I say if you are worried about this low a risk, then you best stay at home... actually, scratch that. The home is full of higher-risk dangers. Best just stay in bed .


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Sal Paradise said:


> what is to stop an insurance company from using admiralty law to say - "your boat is worth $300k, but under admiralty law here is a check for the value of my clients boat, that is what you are entitled to. if you want more tell the judge... have a nice day...."????
> 
> The main benefit is to the insured who doesn't even have to deal with you at all, just put duck tape over the scratch, goes sailing and lets the insurance handle it, including legal expenses. Which is my point ; my liability insurance protects me. Its not there to pay off some one else's gel coat scratch. Its for if someone is seriously hurt, or something else beyond what I can pay.


Because admiralty law doesn't work this way. Certain parts of salvage law do, but not generally. As a general rule if you do damage to something you are responsible to fix it, regardless of the value of the boat you are on when you do the damage.

Environmental damage, including fuel leaks and spills, are specifically excluded from any damage limitations. With the exception of some very high exclusions for oil companies.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks Greg.

Here is some relevant reading on this, and as I am in the NY jurisdiction -

maritime lawyer role in contesting limitation of liability counsel

Limitation of liability has even been applied in boating accidents. For instance, a boat owner raised limitation of 
liability when his recreational boat caught fire at a Lake Michigan marina. The fire spread and damaged several of the 
surrounding vessels.8

When the owner attempted to limit liability to the $800 salvage value of the boat, the federal trial court dismissed his 
petition, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The circuit court affirmed, but the U.S. Supreme Court 
reversed and remanded back to the trial court, finding that maritime jurisdiction is appropriate "when a 'potential 
hazard to maritime commerce arises out of activity that bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime 
activity.'"9

This means that if the steering cable snaps on a worthless outboard skiff, causing it to crash into a blameless vessel, 
the owner of the skiff may limit a paralyzed passenger's award to the $150 scrap value of the wrecked skiff. This 
concept has even been extended to personal watercraft, with the Eleventh Circuit limiting recovery for injuries caused 
by a Jet Ski accident.10

The act does not apply to every maritime mishap. The act cannot be invoked in environmental casualties involving the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90),11 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act,12 or Wreck Act.13 However, OPA 90 
establishes its own limitation guidelines, providing that with respect to each incident, the liability of a responsible 
party shall not exceed:

1. for a tank vessel, the greater of $1,200 per gross ton;

or in the case of a vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, $10,000,000;

or in the case of a vessel of 3,000 gross tons or less, $2,000,000;

2. for any other vessel, $600 per gross tons or $500,000, whichever is greater.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

MikeOReilly said:


> Sounds like a good deal Chuckles, although we'd have to know the value of your boat, and where/how you sail to be able to truly assess the $500 bill.


50k value of the boat, adjustable on survey once I get done upgrading, Chesapeake Bay area. The only limitation is I'm not permitted to race in anything larger than a local yacht club type (beer can) race.
I've been semi-quoted a 1100 a year policy for NE to Key West as live aboard.

The important part is that 38.95 of that is to cover MY loss if I'm hit by, or damage to my vessel is caused by an uninsured boater. Of course I also have all that environmental damage stuff and coverage for damage I might cause to someones dock etc (you know, being responsible for myself and all).

I get the distinct feeling that the vast majority of older, and certainly smaller, boats don't have coverage. Frankly I'm willing to pay a small bit to make sure they don't ruin my day/year/enjoyment of my property.

And again, I have car insurance, house insurance, medical insurance and life insurance; all for the same reason. It may nickle and dime me a bit, but I'd rather have that than ruin someone else's day/year/enjoyment too.


----------



## Black Sam (Jul 12, 2021)

Squidd said:


> I have a (maybe) $6,000 boat that I bought for $760 off e-bay and have been fixing on...
> 
> I have 300 k liabilty (marina required)... only...actually I think they might give me my $760 back if it sinks....


I too bought a good but cheap boat on ebay. I have not found insurance. Who did you use?


----------



## RichF28 (Jun 17, 2015)

We insure our Freedom 28 for full coverage, agreed value of $22,000. It cost $325 per year. The marina requires it, and that seems like a relatively inconsequential amount to pay. If the boat sinks, with insurance we at least get something back, without insurance we get a huge bill for the salvage and environmental damage....


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

If your boat sinks, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 can assess environmental damages from fuel and oil spills of over $1MM (currently capped at $997,100 in 2019, but adjusted annually based on CPI). Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)

Be sure your insurance policy covers this environmental liability up to the full cap. Knowledgeable marine insurers know to include this in your policy. Many companies that are not accustomed to doing marine insurance (Allstate, State Farm) do not include it. Read your declarations on any policy that you purchase.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Back when, marinas carried insurance policies for liability to anyone on their docks, and employees. They also covered just about anything except "acts of God". I'm sure they still do. Isn't it double insurance to have the boat owner have to pay liability, too. Why would the marina care if someone was injured on the boat, and why would a boat owner care if someone was injured on the docks, insurance wise?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> Back when, marinas carried insurance policies for liability to anyone on their docks, and employees. They also covered just about anything except "acts of God". I'm sure they still do. Isn't it double insurance to have the boat owner have to pay liability, too. Why would the marina care if someone was injured on the boat, and why would a boat owner care if someone was injured on the docks, insurance wise?


I've wondered the same. I'd love to hear from someone actually in the industry, but my assessment is that all insurance companies are simply looking for ways to offload their risk to someone else. By demanding that marina owners force all their customers to carry liability insurance, it limits the risk carried marina owner's underwriter.

It's the standard "find someone else to blame" game.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

TakeFive said:


> If your boat sinks, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 can assess environmental damages from fuel and oil spills of over $1MM a year (currently capped at $997,100 in 2019, but adjusted annually based on CPI). Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)
> 
> Be sure your insurance policy covers this environmental liability up to the full cap. Knowledgeable marine insurers know to include this in your policy. Many companies that are not accustomed to doing marine insurance (Allstate, State Farm) do not include it. Read your declarations on any policy that you purchase.


An example of things that are not universal.

Several of my boats (multihulls) and many smaller skiffs use portable tanks that are sealed when not running. If the hose pulls loose, the anti-siphon valve will still stop the flow. No realistic fuel spill potential.

As for the risk of hitting other boats, it depends. With my cruising cat, I frequently stayed in marinas where >$1MM yachts abounded. Often much more. Liability insurance was vital! Now I stay in a tattered workboat marina where the neighboring boats are sturdy and well worn. My boat is barely over a ton.

That said, I have always carried liability insurance. But not always full coverage. No claims in 40 years.

As for towing insurance... never been towed. I can get myself off, and if the motor dies (it has more than a few times in 40 years) there are other ways. But I can surely see the value for monos in shoal areas. Sometimes I've had towing insurance, some times not, but I never considered calling, since I could always work through the problem. Perhaps, like AAA and other roadside assistance, it depends on the boat and person. After buying my last car, I got a flat. Free service, so I called it in. They said it would be 2 hours. I was finished and gone in 10 minutes of easy work. I wasted more them that that with the call in. Why would I wait for a tow?

Just me.


----------

