# Boat Aground In Annapolis, MD- Can someone help this man



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

8 feet of keel in a 4-foot lake • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)

Boat Aground In Annapolis, MD- Can someone help this man


----------



## pistonbully (Apr 30, 2011)

Yikes,, Poor guy.

I was thinking floats right off the bat but with out anything for the floats to float against..

I just hate to think what pulling and tugging on the boat will eventually do to it damage wise. What about inlisting a bunch of people with boats to maneuver around it,, hook on to it (in a well coordinated effort ) to pull,, and while they are doing that maybe the engines will create enough chop and buoyancy to float it out a bit? 



What about a really big boat comes by leaving a huge wake,, time it right and give a tug? Attempted a few times it might work,,,, but it might also just destroy the boat..


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

This is the first thing I thought of. could work maybe...


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I'll drive over and take a look this weekend. I think the owner's plan is about the best he is going to come up with. There isn't much water there. I know I don't fit and I don't draw as much as he.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

I've spent several overnights one creek up the South River from there in Harness Creek. It is quite shallow in there.
There must have been some hellacious weather to push that boat in there.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Without seeing drawings...I'd have to guess that by simple geometry, you can't heel a boat with an 8' draft far enough to get the keel out of the mud, until you've got the toerail well submerged. Which means flooding and sinking the boat.

At 84,000 pounds she's beyond helicopter lift capacity, too. that means they'll need a barge and crane to lift it and float it out, unless they really think they can kludge a lift "collar" around the hull that will raise four feet of it (essentially, everything but the keel) out of the water. At some 62# per cubic foot and maybe 75,000 pounds to lift? Easy, just rig about 1200 cubic feet of lift bag under the waterline. Capped PVC pipe, lift bags...

I leave it to someone else to figure out if that's gonna cost more than the barge and crane. 

Or hauling it ashore and making it into a hot dog stand?


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

Assuming the bottom is silt or sand what he needs is a dredger. Dredge a hole to float the boat then dredge a channel in front of the boat and drop the fill in behind it. 

Essentially move the hole with the boat in it.

I saw something like it in Alaska with giant gold dredges that were actually moved across dry land in their own little pond.

No idea what it costs to rent a dredge but it might be worth it.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

I'm sure EPA, or DNR, or some enviro agency, will want permits before dredging, ugh. But whazzup with the owner saying he "can't afford insurance" when confronted with the damage his boat did to the docked powerboat, and yet he has a $500K boat? Doesn't he have responsibility whether he's insured or not?


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

As I read the article , I understood the owner to say that insurance for a 60 year old wood boat was difficult to get or possibly, not available. Not that he couldn't afford it.
I think, the insurance necessary to remedy the injuried party in this instance (the gentleman who was claiming his boat was damaged) would be liability isurance. And as I understand it this is not underwritten w/ necessarily the age of the vessel in consideration but rather the operator and intended use of the vessel.
As per the liability of the owner of the vessel causing the damage, I believe he would still be financially responsible,wether or not he is solvent for the damages is to be determined.
I read the comments of the readers on the linked sight and one poster indicated he had first hand knowledge of the parties involved and stated the damage amounted to a scratched or bent bow rail. 
Also the injured party had come out on the dock and "yelled " at the grounded vessel's owner on numerous occasions and summonded the coast guard on more han one occasion hampering and delaying the efforts of the stranded vessel's crew/owner to effect the recovery !
What's wrong w/ people ?
This was obviously a misfortunate situation and not an intended action.
And a beautiful craft as well, I hope it gets floated. And it would be correct to see the damaged party made whole again as well, even if he seems to be acting a bit poorly.
just my observation.
would be curious to know how it plays out.


----------



## benajah (Mar 28, 2011)

deniseO30 said:


> This is the first thing I thought of. could work maybe...


That is just a brilliant idea


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Plenty of jerkiness here to go 'round. Not clear from the article whether the sailboat owner accepted responsibility for the damage and indicated he intended to make good, or just used the lack of insurance as an "oops." If the latter, I could understand the powerboat owner's frustration, although it in no way excuses his bad behavior. I suppose the powerboat owner could go to his own insurance company for the repair, then let the company and their army of lawyers try to recoup from the sailboat owner.



joethecobbler said:


> I read the comments of the readers on the linked sight and one poster indicated he had first hand knowledge of the parties involved and stated the damage amounted to a scratched or bent bow rail.


The article indicated a "marine appraiser" estimated the damage at $4K.



joethecobbler said:


> Also the injured party had come out on the dock and "yelled " at the grounded vessel's owner on numerous occasions and summonded the coast guard on more han one occasion hampering and delaying the efforts of the stranded vessel's crew/owner to effect the recovery !
> What's wrong w/ people ?


Just inexcuseable! It sounds like the sailboat owner is indeed making a diligent effort, and has been responsive to things like the possibility of leaking fuel. But calling the Coast Guard? Repeatedly? Really, don'cha think there are smarter ways to spend their time?



joethecobbler said:


> This was obviously a misfortunate situation and not an intended action.
> And a beautiful craft as well, I hope it gets floated. And it would be correct to see the damaged party made whole again as well, even if he seems to be acting a bit poorly.
> just my observation.
> .


Totally agree.


----------



## P35juniper (Feb 11, 2010)

He says he can't get insurance, is that he can't get hull insurance or liability insurance? Hull insurance I can believe that, at least without a very detailed, costly survey, but liability?


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

joethecobbler said:


> I read the comments of the readers on the linked sight and one poster indicated he had first hand knowledge of the parties involved and stated the damage amounted to a scratched or bent bow rail.
> Also the injured party had come out on the dock and "yelled " at the grounded vessel's owner on numerous occasions and summonded the coast guard on more han one occasion hampering and delaying the efforts of the stranded vessel's crew/owner to effect the recovery !
> .


When I read the news from the link, it appears that the powerboat owner is a real jerk wrapping around in his self small world. Unfortunately, there are plenty of these around on the bay and around our roadway.

How many times have you seen a car takes up two parking spaces because the owner thinks his car is special? These are the owner who couldn't afford their car first place.

But lives go on.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Can anyone give and update on this situation? possible pictures?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

When you work hard to buy nice property and a huge boat lands there with pretty much no possibility of leaving in one piece

4' of water with and 8' draft boat will see how well you take it


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

tommays said:


> When you work hard to buy nice property and a huge boat lands there with pretty much no possibility of leaving in one piece
> 
> 4' of water with and 8' draft boat will see how well you take it


I agree with you, without a major major expense this boat will not move. The article says the man is waiting for a high pressure system to raise the water- He should want a low pressure system. I used to live a mile where the boat is, normal tides are only a couple feet. Spring tides maybe up to 4 to five feet. This guy needs a northeaster for several days or a hurricane to get the water level where he needs it, and then once he has the boat to the open bay, he could be dealing with 8 foot seas with 50 knot winds.

I wish him luck.


----------



## pistonbully (Apr 30, 2011)

casey1999 said:


> I agree with you, without a major major expense this boat will not move. The article says the man is waiting for a high pressure system to raise the water- He should want a low pressure system. I used to live a mile where the boat is, normal tides are only a couple feet. Spring tides maybe up to 4 to five feet. This guy needs a northeaster for several days or a hurricane to get the water level where he needs it, and then once he has the boat to the open bay, he could be dealing with 8 foot seas with 50 knot winds.
> 
> I wish him luck.


 Word! This poor fella just needs to pony up and get his boat moved. I know times are hard but it should be priority #1.. Hell if he's got to he could move on to it after he gets it out and recoup some expense while he's not paying rent.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

From the article:



> Emmet said he cannot afford to carry insurance.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

tommays said:


> When you work hard to buy nice property and a huge boat lands there with pretty much no possibility of leaving in one piece
> 
> 4' of water with and 8' draft boat will see how well you take it


Well..... that is the fact of life. Sh*t happens, it is the nature's way. The powerboat owner doesn't have to be an ass and keep bitching. As now there is nothing one can do except waiting for the high tide. The other alternative to to demolish the boat which is not a solution either.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Here's the latest - the sailboat owner was able to float his boat off aided by yesterdays tides ...
Really high tide, 'laws of physics' free stranded sailboat • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

rockDAWG +1

wingNwing +1 for the update!


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

Hooray, I am glad.  Good for both of them. Hope they live in harmony thereafter. Life is too damn short to sweat on the little stuff. It is only money, we can always make some more.

I also noticed that last nite at around 11:30 pm, the tide was way up there, I needed to jump off from the sailing boat for about good two feet. This was highest I can remember.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

A lucky man, surprised he got her off.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> A lucky man, surprised he got her off.


It's all in the technique, and stamina helps.


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

It's always good when a man ('s boat) gets off LOL 

Seriously; Sailnet Mods,, why don't you invite him to the forum and write or have his story posted? 

I'd actually love to have a tour of the gentleman's boat.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Glad to see it. I hope he can at least find some liability insurance on his old boat, since a boat like that can do some serious damage.

I tried to get to my boat yesterday and couldn't. We normally have 6' tidal swings, but it was up to 8', and was even higher than NOAA's 7' spring tide prediction. I was wondering if someone was emptying a big reservoir upriver, since there had been no recent rainfall or winds pushing the water in.

When I parked my car the water was into the parking lot about 18" past the end of the dock. I quickly changed my shoes and went back to the dock expecting to hop the 18" but it had moved to about 6' from the dock. It was still about 30 minutes to high tide, so I gave up and left because I did not want to wait over an hour for it to recede.

FYI, here's how it looked in Annapolis:


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

I applaud the owner's patience, and ingenuity but as John quoted from the original article he said #1- insurance is hard to get for a wooden boat, and then later said #2 that he couldn't afford insurance.

Maybe you can't insure the boat, but he should be able to purchase liability insurance. If no one is willing to issue him any kind of insurance, then he should take greater precautions than normal to insure that his boat doesn't blow down on anyone else's property. This is sort of a case of someone biting off more than they can chew.

I'm not trying to crap on the guy, I'm glad for him. I just hope that he takes greater care in the future to secure the boat against adverse weather.

The other thought that keeps rattling around in my brain is: "Who the hell keeps a pleasure sailboat that draws 8 friggin' feet in the Chesapeake Bay???" That thing belongs in Puget Sound.:laugher


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

RhythmDoctor said:


> Glad to see it. I hope he can at least find some liability insurance on his old boat, since a boat like that can do some serious damage.
> 
> I tried to get to my boat yesterday and couldn't. We normally have 6' tidal swings, but it was up to 8', and was even higher than NOAA's 7' spring tide prediction. I was wondering if someone was emptying a big reservoir upriver, since there had been no recent rainfall or winds pushing the water in.
> 
> ...


Noaa is very bad at predicting tides on the chesapeake. I lived on the bay and in about 1995 Noaa predicted 3 foot above msl and a hurricane surge caused an 8 foot above msl tide. Sometimes Conowingo Dam will release a lot of water (during heavy rains in PA) and the water will cause the bay to rise and when topped with winds and spring/fall tides it can amount to many times the normal tide. The release from Conowingo a few days ago might have helped the water level rise: USGS Real-Time Water Data for USGS 01578310 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT CONOWINGO, MD


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

BubbleheadMd said:


> Maybe you can't insure the boat, but he should be able to purchase liability insurance. If no one is willing to issue him any kind of insurance, then he should take greater precautions than normal to insure that his boat doesn't blow down on anyone else's property. This is sort of a case of someone biting off more than they can chew.


I am afraid that the uninsured boaters are much more common than we realized, especially there is no requirement by the state. I wonder if there is uninsured boater insurance just like in the automobile side.

In today's economy, the first thing many boat owners will do is to drop their boat expense. This particular true when the owner has no net worth at all, he is not risking much when he is being sued. Suck to be the other boaters


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

rockDAWG said:


> ...I wonder if there is uninsured boater insurance just like in the automobile side...


My policy has this.

It just occurred to me that maybe some dam operators up on the Susquehanna saw the newspaper article and took pity on the guy.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Talking about insurance, say you run agound or are sinking and it is in the middle of the night. Do you try to contact your insurance company to get help or do you contact a salvage company directly to save your boat. In many cases time is of the essance. What do you do if your insurance company is slow to respond or does not answer the phone in the middle of the night? I have progessive so maybe they have 24 hr phone- but I could see any company dragging there heels and that time could mean if the boat is recoverable or not. Any experience on this?


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I seriously doubt that you will be able to find an insurance carrier that does NOT have a 24-hour hotline these days. It's such a highly competitive field that they all want your business--any way they can get it. Look at the way auto insurance has gone in the past 20 years. Two decades ago they all claimed they were loosing money on auto insurance. Today, those same carriers are spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in advertising their car insurance.

Fortunately, I've only run aground (softly) twice in more than 55 years of boating. Both times I was in a well-marked channel, and I was able to extricate myself in just a few minutes. 

One of the locations was Chincoteague, VA, where recent storms had caused a sandbar to shift more than 100 feet out into the main channel. The Coast Guard knew about the problem, apologized for the mishap and actually came to my rescue and towed me to deeper water.

The next location was the Havre de Grace, MD channel which is quite narrow when there's a tug pushing a pair of side-by-side barges near the turn at Battery Island. I gave him a wide berth, eased about 50-feet out of the channel near the Sand Island and came to an abrupt halt. As the tug passed his wake actually lifted me off the bottom, which made it easy for me to motor off the soft sand.

Hopefully, since I purchased the Morgan 33 O.I., which only draws 3'-11", groundings will be even less of a problem. But, if it happens again, I have Boat U.S. unlimited towing package, which I hope never to use. 

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## sidewinder585 (Sep 21, 2008)

After just reading the thread about the sv. Distant star it is nice to see a happy ending.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Couldn't be happier to find the grounded vessel was recovered. Yea ! Hurray !

Sorry to see this has turned into another "if only he'd had isurance" thread.
But, you "went there" so ....
I'm not a proponent of forced insurance,regardless of the scenario and there are many plausable arguments on both sides.
The ONLY reason I purchase insurance is if I CHOOSE to participate in activities where I must purchase it under threat of arrest,i.e. automotive insurance. 
Oddly 2 years ago I was struck from behind at a stop light by an unlicensed driver! My vehicle was deemed "totaled" by the insurance company after they inspected it. The insurance of the other auto owner (not the unlicensed operator) paid me almost as much as I purchased the vehicle for originaly,several thousand dollars. I accepted and repaired it for about $100 and am still driving it today and actually get compliments on what a nice vehicle it is !
I'm not sure what this means,except that it is indicative of the problems w/ waste and exspence of the insurance industry. 
Insurance and MANY vehicle/traffic laws did not,will not, and cannot halt unfortunate accidents or incidents like these. 
Mandatory insurance laws will make boating less affordable,more regulated,and give law enforcement one more excuse/reason to detain/approach/harass and fine everyone and anyone they selectively choose to. under the justification of Safety and enforcement.
Is this the path you want recreational boating to take ? I don't.
If you are too scared to get out on the water w/your vessel without your insurance underwriter and your attorney, then please, stay in the yacht club dry storage and keep mailing in your checks to your premium and retainer fees.
I, whom enjoy freedom, and am confident my own abilities, as demonstrated by years of adventuring and traveling safely, would prefer to continue to do so, and feel confident that my children will be free to enjoy the same, unencumbered by govermental intrusion brought by those less bold or able.
In Vegas they have a saying "insurance is a sucker bet"


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Its working out great for the powerboat that he hit cause so far he is sticking with got no money to take care of my mess


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm not going to re-read the whole thread, but I only remember a couple of brief passing comments about insurance...until you decided to kick the hornet's nest with your lengthy comment.

Frankly I think my annual insurance rate is reasonable and does a good job of protecting my fellow boaters against the significant damage that my boat can do to them, especially in cases where Mother Nature decides to take my boat on a joy ride.

But Human Nature being what it is...



joethecobbler said:


> ...The ONLY reason I purchase insurance is if I CHOOSE to participate in activities where I must purchase it under threat of arrest...


...which is EXACTLY why I favor mandatory insurance.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

If you read the attached article from the local paper the bow rail "sprung " back.
Of course I have not personally viewed the damage as "you" apparently have, nor am I sure the reporting is completely accurate as to the amount of damage claimed by the injured party.
I am mearly making judgement on what has been reported second hand. 
I am however well aware, as I'm sure many are that the "whiplash" factor must be taken into account when injured parties are questioned about the extent and value of the damages. 
Based on the information reported as well as the responses of those in the area I would surmise the injured party may very well be a bit unreasonable based on the oft-reported hostile response to an unfortunate situation. 
Or to put it more buntly . the fellow seems a bit of an A**.
What's more , if the injured party was concerned about his hard earned craft and the safety of it, as it is situated on the bank of a public waterway where accidents (quite aparently) coul and do happen.
I would contend that, in this instance, the injured party was culpable by virtue of not adequately preparing himself for the possibility that an unfortunate happening may occur and if concerned with this possibility he was remiss for not taking action to protect himself (by purchasing insurance for himself)! 
Possibly the unforsean expense he may now bear could have been mitigated by purchasing the very heralded INSURANCE that many have been crowing about ! 
The injured party would have been covered. But ,alas, he Chose not to purchase insurance for said incident. As did the fellow whom craft unquestionably caused the damage.
So instead of attempting to influence others to purchase insurance ,those concerned should mearly purchase there own coverage , if they feel so inclined .
simple solution if your scared about it , take your own action to protect yourself if you feel it's justified. the isurance companies will be more than happy to assst you in making an appropriate level and type of coverage you feel you'll need.
In the meantime I'll continue to take the actions I feel the situation merits as has been the practice employed by mariners for centuries. without the need of further intervention/regulation.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

purchase all the insurance you want, just don't attempt to force me to do likewise in an attempt to appease your fears or possible shortcomings in regard to navigation.
incidently, I didn't "kick" the hornets nest . I knocked it to the ground ,poured gas on it and set it ablaze , thereby irradicating any threat it might pose to the less capable, or hapless women or children whom may have been at risk. 
I would have called my insurance rep. to handle it but they were unavailble.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Joe, talking about the honesty and integrity of insurance companies is like discussing the state of honor among thieves.

But returning to the two boats at hand, we can all figure out how this one will end. The guy who got crushed will take the guy who crushed him to court, and get a judgement against him. And then we'll find out what that valuable sailboat is worth, as they compel the forced sail of the boat to pay off the judgement. And the attorneys and court costs and all too.

Now, if the crusher had had insurance...he might not lose his boat. But assuming he's broke, as he claims, he's just gonna be broke and boatless as this settles out. He deserves worse, because he could and should have offered to sell that valuable (ha) boat in order to pay for the damage he's caused.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

> they compel the forced sail of the boat to pay off the judgement. And the attorneys and court costs and all too


 Though this is possibe, it is very unlikely. Due in large part to the fact that the stated amount of damage does not exceed that of the typical small claims action (usually $5000.00) and I believe small claims you must rep yourself. Even if you are represented the atty fees would exceed the damages quite quickly making small claims an untenable solution.
What's more it's unlikely that any court would or could force the sale of a $50,000.00-$500,000.00 craft to satisfy a $4-5,000.00 judgement.
If the value of the boat was less or much more either way it wouldn't happen..
I would prefer the 2 parties come to an agreement independantly (and we don't know this isn't happening) , but based on the reported actions to date I feel that could be difficult.
let's not forget, however unpopular the fact is the injured party also had an oportunity to remedy and limit his exposure by availing himself of coverage that would have "protected" his property but ,to my kowledge, chose not to.
I hear no cries from insurance advocates to mandate insurance for this.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

I'm not a fan of mandatory insurance, but I am a strong believer in mandatory responsibility - i.e., you make the mess, you clean it up. This could be done by having insurance which makes the payment for you when you screw up; by being wealthy enough to self-insure; or by being (or knowing) a good carpenter, marine welder, etc. 

But the onus should be on the guy who caused the damage, not the injured party, to make it right, by whatever method.


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321 (Jun 14, 2010)

joethecobbler said:


> Couldn't be happier to find the grounded vessel was recovered. Yea ! Hurray !
> 
> Sorry to see this has turned into another "if only he'd had isurance" thread.
> But, you "went there" so ....
> ...


Hear hear Bravo Bravo!!!!!


----------



## 123456Wannasail654321 (Jun 14, 2010)

well the owner of the ocra had a t least 5K to float his boat. Do we have definitive proof that he is not going to help repair the other guys boat?

If we don't then are we not all premature is assuming that he is not.

also lets all remember that this was an accident, and things just happen.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

wingNwing said:


> I'm not a fan of mandatory insurance, but I am a strong believer in mandatory responsibility - i.e., you make the mess, you clean it up. This could be done by having insurance which makes the payment for you when you screw up; by being wealthy enough to self-insure; or by being (or knowing) a good carpenter, marine welder, etc.
> 
> But the onus should be on the guy who caused the damage, not the injured party, to make it right, by whatever method.


Exactly


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

> But the onus should be on the guy who caused the damage, not the injured party, to make it right, by whatever method.


 It is, it's called the court system, I don't beieve I ever indicated the offending party was not culpable nor, a stated, has anyone definatively determined that the offending party refused responsibility.
Like most incidents there are at least 2 sides to the story. I this case the injured party chose to be calous and verbally abusive to the other party involved. 
Due to this initial approach I'm not at all suprised that the offending party hasn't gone to any length to approach him offering recompense. Maybe he has,I don't know, and Idon't believe anyone posting here knows either.
The crux of my issue with the situation is how quickly some are to call for more govermental intrusion and regulations mandating or compelling one to purchase an insurance policy as the only palatable solution.
If you spend a few moments on the "web" you will quickly find that involving the insurance industry in a mndatory manner does, more often than not, eliminate these types of problems. Often only adding another layer of beaurocratic expense and confusion. Look at the involvement of goverment in any other area and judge for yourself.
Is this the results your seeking to introduce to maritime activities ?
There are already adequate systems in place to address these situations.
More regulation will not result in less "Acts of god" or results of poor judgement or bad maritime choices being made. There are too many variables both controlled and uncontrolable. 
Mandating insurance is not the "magic pill"


----------



## bjung (Apr 8, 2009)

joethecobbler said:


> If you read the attached article from the local paper the bow rail "sprung " back.
> Of course I have not personally viewed the damage as "you" apparently have, nor am I sure the reporting is completely accurate as to the amount of damage claimed by the injured party.
> I am mearly making judgement on what has been reported second hand.
> I am however well aware, as I'm sure many are that the "whiplash" factor must be taken into account when injured parties are questioned about the extent and value of the damages.
> ...


Well, I read this post twice, and I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

You state, you don't have insurance for your boat (which by the way is not that expensive..), and your skill and equipment is so superior, there is no chance you will ever damage your boat or others. But we all know S*** happens while boating, and here are two scenarios:
Your boat damaged the hull of the... 
1) Oyster 74 anchored leeward of you. Well, the other guy, with the expensive boat will have insurance to cover for your responsibility. His insurance will go up, but not really your problem...
2) Sabre 38 anchored leeward of you. Needs repairs, and new awlgrip, but the guy, like you, decided not to insure(hey, its the other dudes responsibility!). Court decides, your boat broke anchor(despite great skills and equipment), and it's time to shell out the $25k. This is when you will reason, that the other boatowner "did not take action to protect himself by purchasing insurance", and it is not your responsibility.... Think the judge will buy it?
Either way, your screwup was not your responsibility.....
I am cancelling my insurance tomorrow!


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Gesh!!! We have to pay for "uninsured" motorists. Now are we going to need to pay for "uninsured" boaters also?? Where in the world does it say that I have to take care of your finances??


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

joethecobbler said:


> ... I don't beieve I ever indicated the offending party was not culpable nor, a stated, has anyone definatively determined that the offending party refused responsibility...


You are correct. I think many people commenting on this thread reacted to the offending party repeatedly stating, "I don't have insurance." Whether by this he meant, "I don't have insurance, how the heck am I going to refloat my boat;" or "I don't have insurance, I can't pay for the damage I caused;" is not clear.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

poster-bjung


> You state, you don't have insurance for your boat (which by the way is not that expensive..), and your skill and equipment is so superior, there is no chance you will ever damage your boat or others.


 Well that' s not quite accurate , this is what I actually posted-



> I, whom enjoy freedom, and am confident my own abilities, as demonstrated by years of adventuring and traveling safely, would prefer to continue to do so, and feel confident that my children will be free to enjoy the same, unencumbered by govermental intrusion brought by those less bold or able.


 I don't see any any reference to "superior" skill or equipment.or any indication that bad fortune could never befall.
But your welcome to your interpretation.



> But we all know S*** happens while boating, and here are two scenarios:
> Your boat damaged the hull of the...
> 1) Oyster 74 anchored leeward of you. Well, the other guy, with the expensive boat will have insurance to cover for your responsibility. His insurance will go up, but not really your problem...
> 2) Sabre 38 anchored leeward of you. Needs repairs, and new awlgrip, but the guy, like you, decided not to insure


 I don't live in the land of "what if" 
But- what if I did?
I don't anchor w/ hazards to leeward. problem averted.



> Court decides, your boat broke anchor(despite great skills and equipment), and it's time to shell out the $25k. This is when you will reason, that the other boatowner "did not take action to protect himself by purchasing insurance", and it is not your responsibility


there are two (2) issues here that need to be separated, first is the court decision. this is one of the remedies already in place and it works relatively well.
the second is percentage of responsibility and is currently employed by the insuance companies you laud and hold high. 
this is where they decide what percentage of responsbilty each party has in an incident or accident. and yes, they place a certain amount on each party,often times just for being in the wrong place at the right time ! 
Also, I've stated where I feel the clpability clearly lies. I just abhore mandatory ins. requirements after all the centuries of maritime activity.

poster-boason


> Gesh!!! We have to pay for "uninsured" motorists. Now are we going to need to pay for "uninsured" boaters also?? Where in the world does it say that I have to take care of your finances??


 No, I would prefer you don't "have" to pay . It should be your choice as it is your choice to purchase uninsured motorist ins. whether you "need" to pay should be your decision.
As per my finances,or financial choices, I'll do as I've done for decades -without you or the Gov. "taking care" of my finances.

Again there are an adequate number of legal remedies already in effect to address all liability issue without further gov. mandates/regulation.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Boasun said:


> Gesh!!! We have to pay for "uninsured" motorists. Now are we going to need to pay for "uninsured" boaters also?? Where in the world does it say that I have to take care of your finances??


My understanding is that "uninsured motorist" coverage means that if the guy in the junker crashes into your Mercedes, and he doesn't have the net worth to replace said Mercedes, and no assets you can seize, that you're still going to be made whole. I suspect that if the guy in the junker has any assets, they are forefit (sp?) if he isn't insured. So, that coverage helps you, not him.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

As having been a working Master off shore, my philosophy is:

A superior Master,
Uses his superior judgement,
To keep him out of situations,
Requiring his superior skills...

Any questions?


----------



## pistonbully (Apr 30, 2011)

Boasun said:


> Gesh!!! We have to pay for "uninsured" motorists. Now are we going to need to pay for "uninsured" boaters also?? Where in the world does it say that I have to take care of your finances??


Ah Come on Boasun,,, didn't you see what happened to the U.S after Obama took the helm? We now pay for everybody elses everything.......

I still remember all the people on tv saying "Yay Obama's in office I don't have to make my car payment or my house payment any more". and then remember the nations economy collapsed? Ahhh,, Good times.....


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

travlineasy said:


> I seriously doubt that you will be able to find an insurance carrier that does NOT have a 24-hour hotline these days. It's such a highly competitive field that they all want your business--any way they can get it. Look at the way auto insurance has gone in the past 20 years. Two decades ago they all claimed they were loosing money on auto insurance. Today, those same carriers are spending hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in advertising their car insurance.
> 
> Fortunately, I've only run aground (softly) twice in more than 55 years of boating. Both times I was in a well-marked channel, and I was able to extricate myself in just a few minutes.
> 
> ...


All true. A phone call is best.

Additionally (and not really related to your words, just a private rant), however, most (all?) insurance policies have some language describing a _"sue and labour" clause. Generally the ship owner is requested to make every attempt to reduce or save the exposed interests from loss. Under the terms of the clause, the insurer pays for any necessary costs incurred in carrying out the requirements of the sue and labour clause. Thus, if a ship is stranded, under the sue and labour clause the hull owner would be required to hire salvors to attempt to save..._

(Italicized portion quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica, not my policy, but there are similar words in my policy.)

In my mind I will always do what seems prudent and practical, as soon as humanly possible, even if it is not easy. I consider this to be basic responsibility. I am greatly addends when I see owners do nothing because they have a secret (or not secret) wish for the boat to be declared a total loss. It's easier for them and safer. But I do not respect that approach to life.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

A boat can catch fire or get pushed into other property under the influence of mother nature, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars damage to other boats and property. If you are wealthy enough to pay off these responsibilities in a timely manner, then you are wealthy enough to declare yourself "self insured" and not buy insurance. (Many large companies actually do this for their own property.)

If you are not wealthy enough to do this, what do you plan to do in the event you cause thousands of dollars damage to other people's property? How will you meet your legal commitment to your fellow sailors? This is not a rhetorical question - I would like answers from the all those proudly uninsured boaters out there.

If your answer is, "It won't happen to me," then you are deluding yourself. But delusion is a common human trait. That is why car owners are required by law to have insurance. The only thing that makes boat owners any different is that they are a small enough minority that the legislatures won't bother with them. Fortunately all reputable marinas and boat yards require insurance, so nearby neighbors have will be able to cover any damage their boats cause me or my property.


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

*tries to picture dozens of people standing on docks, arguing about insurance, while watching the boat owner struggling to save his lady.*


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Well

This is the way it works when your in the bicycle lane and some yahoo on a phone knocks you down as its happened to me twice

1. In hit and run case A they never get caught and through some twist of fate in insurance rules all your medical and bicycle damage gets payed 

2. In hit and run case B you did not get hit as bad and you get UP a follow and call 911 and through some miracle the Ahole gets arrested and pleads NOT GUILTY 

In case B your SOL till it goes through court which takes years 

So in my personal experience your better off if the hit and run Ahole does NOT get caught


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

joethecobbler said:


> I, whom enjoy freedom, and am confident my own abilities, as demonstrated by years of adventuring and traveling safely, would prefer to continue to do so, and feel confident that my children will be free to enjoy the same, unencumbered by govermental intrusion brought by those less bold or able.
> In Vegas they have a saying "insurance is a sucker bet"


I could care less if you have insurance to cover your boat or car. What I do care about is that you have enough liability insurance or enough personal assets to pay for damages that you may cause to some poor slob that you happen to run into. Your libertarian ideology is just find and dandy, but don't expect other folks to pay for it.

Anytime you operate a vehicle that has the potential to do significant damage to other folks persons or property, it is your *responsibility* to make sure that you can cover those damages.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

So, how much liability ins. would be enough for say a 35' sloop ? $100,000-$500,000 , a mllion, 2 million . After all the potential for damage is almost never ending.

by some posters recolection enough liability should be carried to cover all the possible carnage that might ensue. Or they shouldn't be allowed on the water !
I've priced liability from reputable ins.(if there is such an animal), for example boatUS , Progressive ,etc. for $500,000 it's around $500-600 a year give or take depending on your home port and intended area of use.
So to all those so adimently in favor of insurance. How much would suffice ?

from rhyhmdoctor-


> all reputable marinas and boat yards require insurance, so nearby neighbors have will be able to cover any damage their boats cause me or my property.


 I've docked at marinas that advertise the requirement for liability,and even have it the slip rental agreement that you must provide proof of liability ins. prior to entering the facility. I've even returned year after year to different marinas from Ontario to tampa and spent up to 8 months at one place or another. 
I've never had liability ins. on any vessel I've owned. when I've inquired I was told things like "don't worry about it, we only use that requirement to keep the undesireables away" or words to that effect (derelict looking boats,drunks,rowdy youngsters, unfriendly sorts,etc) 
I've found it's similiar to the "no liveaboard" rule.

The way some posters represent the liability issue, would lead one to believe that the carnage and kaos on the water and in the marinas is worse than the I-95 bypass around DC during a winter storm on a holiday weekend !
35-40 years of boating experience from the great lakes to the gulf just hasn't shown me that. 
I have seen some rather interesting manuvers though. But mostly in marinas watching docking attempts.(and mostly vessels under power)
Oh, I also don't care to wear a helmet on a motorcycle and have been riding them as long as I've been sailing, but I would not stop you from wearing one if you want to. 
And, I don't care to wear a seatbelt (only do so to avoid the fine)and I've driven over 1,000,000 accident free commercial miles in 80,000 # gross commercial tractor trailors, but I would not stop you from using one . 
I will stop w/ these few examples to avoid self incrimination
I guess I'm just a big Ol' hazard waiting to happen !

WATCH OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! here I come .

Or maybe I just enjoy freedom .


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Stay away from me.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Don't be skeered , I won't hurt ya' . . . . much.


----------



## sidewinder585 (Sep 21, 2008)

I am personally still interested in hearing how much insurance is "enough" I am getting ready to buy it for the first ime on a big boat.


----------



## lapworth (Dec 19, 2008)

Is that boat still out there? There should be some extra high tides today.


----------



## lapworth (Dec 19, 2008)

sidewinder585 said:


> I am personally still interested in hearing how much insurance is "enough" I am getting ready to buy it for the first ime on a big boat.


Good anchors make good INS.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

joethecobbler -

For all your libertarian BS bluster, you still have not answered my question:



RhythmDoctor said:


> ...what do you plan to do in the event you cause thousands of dollars damage to other people's property? How will you meet your legal commitment to your fellow sailors?...


I am beginning to think that you are one of these "undesirables" that would skip town, try to run out the clock, and if all that fails, just declare bankruptcy.

By the way, my marina where I have my slip and the boat yard where I stay on the hard BOTH absolutely required me to produce a copy of my declarations page. And these are ordinary, working stiff places - not some fancy yacht havens.


joethecobbler said:


> I've docked at marinas that advertise the requirement for liability,and even have it the slip rental agreement that you must provide proof of liability ins. prior to entering the facility. I've even returned year after year to different marinas from Ontario to tampa and spent up to 8 months at one place or another.
> I've never had liability ins. on any vessel I've owned...
> Oh, I also don't care to wear a helmet on a motorcycle and have been riding them as long as I've been sailing, but I would not stop you from wearing one if you want to.
> And, I don't care to wear a seatbelt (only do so to avoid the fine)and I've driven over 1,000,000 accident free commercial miles in 80,000 # gross commercial tractor trailors, but I would not stop you from using one .
> I will stop w/ these few examples to avoid self incrimination


You're a pillar of responsibility. :laugher 


joethecobbler said:


> ...Or maybe I just enjoy freedom .


Sounds like the "freedom" that you enjoy will someday be paid for by the rest of us.


----------



## saillife (Jun 25, 2006)

Sidewinder - In answer to the question about how much liability insurance is enough. I get enough insurance that the insurance company is going to want to fight (spend money on a lawyer) rather than just settle. This has nothing to do with if I'm at fault. If I am, I want the company to pay out. This has more to do with 'whiplash' cases were some pinstripe shark thinks they have a lottery ticket. Higher insurance is not that much more than just basic coverage, maybe double for 5X the coverage? It has been a couple of years since I priced it. For me that number seems to be around 500k. 

Just my two copper coated zinc pieces .....


----------



## pistonbully (Apr 30, 2011)

lapworth said:


> Good anchors make good INS.


That's the insurance I will be going with. likely x2 for safety sake when needed.. i'm not lazy just poor.

I don't even think I could get insurance on a cheapo $4000 boat if I wanted to..


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

pistonbully said:


> ...i'm not lazy just poor...


All the more reason why you need liability insurance. If you're poor you won't be able to cover your own liabilities.



pistonbully said:


> ...I don't even think I could get insurance on a cheapo $4000 boat if I wanted to..


It appears from the wording of your statement that you haven't even tried to get a quote. That sounds more lazy than poor to me... and in denial about the potential costs you could inflict on others.


----------



## patrickstickler (Dec 2, 2008)

joethecobbler said:


> As I read the article , I understood the owner to say that insurance for a 60 year old wood boat was difficult to get or possibly, not available. Not that he couldn't afford it.
> I think, the insurance necessary to remedy the injuried party in this instance (the gentleman who was claiming his boat was damaged) would be liability isurance. And as I understand it this is not underwritten w/ necessarily the age of the vessel in consideration but rather the operator and intended use of the vessel.....


I was going to post about this exact point. I have an old car with little intrisic value, but still have full liability coverage. If I plow into another car, the other car's damages (and passengers injuries) are covered, and my own car is just a loss.

It's IMO irresponsible and inexcusable to not have some reasonable amount of liability coverage even if the value of the vessel itself cannot be insured.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

joethecobbler said:


> The way some posters represent the liability issue, would lead one to believe that the carnage and kaos on the water and in the marinas is worse than the I-95 bypass around DC during a winter storm on a holiday weekend !
> 35-40 years of boating experience from the great lakes to the gulf just hasn't shown me that.
> I have seen some rather interesting manuvers though. But mostly in marinas watching docking attempts.(and mostly vessels under power)
> Oh, I also don't care to wear a helmet on a motorcycle and have been riding them as long as I've been sailing, but I would not stop you from wearing one if you want to.
> ...


If you're willing and able to cover damages to others you or your boat may cause, I see no wrong doing in not having insurance. 
I know that **** happens so I have insurance. I can't afford to fix someone else's boat. Mine is covered with a reasonable amount of liability and, should a tornado drop a house on it, replacement. It costs me about $30 a month.

The helmet and seatbelt deal is a bad example. Wearing a helmet causes a difference in your own personal outcome. It's not going to change what damage your body or bike does to another person. Same as a seatbelt. You either go through the windshield or you don't. It makes no difference to me.

If your car jumps out of park, or the e-brake fails and it rolls down and hits another person's car, well you'll be liable for damages.

I believe, anyway, the person has a right to sue you for damages if your boat hits anothers. If you skip out on making things right, then no offense, but I hope they wring it out of you in one form or another.

Your freedom shouldn't affect the freedoms of another. I guess you're prepared to shrug it off if someone totals your boat and they can't pay if you're going to do the same?


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Well, I guess I'm one of those old fools that believes in insurance--at least liability insurance. A case in point took place three years ago at the marina where I keep my boat in Perryville, Maryland. A 50-some year old, adolescent that resided in one of the condos there decided to spend some time roaring around on his over-powered jet ski. I guess he figured he was going to impress some of the bikini-clad ladies at the pool by roaring out of the launch area, do some jet ski wheelies and fly over his own wake. His jet ski expertise left a lot to be desired, particularly when he revved up the beast, at the ramp, completely lost all control and the monster slammed into my sailing instructor's Catalina 30. The operator of the jet ski leaped off at the last second, just prior to the ski punching a 4-foot hole through the Catalina's port quarter. It was wedged in the hole for about two minutes, then slipped out and sunk. The hole was just above the water line, so the Catalina didn't sink. The insurance company surveyed the boat and said it was a total. The jet ski owner's insurance paid for the Catalina, which ironically, the jet ski owner purchased from the insurance company. The guy operating the jet ski claims the jet ski's engine revved up on its own, and that's what caused it to go out of control. (Obviously, someone believes in the Tooth Fairy as well.  )

Now, Joethecobler sounds like one of those guys that I used to see coming through the doors of the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Unit on a regular basis. Joe, you may be lucky enough to survive to a ripe old age without serious injury--but the odds are definitely not in your favor. So, when you go out there without that motorcycle helmet and hit that patch of sand on the road, and the bike goes out from under you at 60 MPH, and you crack your skull open, expose some gray matter, then end up rocking back and forth in the chair you are strapped into and drooling out of your half-open mouth, WE PAY FOR IT! WE PAY huge sums of money just to keep you alive and breathing, but that's OK because you got to feel the wind blowing through your hair while cruising down the highways and byways on your Harley. Sorry Joe, but I don't want to pay for your long-term care--pay for your own. That's why it's called insurance.

And, yes, I believe that liability insurance for boaters should be mandatory. You wreck my boat--you pay for it!

Gary


----------



## edron (Aug 5, 2009)

BTW, The ship stuck in Annapolis got out of the mud.

Really high tide, 'laws of physics' free stranded sailboat • Local (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

pistonbully said:


> Ah Come on Boasun,,, didn't you see what happened to the U.S after Obama took the helm? We now pay for everybody elses everything.......


Just curious, who do you suppose ultimately wound up covering the costs of all those millions of ER/hospital visits by patients without insurance prior to Obama taking office? Nah, couldn't have been any of "us", taxpayers or those who _do_ carry health insurance, right? Was there some sort of Reaganesque Magic Fund before, and "we" never had to start paying - however indirectly - for such costs until The Kenyan occupied the Oval Office? (grin)



pistonbully said:


> I still remember all the people on tv saying "Yay Obama's in office I don't have to make my car payment or my house payment any more". and then remember the nations economy collapsed? Ahhh,, Good times.....


Strange, but my recollection is that the nation's economy actually collapsed well before January 20, 2009... not that such a minor detail really matters, of course...



RhythmDoctor said:


> Fortunately all reputable marinas and boat yards require insurance, so nearby neighbors have will be able to cover any damage their boats cause me or my property.


I need to start hitting some reputable marinas, I suppose&#8230; But, after having spent a couple of thousand nights in a fairly wide array of marinas over the years, I have yet to be required to actually _produce_ proof of insurance - although, I'm sure most of those lengthy disclaimers that accompany so many marina dockage agreements nowadays specify it&#8230;

Perhaps the next time I sign one, I'll actually bother to skim it, to see if that's the case&#8230; (grin)



joethecobbler said:


> poster-bjung
> 
> I don't anchor w/ hazards to leeward. problem averted.


Hmmm, an anchorage where the wind or current never shifts, or another boat never arrives to drop the hook behind you?

Those sound pretty few and far between, to me&#8230;


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

JonEisberg said:


> Strange, but my recollection is that the nation's economy actually collapsed well before January 20, 2009... not that such a minor detail really matters, of course...


Yes you are of course correct in that the US Economy began to collapse shortly after the 2006 congressional elections wherein there was a major change of party control which then artificially 'propped-up' failing quasi-national financial base entities (Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, etc.) whose financial reporting/statements were purposely skewed (by Dodd/Frank committees ) as to their financial 'health' and which later was shown to be completely in error of reporting (being 'kind' here as some would say 'cooked the books') and which resulted in the 'principal trigger' that caused the later collapse. Therefore your recollection is somewhat 'selective' (as per your usual twisted bias).


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

RichH said:


> Yes you are of course correct in that the US Economy began to collapse shortly after the 2006 congressional elections wherein there was a major change of party control which then artificially 'propped-up' failing quasi-national financial base entities (Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, etc.) whose financial reporting/statements were purposely skewed (by Dodd/Frank committees ) as to their financial 'health' and which later was shown to be completely in error of reporting (being 'kind' here as some would say 'cooked the books') and which resulted in the 'principal trigger' that caused the later collapse. Therefore your recollection is somewhat 'selective' (as per your usual twisted bias).


I think your recollection is a little twisted also. The seeds of the collapse were planted way before 2006, and blaming it solely on the Democratic takeover of Congress is, to use your word, selective.

You might read this for more details.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Sure you can go back as far as the Johnson Administration and the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977 and its constant legislative changes/iterations through the years; however, the net result was its eventual primary root CAUSE of the 2008 financial collapse.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

RichH said:


> Sure you can go back as far as the Johnson Administration and the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977 and its constant legislative changes/iterations through the years; however, the net result was its eventual primary root CAUSE of the 2008 financial collapse.


Yes, that was a factor, but it is far more complicated than your simplistic view. There is culpability among both Democrats (who admittedly had an interest in allowing the working class to "live the American dream" by borrowing far more than they could afford to pay back) and Republicans (who fought to weaken the regulations that prevent banks and borrowers from engaging in these unsustainable practices), combined with a HUGE fraud perpetrated by the unregulated "investment banks" that knowingly packaged up worthless paper into complicated derivatives and remarketed them as high grade securities. The fact that not a single investment bank leader has been prosecuted for this clearly fraudulent activity is testimony to how unlimited campaign money continues to pollute our political system.

It is absurd to suggest that all this was simply the fault of Democrats. It takes a lot more than one political party to take our financial system to the brink like has happened.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

RichH said:


> Yes you are of course correct in that the US Economy began to collapse shortly after the 2006 congressional elections wherein there was a major change of party control which then artificially 'propped-up' failing quasi-national financial base entities (Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, etc.) whose financial reporting/statements were purposely skewed (by Dodd/Frank committees ) as to their financial 'health' and which later was shown to be completely in error of reporting (being 'kind' here as some would say 'cooked the books') and which resulted in the 'principal trigger' that caused the later collapse. Therefore your recollection is somewhat 'selective' (as per your usual twisted bias).


Well, the root causes of the financial crisis are exceeding complex, and will be the subject of spirited debate for decades to come... The only thing that seems clear to me at this point, is that there is plenty of blame to be shared on BOTH sides of the partisan political fence...

However, I think my recollection of _when_ the economic collapse occurred is still reasonably accurate, and it simply seems a bit unfair to me to blame a President sworn into office in 2009 for an event which transpired in 2008...


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

So why do you clearly insinuate 'politics' in a thread about a boat stuck in the mud near Annapolis ????????????????? 
What has governmental mishandling & misconduct in the handling of the financial sector have to do with a boat stuck in the mud?????

Is the ANY thread in which you participate that you dont somehow 'skew' the discussion towards 'politics'? I suggest that you try weaning-off from the "Kool-Aid", Jon.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

RichH said:


> So why do you clearly insinuate 'politics' in a thread about a boat stuck in the mud near Annapolis ?????????????????
> What has governmental mishandling & misconduct in the handling of the financial sector have to do with a boat stuck in the mud?????


That's a cheap shot against Jon. Several of us were discussing liability insurance in the context of personal responsibility when one's boat causes damage to others, then pistonbully tried to blame it on Obama. You're as guilty as anyone for prolonging the off-topic discussion.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Stuck in mud & Politics is just about the same thing, isn't it??


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

posted by rhythmdoctor-


> your libertarian BS bluster
> 
> you are one of these "undesirables"
> 
> ...


 based on some of the things you've posted on just this thread and your ability to judge people you've never met. I'm not really all that dissapointed that you think the marina you keep your craft in would deny me access (without Ins)
I'm not exactly gettin' a warm and fuzzy from ya'
In response to your question of "how" I would meet any financial issue, 
To date I have always worked,saved and paid cash .
and you ?
now if you can get beyond that, would you be so gracious as to tell me what monetary amount would you deem appropriate to mandate one to carry in Liabiliy ins. to operate a 30-35' sailing vessel in coastal and intercostal waters and tributaries of the US ? $500.000- $100,000.00 2million?


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I forgot this quip-
posted by rhhmdocter-


> You're a pillar of responsibility


Thanks, as a father, small buss. owner,decorated disabled veteran ,conspicuous service cross recipient ,aviator and fun loving sailor , I appreciate your ability to judge me based on an internet thread.
I'm glad I was able to give a number of years of my life and a few body parts to secure your right and ability to depict me as less than honorable,having never met me.
There are many paths.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

posted by sublime-


> The helmet and seatbelt deal is a bad example. Wearing a helmet causes a difference in your own personal outcome. It's not going to change what damage your body or bike does to another person. Same as a seatbelt. You either go through the windshield or you don't. It makes no difference to me.


 According to the ins. companies, whom were involved in negotiations w/ the powers that be in the state of florida, the public liability and costs caused by personal injury resulting from head injuries incurred by helmetless riders would be substantial.
this despite the fact that in every instance where madatory helmet use was repealed the death and injury rate for motorcycle riders decreased !

(man is this thread waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy off topic ? !!!)


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

joethecobbler said:


> ...in every instance where madatory helmet use was repealed the death and injury rate for motorcycle riders decreased !


Delusional.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

> Delusional


 no, factual
just because you don't like it, doesn't negate he facts. It has been studied for decades. by gov. as well as pivate interests. I believe ABATE was one of a number of sponsors.
At the time of the study it was atributed to increased carelessness brought on by the false sense of security of the degree of safety a helmet can provide in a crash.
Another interesting fact is that no helmet manufactured and DOT approved will withstand more than a 20mph direct impact !


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Joe,

Although this is drifting from the original post, I raced off road
motorcycles in the desert for over 30 years. A helmet saved my
life, or becoming a vegetable, in a number of trips over the
handle bars. If you ride without one just hope you go out quickly.

Best of luck, Dabnis


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

pistonbully said:


> That's the insurance I will be going with. likely x2 for safety sake when needed.. i'm not lazy just poor.
> 
> I don't even think I could get insurance on a cheapo $4000 boat if I wanted to..


I think you miss the point. Don't insure your boat, just your liability for accidents for which you are responsible.

I drive cheap cars. If I wreck one, I'll pay to fix or replace it. However, if I run into someones $100k automobile, that is a check that I can't write. That is the reason for insurance.

Dave


----------



## pistonbully (Apr 30, 2011)

dhays said:


> I think you miss the point. Don't insure your boat, just your liability for accidents for which you are responsible.
> 
> I drive cheap cars. If I wreck one, I'll pay to fix or replace it. However, if I run into someones $100k automobile, that is a check that I can't write. That is the reason for insurance.
> 
> Dave


Ahhh, i get yea..

I didn't start it by the way.. I just tried to reply to this comment as best I could.


Boasun said:


> Gesh!!! We have to pay for "uninsured" motorists. Now are we going to need to pay for "uninsured" boaters also?? Where in the world does it say that I have to take care of your finances??


 To be fair,, I was only attempting to retort.. I didn't start this.

However,, Yes you are all correct things were well in place for a collapse before he took office.. BUT, He then when on a spending spree like he was new money.. And that was IMHO what pushed us over the limit (Yes dragging along that ugly housing market with it kinda like this boat) (Not that the boat's ugly) and finishing off what was left of our struggling economy. That's how I saw it happen anyway..



RhythmDoctor said:


> It appears from the wording of your statement that you haven't even tried to get a quote. That sounds more lazy than poor to me... and in denial about the potential costs you could inflict on others.


 you are correct, from the wording that's what it sounds like..

But in actuality such is not the case. Because I don't yet have a $4000 boat get quoted on. Rather, that's the estimated amount I will be spending to start out. And I do plan to at the very least call my adjuster and ask about it when the time comes. Sorry I may have jumped the gun in my statement.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Sublime said:


> The helmet and seatbelt deal is a bad example. Wearing a helmet causes a difference in your own personal outcome. It's not going to change what damage your body or bike does to another person. Same as a seatbelt. You either go through the windshield or you don't. It makes no difference to me.


It can make a huge difference to all of us. Let's say Mr. Responsible is driving along and some act of God causes his car to careen into a light pole. Mr. Responsible goes through the windshield sustaining a dramatic head injury which causes him a permanent disability. Mr. Responsible isn't likely to refuse SSI support for the rest of his life so the rest of us will be supporting him the rest of his life. In essence, we are paying for his "freedom" to not wear a seat belt.

Dave


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Boasun said:


> Stuck in mud & Politics is just about the same thing, isn't it??


+1


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Every year people are injured using stairs ,steps and ramps.

I think because these people could be injured , that anyone who uses stairs,steps or ramps should be forced to purchase insurance, lest they should become injured and wards of the state. we cannot be expected to "fo the bill" as a society for those who simply cannot be responsible enough to purchase a policy to safeguard against this common safety issue.
And bycycle riders as well.
Also , sunburn cancer victims, after all cancer can be expensive to treat.
let's not forget walking outside in inclimate weather . we all know the dangers of slipping and falling and the possible injuries associated, yes, definately a needfor an insurance policy.
As a matter of fact ,life almost always results in death ! I think we should mandate that anyoe born should have all manner of insurances to safeguard anyone and everyone against the unforseen potential dangers of life as well as any unforseen dangers to themselves or others .
And ......

where does it end ?

By the by ,haven't got any input on the cash value requirements yet? 
what's up?


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

joethecobbler said:


> posted by sublime-
> 
> According to the ins. companies, whom were involved in negotiations w/ the powers that be in the state of florida, the public liability and costs caused by personal injury resulting from head injuries incurred by helmetless riders would be substantial.
> this despite the fact that in every instance where madatory helmet use was repealed the death and injury rate for motorcycle riders decreased !
> ...


I see a lot of people are going to go with the cost of life support. Considering the number of medicare patients we keep alive who really should be allowed to pass on, the life support argument is almost insignificant.

My point is, the choice of a seatbelt and a helmet mostly effects you. If the accident is YOUR fault, what you do to the other person's property because you didn't wear a seatbelt or a helmet isn't going to be much different. Most motorcycle accidents aren't fatal. But people do get things like brain bleeds which could have been avoided with a brain bucket, or severe road rash requiring treatments similar to burn victims when a jacket and riding pants could prevent, or broken necks and backs from being ejected from an accident that would have resulted in some whiplash had they worn a seatbelt. ICUs and hospital stays, surgeries, etc are certainly way more painful to pay for than getting sent home from the ER after an accident.

There's as many statistics supporting helmets are there are not supporting, so I don't care what florida reports.

Anyway, my point has been lost since that was the part of my post that was picked out.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Joe-

You've asked a couple times how much insurance those of us that support the concept think would be appropriate to carry. It is a fair question that none of us have yet answered.

There are a lot of variables that would go into that, but I can tell you that I'm insured for $500k per accident. The more I think about it, I think that I should check into increasing it. I carry more general and professional liability insurance on my business. If I was to sustain a 1 Million dollar judgment against me, I would lose not only boat, but house, cars, and all my business interest, plus spend the next 30 years paying off the judgment.

For me personally, bankruptcy is not an option.

Dave


----------



## pistonbully (Apr 30, 2011)

joethecobbler said:


> By the by ,haven't got any input on the cash value requirements yet?
> what's up?


Oh I was just curious because you said $30 a month, and I was hoping maybe you had an expensive boat.. That would mean that my cheapo boat might be cheaper to insure.. But I have no idea if boats are like cars when you go to insure them... I will just find out when the time comes I suppose.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

RichH said:


> Is the ANY thread in which you participate that you dont somehow 'skew' the discussion towards 'politics'? I suggest that you try weaning-off from the "Kool-Aid", Jon.


Actually, I thought I'd done a fairly decent job of behaving myself around here (grin)&#8230; Of my 125 posts so far on Sailnet, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a few that contain any discernable political reference. I do recall making a single comment to someone who thought we should invade and occupy Somalia in one of the pirate threads, but the following is the only post I can think of in which I actually outline a political point of view&#8230; And, I think we all know, NO ONE ever makes it through a thread on Cruising to Cuba without delving into politics at some point, and I think I still made a fair contribution to that thread before dropping this one:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/682605-post43.html



RichH said:


> So why do you clearly insinuate 'politics' in a thread about a boat stuck in the mud near Annapolis ?????????????????
> What has governmental mishandling & misconduct in the handling of the financial sector have to do with a boat stuck in the mud?????


I agree, the financial meltdown is irrelevant to this particular discussion - that's the primary reason why I responded to the poster who injected it into the debate to begin with&#8230;.

However, it's virtually impossible to keep politics out of a discussion such as this&#8230; This story is one largely about issues such as property rights, individual freedoms weighed against responsibilities to the larger community, the right of government to mandate participation in such schemes as insurance pools, and so on&#8230;. What is all that, if not a debate that will largely be informed by leanings and points of view that can only be construed as political?

Oh, and if the mere correction of the historical record to reflect that the global economic crisis actually occurred in '08 as opposed to '09 is now to be construed as "Drinking the Kool-Aid", well&#8230; then color me guilty&#8230;


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Granted, most of us believe that liability insurance is responsible and full-coverage is good risk diversification.

Granted, Joe's enjoying throwing gasoline on the fire. Most of us, I hope, see some good points in there*.

But really, isn't the factual record of the thread that a sailor salvaged his boat without adding to the collective insurance risk history, by working hard and being patient? Yes, there is some talk to the effect that the damaged party was at risk of not being paid, but we have no (or little) factual support for the assertion that the parties were not or are not going to reach a fair settlement (perhaps I missed something). I think it was a very happy ending, as happy as can be expected.

________________________

* I have worked mountain rescue and I can assure you that a very disproportionate share of the injured wear helmets, while most climbers do not. This seems counter intuitive, since those wearing helmets must be more safety conscious.

That conclusion contains a fallacy in logic; wearing a helmet mean the climber bought a helmet, thinking it would protect him, not that he understood what it takes to be safe. Helmets are good for small falling rocks but do very little in the case of a fall; it's not their designed purpose.

I think too many people are like that with insurance; they will stand by and watch bad stuff happen or fail to take precautions they should, knowing they have insurance. We all pay for it.

Though I do not agree with Joe on all points, I think we have failed to make the case that Joe is more expensive to society than a sailor who has insurance and uses it as a crutch. On the average, I'm pretty sure I'm right. Insurance makes for an expensive society; I also think it is offset by the stability and predictability insurance brings, by freeing up capital.

I'll keep buying insurance for my own reasons. Yes, my net worth FAR exceeds my insurance coverage and I could pay a very large ticket. I just don't want to worry over it. However, in 30 years of boating I have NEVER had a claim, so I could buy a nice little cruiser with what I've spent!


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

PDQALTAIR-

Thank you for so eloquently wording what I failed to convey. Particularly the
helmet use issue, and the cost to society part hits right on as well.
you said in one post what I failed to express in several.
thats all.
I just cannot let what might happen keep me from doing what I need to do,
live.


----------



## HeartsContent (Sep 14, 2010)

This is pretty funny.

Insurance is meant to protect "your" assets. There are two ways in which your "assets" can be in danger:

1) Your negligence
2) Someone else's negligence

If you have "assets" then you would be wise to protect them. It's not everyone else's responsibility to protect "your" assets so act accordingly.

If I do not have 2 nickels to rub together and total your Mercedez, I hope you were wise enough to purchase insurance to protect your assets. If not, it's your lack of responsibility to protect your assets. In this scenario, since I have no assets to protect, it makes no sense for me to have insurance.

It's really interesting how easily people will quickly and thoughtlessly surrender their freedoms for a perceived protection. It's why we are where we are today. It's the sense of entitlement felt at all levels that makes us weak and easily controlled.

If you have something to lose protect it. Expecting someone else to bail you out is simply not going to happen. No matter what the insurance companies, backed by the government will profit - be smart.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

> Insurance is meant to protect "your" assets. There are two ways in which your "assets" can be in danger:
> 
> 1) Your negligence
> 2) Someone else's negligence
> ...


 interesting perspective, I like it.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

HeartsContent said:


> If I do not have 2 nickels to rub together and total your Mercedez, I hope you were wise enough to purchase insurance to protect your assets. If not, it's your lack of responsibility to protect your assets. In this scenario, since I have no assets to protect, it makes no sense for me to have insurance.


Our notions of what personal responsibility means are so completely different that there is no common ground for discussion.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

dhays said:


> JThere are a lot of variables that would go into that, but I can tell you that I'm insured for $500k per accident. The more I think about it, I think that I should check into increasing it.


The last time I increased my liability cover I found that my costs were lower by reducing the primary cover and adding an umbrella liability cover that picked up from the primary and went to the $2M limit I wanted. It's been quite a while since I did the research and different companies may operate differently.

I'm just glad the guy got his boat out of Lake Hillsmere.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Back to the beginning, it appears the owner of the boat that broke
loose did not have "liability" insurance, so the owner of the boat he
damaged has to pay for the other person's negligence. If you have any
assets and want to keep them some form of liability insurance may
help you do that. If you don't have assets worth going after, no worries,
short of going to jail.

Dabnis


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Insurance is not only for your boat, or someonoe else's boat, but also the environmental damage you could do in a grounding- Coral damage or diesel spill in the water. Here in Hawaii boaters have been fined $100's of thounsands of dollars for damage to coral reefs while anchoring (anchoring on live coral).

The other think I found funny, back during the March Tsunami, many boats in Hawaii were damaged or totaled. They were at dock when the Tsunami hit. Many of these boats were live aboard and were sunk. One retired man lost everything and the boat was his house. A few weeks ago these boaters were crying at a meeting with the state (hawaii) asking what the state was going to do to help them! None of the boaters had insurance. 

For $500 a year to insure my boat and $300K in liability I think insurance is a good deal. Even if you are in the right someone can still sue you. At least your insurance company will defend you at no cost (you hope at least).


----------



## Ilenart (Jul 23, 2007)

Boy has this thread gone off topic!!!!! Took me 15 minutes to work out the stuck boat is free!!!

Ilenart


----------

