Liability Issue

[Scott T-Bird]

If I understand the situation correctly, the mooring field may be in an area where all of the yacht club members moor their boats. Since the town may not have the best standards for a mooring field, and all yacht club members have similar risk, perhaps thetone can appeal to the membership for at least partial compensation. That seems fair to me. If one person among a community suffers, wouldn't it be the right thing to do for the "community" (yacht club) to stand up for their brother? It might be more palatable for everyone if the club raised the funds to help one of their own, rather than leaving thetone twist in the wind when liability can't be pinned on any particular entity.

 

[Rick486]

Yes, to much talking and assumptions can work against you. Hopefully, this is all an academic discussion. It will likely be sorted out once the OP and other owner meet but it is good to consider how things would play out in court if it came to that. Insurance companies do not like to pay claims...some more than others. If an adversarial insurance company knows they are not dealing with a lawyer, they will deny the claim and not offer helpful advice in hopes you will just go away.
The OP should contact his insurance company also since none of us really know his policy. They may work with him to get resolution since he is a paying customer.

Not a chance.

 

[Rick486]

Please mods, put us out of our misery .and lock this thread

 

[Jackdaw]

Please mods, put us out of our misery .and lock this thread

Indeed. This is why courts exist. Person A is aggrieved. Person B offers no satisfaction. A will have to sue B. The outcome is far from clear.

 

[Meriachee]

Person A is aggrieved. Person B offers no satisfaction. A will have to sue B.

You guys do have a reputation down there.

 

[Will Gilmore]

Insurance companies do what they think is good for their bottom line based on their experiences

I would refine this idea and say insurance company POLICY is designed to be good for the bottom line. Insurance companies, being financially more powerful than their customers and incentivised to not pay out, also have to live with a lot of regulation to keep them in check, not that that always works. However, one thing I believe about human run corporations, those implementing policy don't always have the same goals as the company and I suspect the original poster's claim was dismissed out of hand as much due to laziness as to any awareness of the evidence or policies governing the case. Certainly the agent who denied the claim did very little leg work and had no stake whether or not his/her company paid.
There's a horse trainer who was very successful, when asked how he managed to train his horses so well without getting physical with them, he said, "they always have a choice. I just make sure it is easier for them to choose my way. "

- Will (Dragonfly)

 

[dlochner]

Yes, all that is what the OP has said. I'm saying there are assumptions in those statements that have worked against the OP. He did not see the mooring weight drag unless he had scuba gear on and was watching it. He did not see it moving during the gale, nor does he know if the boat was secured to the mooring after the collision. All he knows is that the other boat hit his.

Forgive me, I grew and was educated when the scientific method and logic prevailed in the schools. Indeed, all of my post secondary education has been along those lines. Can we use just a few of those skills taught in bygone days?

Here's what we know:

1. Two Boats were moored about 100 yards a part.
2. It got really windy.
3. One boat and its mooring moved 100 yards
4. The boat that moved damaged the boat that did not move.

Now it is true that this is not a gold standard double-blind experiment, however, given what we collectively know about wind, waves, and anchoring devices, it is not illogical to assume that the wind and wave action from the really windy day caused the mooring to drag, which allowed the boat attached to said mooring to damage a boat. (It is perhaps fortunate that the offending boat hit another boat instead of washing up on a rock break wall, but that is another story.)

Now, it is true that there could be alternative theories about the movement of the mooring and attached boat.

1. The Transporter aboard the Enterprise failed and Scotty (not Scott T-Bird) failed to successfully beam up the offending boat.
2. Failed Alien abduction is always a popular theory.
3. The Zombie revolution attempted to create zombie boats (and failed).
4. An omnipotent supreme being is indeed punishing someone by damaging a boat.
5. The owner of the offending boat, knowing that it would create a lot of controversy and being a clandestine sort of person, hired a company to set his boat and mooring free in the middle of the night.


You all can pick your favorite theory or add one of your own. I'm going with the really windy theory, with a side of maybe the wind was stronger than usual or from a direction that is unusual.

Please mods, put us out of our misery .and lock this thread

Well this is easy to do. The real cause is an Alt-Right conspiracy to displace liberal elite East Coast Yachties from political influence.

Phil, was that a good enough dive into politics to shut this down?

Edit: Someday I'll learn to proofread long posts before posting so I don't have to go back and repeatedly correct various omissions, grammatical errors, and typos.

 

[Michael Davis]

Have we strayed off the path? It's been a very interesting journey with lots of interesting thoughts and information. I hope that Thetone will let us know the final outcome .

 

[Will Gilmore]

3. The Zombie revolution attempted to create zombie boats (and failed).

How do w know this one failed?
- Will (Dragonfly)

 

[MitchM]

read this case: United States v. Carroll Towing Co.159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947) is a decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that proposed a test to determine the standard of care for the tort of negligence. The judgment was written by Judge Learned Hand wherein he described what is now called the calculus of negligence or the Hand Test, a classic example of a balancing test. negligence is measured by the probability P that the morning will fail to hold , the gravity of harm G if the mooring fails to hold, and the burden of precaution B on the mooring owner and the municipality whose mooring field it is. none of us know enough to assess P, G or B. but we now know to carry comprehensive insurance..

 

[jviss]

What occurs to me, as being logical, is that if no one else's mooring dragged, then the mooring that did was, by definition, inadequate. In maritime law, there is a presumption of negligence, which the defendant must overcome. Cases can be heard in state courts, but they must apply admiralty, or maritime law, even if it conflicts with state law.
It would be a shame if this ever made it to court. It most probably won't. If it did, the court costs for both parties would certainly exceed the damages. The plaintiff's lawyer can advise as to whether its winnable, and the defendant's insurance company would likely settle.
I think the OP has a very good chance of having his damages paid by the other party's insurance company, if he applies just a little bit of pressure; as someone suggested, a letter from a lawyer might do it.

 

[Tally Ho]

If I understand the situation correctly, the mooring field may be in an area where all of the yacht club members moor their boats. Since the town may not have the best standards for a mooring field, and all yacht club members have similar risk, perhaps thetone can appeal to the membership for at least partial compensation. That seems fair to me. If one person among a community suffers, wouldn't it be the right thing to do for the "community" (yacht club) to stand up for their brother? It might be more palatable for everyone if the club raised the funds to help one of their own, rather than leaving thetone twist in the wind when liability can't be pinned on any particular entity.

Sounds like socialism to me.

I don’t think I would volunteer to cover some guys damages I may not even know.

One thing to take care of family or close friends, but....

Greg

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Well, sure it's socialism. If they belong to the same social club (yacht club) sharing a common resource (the anchorage), that sounds pretty social to me. I'm only offering it as a voluntary solution (not a legal solution) ... you know, like how members of the social community in Houston banded together to help each other? I'd bet the membership could cover a $4,000 expense rather easily. Besides, aren't yacht club members relatively close friends, or in some cases, even, family?

Isn't it strange how we become so wrapped up in our own selfish interests, that we see everything through a legal lens of responsibility, obligation and liability, rather than coming to rather simple communal solutions?

 

[Meriachee]

Zombie boats. Can that be this week's slang for last week's "party barge"?

 

[Tally Ho]

Well, sure it's socialism. If they belong to the same social club (yacht club) sharing a common resource (the anchorage), that sounds pretty social to me. I'm only offering it as a voluntary solution (not a legal solution) ... you know, like how members of the social community in Houston banded together to help each other? I'd bet the membership could cover a $4,000 expense rather easily. Besides, aren't yacht club members relatively close friends, or in some cases, even, family?

Isn't it strange how we become so wrapped up in our own selfish interests, that we see everything through a legal lens of responsibility, obligation and liability, rather than coming to rather simple communal solutions?

I guess...but I am not THAT social at my marina. I mostly use it as a place to park my boat, set out, and tie her up when I am done. I generally laugh about the dock party people who hang out at the marina all day and never go out.

Anyway, I get your point, and maybe if I was in a small, close-knit yacht club I would consider it, but really, all parties should have insurance. My marina requires all boaters to have liability insurance at a minimum. If you don’t carry insurance to cover damages to your own boat, not sure I want to pay for your lack of insurance.

Greg

 

[Michael Davis]

My marina requires all boaters to have liability insurance at a minimum.

Pretty normal. Most around here require a minimum of $3million liability. This covers the damage YOU do if you have a fuel spill or drag your anchor ( mooring ) into my boat. My insurance covers my boat and my liability covers yours if I drag.

 

[Will Gilmore]

If you don’t carry insurance to cover damages to your own boat, not sure I want to pay for your lack of insurance.

What's liability insurance for if it doesn't cover damaged to the other guy's boat?
If an insurance company won't pay out for these type of claims, how can the requirement for liability insurance be anything but a requirement to give a third party company money. Where is the service that money is suppose to buy?
I understand the insurance companies have, at least in the past, built-in an incentive for agents to sign customers who don't make claims by reducing future bonuses to agents who's customers make claims. It would therefore be in the interest of an agent to not bring a claim forward if it can be brushed off. Insurance companies, understandably, don't want to pay out but, that is the service you are paying for. A legitimate claim should be paid or insurance is just a way of giving your money to a corporation.
- Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Crazy Dave Condon]

Moderators
I think it is time to shut this down as there is nothing new and some are getting agitated. Thanks.

 

[justsomeguy]

I'm not agitated. You agitated?
Anybody agitated?

 

[dlochner]

Moderators
I think it is time to shut this down as there is nothing new and some are getting agitated. Thanks.

Come on Dave, just when it was getting to be fun!

I'm always conflicted when threads start down the political path. On the one hand this site is about sailing and sailing related topics. On the other hand, our country really needs to engage in thoughtful conversations about the very important issues facing us. We need to bring our citizens together and end the tribalism that dominates the media and politics. Avoiding those discussions does little to unite us.

Throughout this thread and many others, the issue of insurance and the need to have insurance to protect both yourself and others comes up. If you think about how insurance companies function, they are little more than profit oriented socialist organizations.