The other insurance company is denying my claim. They say that since their insured had the mooring inspected there was no negligent act committed
Here is a case where the insurance company is claiming that they only pay if a negligent act was committed, accident, bad luck, a perfectly sound mooring that just happens to drag on the one bare patch of flat bedrock, do not constitute a responsibility to pay in a liability claim against them and their client. This seems to go against the whole idea of a stewardship for liability that the insurance company is charging money for. Is anyone here paying their insurance company premiums with the expectation that said company will simply take the money and not pay out when someone has suffered damages that the premium payer is involved in causing? Most people take a blase' stance figuring that the insurance is required and their "real" job is to insulate the insured from financial responsibility. If the insurance company can do that and never pay a claim, all is cool. Except, for most of us who do live as participating members of a community, that isn't enough and it is a misrepresentation of the service we are getting charged for. The yacht club insists that it's members carry liability insurance. Mostly, that is to have a way of settling conflict that comes up between members so the club doesn't have to get involve. Also, it might be to, hopefully, make it easier to collect if a member caused property damage to club facilities. However, if the insurance companies make it too onerous to extract that payment, the community is again thrown into judicial conflict, lawyers make money, insurance companies spend money, clients are unhappy, communities weaken their bonds and the requirement for insurance becomes a requirement for security deposits instead. There are ways to cut the insurance company middle man out until claims get too big and government insurance lobbyists succeed in passing legislation so they can again collect premiums without having to pay out claims.
That is where Socialism comes in. Strictly speaking, Socialism is defined as government controlling/owning the means of production. In this case, it's regulated or mandatory insurance. If the community of insured were to actually work together to cover each other as the ones in control of the economic system of boat insurance then you're talking Communism. That is a system that doesn't actually exist because people can't work together and make the sacrifices it takes to pay where they are not invested personally to do so.
The question we are all working on here is, is there a position, a stand, we can take that makes a situation like the one thetone is in, easier to get satisfaction? Can we, as a community of sailboat owners, organize or define our liability to our fellow sailors so that the response to a dragged mooring that caused damage to another is easier and more naturally equitable?
It is always important to imagine yourself on either side of that equation. What would you like to have happen if your boat had been the one to drag. Consider, that guy's boat had to have taken damage as well. If he pays for thetone's damages, he also had too pay for his own. If he didn't suffer damage, he can consider himself lucky and get on his boat and go sailing without delay or inconvenience. Tehtone, on the other hand, has a bunch of problems to settle before he is whole and back to sailing again. It doesn't seem fair but everyone is faced with that same possibility in equal measure.
How should it be? What would be the best plan so no one is ever unhappy? Like true Communism, it can't exist.
- Will ("trying to relate this to sailing", Dragonfly)