Quick question for your opinion: A marine contractor performs work at a Municipal Marina where all contractors are required to be on file with current insurance and other legal information. Contractor's insurance lapses due to lack of payment. Next month, without insurance and without notifying the Marina, goes on-site and performs work that results in major damage (total loss) of Sailboat at this municipal marina. Would this stipulation make this an open/shut case on liability? (I did not have insurance on the boat, as I had *just bought it within 30days of the accident. I am defending myself against this contractor in small-claims court, for the fee of him raising my boat the next morning ($2500). My knot meter transducer was knocked in during a bottom-cleaning by a contractor. Regardless of his claim of "Faulty equipment" and his strong belief he will win in court....I am curious if his lack on insurance at a public marina will automatically default him into being liable?)
- Status
The answer and only the anwser
I am curious if his lack on insurance at a public marina will automatically default him into being liable? Answer: No. Without stating opinion on liability issue.
I am curious if his lack on insurance at a public marina will automatically default him into being liable? Answer: No. Without stating opinion on liability issue.
In a word ..NO
I am certainly not an atty, but what little i have observed in a courtroom and watching Court TV (how embarasing), his atty will ask that the court will only limit itself to the facts leading up to the sinking of the boat. Because he dont have insurance and he may have hiddden this from the marina, has absolutely nothing to do with the sinking of your boat. If you bring it up and the judge rules against you, I would suggest that you dont ask a second time. I have read your previous posts a while back.....you got nothing to lose in court but your time, but i certainly would be amazed if you win. If I were him, i would bring in a new transducer, explain to the judge how it is affixed and demonstrate how it could not be damaged or pushed in if it were in good condition. Then either the contractor or the judge will probably ask you to see your old transducer. This is small claims court, not Perry Mason. If you dont have it with you, the judge is not going to postpone till another time just for you to prepare. You are the moving party and the burden of proof is on you. Good luck anyway.....you never know.
I am certainly not an atty, but what little i have observed in a courtroom and watching Court TV (how embarasing), his atty will ask that the court will only limit itself to the facts leading up to the sinking of the boat. Because he dont have insurance and he may have hiddden this from the marina, has absolutely nothing to do with the sinking of your boat. If you bring it up and the judge rules against you, I would suggest that you dont ask a second time. I have read your previous posts a while back.....you got nothing to lose in court but your time, but i certainly would be amazed if you win. If I were him, i would bring in a new transducer, explain to the judge how it is affixed and demonstrate how it could not be damaged or pushed in if it were in good condition. Then either the contractor or the judge will probably ask you to see your old transducer. This is small claims court, not Perry Mason. If you dont have it with you, the judge is not going to postpone till another time just for you to prepare. You are the moving party and the burden of proof is on you. Good luck anyway.....you never know.
Just a thought
This guy couldn't pay for insurance. Even if the judge says he owes you 10 grand. So what? He's going to send $10 a month for 1000 months with returning to court every year or so to restart payments again. I think your best bet is to be friendly with the guy and see how much work you can get out of him helping with the cleanup. You won't get blood from a turnip.
This guy couldn't pay for insurance. Even if the judge says he owes you 10 grand. So what? He's going to send $10 a month for 1000 months with returning to court every year or so to restart payments again. I think your best bet is to be friendly with the guy and see how much work you can get out of him helping with the cleanup. You won't get blood from a turnip.
Boat loss and insurance
I would imagine that those very same requirements were put upon you, the slip renter, to have insurance not only on your boat, but also to name the Marina as a coinsured for a minimum stated liability amount. If you didn't have insurance, you are just plain SOL. Not only can you not get anything from him, but the marina can come after you for any expenses they incur. In the future, insure anything you buy the minute you buy it, it is cheap protection against just this kind of loss.
I would imagine that those very same requirements were put upon you, the slip renter, to have insurance not only on your boat, but also to name the Marina as a coinsured for a minimum stated liability amount. If you didn't have insurance, you are just plain SOL. Not only can you not get anything from him, but the marina can come after you for any expenses they incur. In the future, insure anything you buy the minute you buy it, it is cheap protection against just this kind of loss.
I seem to remember this question from
days past. At that time I advised you that the court would look at the prepondurance of evidence and make a finding. You present your arguments and the defendant presents his arguments, the judge listens to both sides and makes a ruling. If either party is displeased they may appeal to a jury trial with lawyers.
days past. At that time I advised you that the court would look at the prepondurance of evidence and make a finding. You present your arguments and the defendant presents his arguments, the judge listens to both sides and makes a ruling. If either party is displeased they may appeal to a jury trial with lawyers.
Say, you win......any assets?
IF he has nothing...good luck. You could put a lean on his car or house. But unless he sells his house..it will be a long time before you collect. If he has no asset...good luck.
IF he has nothing...good luck. You could put a lean on his car or house. But unless he sells his house..it will be a long time before you collect. If he has no asset...good luck.
For what it's worth dept.
I'm surprised the marina isn't named as co-insured on any contractors policy. That way if the policy is cancelled for any reason, they usually get notified. Interesting case but I agree with the others. This isn't Perry Mason and if he couldn't afford it, probably not worth the time or hassle to go after him. I'd present my case in court and see where it goes. In any event, I don't see how hull cleaning could sink a boat unless something wasn't right in the first place. If it did, then you're lucky it didn't happen out in the ocean. Maybe this is a blessing in disquise? *o
I'm surprised the marina isn't named as co-insured on any contractors policy. That way if the policy is cancelled for any reason, they usually get notified. Interesting case but I agree with the others. This isn't Perry Mason and if he couldn't afford it, probably not worth the time or hassle to go after him. I'd present my case in court and see where it goes. In any event, I don't see how hull cleaning could sink a boat unless something wasn't right in the first place. If it did, then you're lucky it didn't happen out in the ocean. Maybe this is a blessing in disquise? *o
Hmmm...
You're suing him because he didn't have insurance and damged your boat that you didn't have insured. Offer to split the difference and chalk it up to experience.
You're suing him because he didn't have insurance and damged your boat that you didn't have insured. Offer to split the difference and chalk it up to experience.
What was the Outcome In Court ?
Soooooooooooo. Did you go to court yet? And what was the outcome?
Soooooooooooo. Did you go to court yet? And what was the outcome?
The original poster is defending
the suit, not suing for compensation for damage to his sunk ( then raised) boat. The guy who knocked out the speedo plug when cleaning the boat want to be paid for raising the boat. Seems like that work/charge would hve had to be by agreement before the boat is raised. Poster doesn't discuss that, so we need more info.
the suit, not suing for compensation for damage to his sunk ( then raised) boat. The guy who knocked out the speedo plug when cleaning the boat want to be paid for raising the boat. Seems like that work/charge would hve had to be by agreement before the boat is raised. Poster doesn't discuss that, so we need more info.
Insurance has nothing to do with liability
And in many court cases, the existance of insurance is not even allowed to be discussed for that reason. If the contractor was liable for the damages, a judgement may be awarded against him. Insurance only speaks to the issue of who will cut a check--after the responsible party is determined. Now, the marina may have other issues and charges to press against both parties, because the contractor was uninsured. There may also be a criminal charge of fraud, because he represented himself as insured, and by not paying his policy, he knew he no longer was insured--as he represented himself to be. All of which has got nothing to do with the question of who is reposnsible for sinking the boat. Damn good trick if you can sink a boat by knocking out the speedo plug, most of those are rather robust. It could get complicated, because even if the plug was defective, or even if the cleaner used a sledge hammer to clean it, SOMEONE launched the boat and that party was arguably negligent when they didn't check the boat to see if there were any leaks after launching it. That could be the owner, or the marina, whoever launched it and didn't inspect it afterwards.
And in many court cases, the existance of insurance is not even allowed to be discussed for that reason. If the contractor was liable for the damages, a judgement may be awarded against him. Insurance only speaks to the issue of who will cut a check--after the responsible party is determined. Now, the marina may have other issues and charges to press against both parties, because the contractor was uninsured. There may also be a criminal charge of fraud, because he represented himself as insured, and by not paying his policy, he knew he no longer was insured--as he represented himself to be. All of which has got nothing to do with the question of who is reposnsible for sinking the boat. Damn good trick if you can sink a boat by knocking out the speedo plug, most of those are rather robust. It could get complicated, because even if the plug was defective, or even if the cleaner used a sledge hammer to clean it, SOMEONE launched the boat and that party was arguably negligent when they didn't check the boat to see if there were any leaks after launching it. That could be the owner, or the marina, whoever launched it and didn't inspect it afterwards.
This is a break-off of
This post is a break-off of his previous posts a few months ago. i'm too lazy to look it up, but i think the boat was in the water at the time he hired a diver to scrape it. The diver was also NOT the one that raised the boat. The concensus of opinion back in his previous post is the same pretty much as now. There is no way in hell the diver could have knocked it loose if it were in good condition. The boat didnt sink at the time, it was i believe several hours after the diver was finished scraping or may be even the next day. If the diver didnt enter his boat, then he wouldnt know of a leak. In either case, if the diver brings a Surveyor to court with him, the judge will most likely rule against this poster and possibly order that this poster pay for the surveyors time. If the diver knows about this site and makes copies of the previous post, Then this guy is definately losing. And yes, insurance has absolutely nothing to do with who is liable.
This post is a break-off of his previous posts a few months ago. i'm too lazy to look it up, but i think the boat was in the water at the time he hired a diver to scrape it. The diver was also NOT the one that raised the boat. The concensus of opinion back in his previous post is the same pretty much as now. There is no way in hell the diver could have knocked it loose if it were in good condition. The boat didnt sink at the time, it was i believe several hours after the diver was finished scraping or may be even the next day. If the diver didnt enter his boat, then he wouldnt know of a leak. In either case, if the diver brings a Surveyor to court with him, the judge will most likely rule against this poster and possibly order that this poster pay for the surveyors time. If the diver knows about this site and makes copies of the previous post, Then this guy is definately losing. And yes, insurance has absolutely nothing to do with who is liable.
- Status