I suppose I have a boat fetish . . .I have two sail vessels and three personal watercrafts. I have always maintained insurance coverage on the Hunter 23.5, . . .but now that I have a nearly $1,250 annual "marine insurance" bill (no claims or accidents). . .I'm questioning the value of insurance. What is the danger of not having insurance? Does everyone else on the water have insurance? Steven Gautney
- Status
Don't forget Liability
Steven: You may be able to recover from the loss of your hull, but third party liability claims will suck you dry and then some. Just paying the attorneys fees on a $1 million law suit would be a nice annual income for many people Jeff
Steven: You may be able to recover from the loss of your hull, but third party liability claims will suck you dry and then some. Just paying the attorneys fees on a $1 million law suit would be a nice annual income for many people Jeff
Liability Insurance needed
Hull or property insurance or replacement insurance might not be necessary but if you own any property of significance or have a personal net worth that could be lost in a lawsuit you should have liability insurance. You could lose all that you have worked for. In addition to the liability insurance I have with my boat policy I also have an umbrella policy to protect me against lawsuit. In this litiguous society there are any number of scenarios where I could be liable. Umbrella liability policies are available at about $125 per year per $million of coverage. This covers boat, automobile and home as long as it is specified on the policy.
Hull or property insurance or replacement insurance might not be necessary but if you own any property of significance or have a personal net worth that could be lost in a lawsuit you should have liability insurance. You could lose all that you have worked for. In addition to the liability insurance I have with my boat policy I also have an umbrella policy to protect me against lawsuit. In this litiguous society there are any number of scenarios where I could be liable. Umbrella liability policies are available at about $125 per year per $million of coverage. This covers boat, automobile and home as long as it is specified on the policy.
Look for A Different Carrier
That is damn near what I pay for Renters, Full coverage on two cars and my boat.
That is damn near what I pay for Renters, Full coverage on two cars and my boat.
Insurance
Used to be that your sailboat, under 25ft., liability would be covered under your homeowners policy. Checd with your agent. PWCs are like motorcycles and have a huge liability issue. Probably the brunt of your bill.
Used to be that your sailboat, under 25ft., liability would be covered under your homeowners policy. Checd with your agent. PWCs are like motorcycles and have a huge liability issue. Probably the brunt of your bill.
Liability exposure
If you read your premium breakdown, you'll see that considerably more of it goes toward liability coverage than anything else. These days you can get sued by the heirs of a fool on a PWC who runs into you and kills himself at 2 am while you're on the hook in anchorage...never mind that he shouldn't have been on the PWC at that hour, or that he hit your boat...they'll be looking for somebody to blame and you were there. God forbid the PWC should be your own and one of your son's friends sneaked it out for a joyride and ran into your own sailboat--you should have been able to prevent it (you get the picture) His parents won't sue you for a few thousand...they'll sue you, the mfr of the PWC, the mfr of your boat, and anyone else they can think of for at least $1m....maybe $10m. They'll settle for a lot less, but you'll still have to defend it. Without insurance, you'll be the one to pay the legal bills to defend it. But when it's the insurance co's money, they provide the legal representation fight it. They MAY settle--in fact prob'ly will if it'll cost 'em less than litigating and winning...because it's their money, not yours, and insurance companies aren't in the "truth and justice" business, they're in the cost containment business. They are, after all, FOR-profit companies. Although some people believe that insurance coverage should cover every "hangnail"--and therefore pay FAR more than they need to for the lowest deductables--the real purpose for insurance is coverage for what you can't afford to replace or damage--including legal damage--that costs more to repair than you can afford. So if you can afford to replace any or all of the various watercraft you own, you may not need full coverage. But unless you're able to spend anywhere from $25k-$100k+ to defend a spurious lawsuit, you DO need liability insurance, which you can get in the form of a personal liability umbrella policy. $2 million should cost you less than $400/year.
If you read your premium breakdown, you'll see that considerably more of it goes toward liability coverage than anything else. These days you can get sued by the heirs of a fool on a PWC who runs into you and kills himself at 2 am while you're on the hook in anchorage...never mind that he shouldn't have been on the PWC at that hour, or that he hit your boat...they'll be looking for somebody to blame and you were there. God forbid the PWC should be your own and one of your son's friends sneaked it out for a joyride and ran into your own sailboat--you should have been able to prevent it (you get the picture) His parents won't sue you for a few thousand...they'll sue you, the mfr of the PWC, the mfr of your boat, and anyone else they can think of for at least $1m....maybe $10m. They'll settle for a lot less, but you'll still have to defend it. Without insurance, you'll be the one to pay the legal bills to defend it. But when it's the insurance co's money, they provide the legal representation fight it. They MAY settle--in fact prob'ly will if it'll cost 'em less than litigating and winning...because it's their money, not yours, and insurance companies aren't in the "truth and justice" business, they're in the cost containment business. They are, after all, FOR-profit companies. Although some people believe that insurance coverage should cover every "hangnail"--and therefore pay FAR more than they need to for the lowest deductables--the real purpose for insurance is coverage for what you can't afford to replace or damage--including legal damage--that costs more to repair than you can afford. So if you can afford to replace any or all of the various watercraft you own, you may not need full coverage. But unless you're able to spend anywhere from $25k-$100k+ to defend a spurious lawsuit, you DO need liability insurance, which you can get in the form of a personal liability umbrella policy. $2 million should cost you less than $400/year.
insurance
If you are just interested in liability check with your homeowners carrier. States vary but here I can add anything below a 26 foot sailboat to my homeowners policy for nothing.We have the highest insurance rates in the USA and maybe that is why. It is worth checking !
If you are just interested in liability check with your homeowners carrier. States vary but here I can add anything below a 26 foot sailboat to my homeowners policy for nothing.We have the highest insurance rates in the USA and maybe that is why. It is worth checking !
Look at your Homeowners Policy
As far as sailboats under 26 ft,outboards 25 hp and less, inboards under 50 hp, they can be covered under for liability under your homeowners policy in most states. Personal Watercraft are not and are very expensive to insure for hull coverage and even for liability only. You may be fine, but PWC's tend to be used by a wilder crowd than the previously mentioned craft. Thus their coverage is much higher and is even difficult to get in some areas.
As far as sailboats under 26 ft,outboards 25 hp and less, inboards under 50 hp, they can be covered under for liability under your homeowners policy in most states. Personal Watercraft are not and are very expensive to insure for hull coverage and even for liability only. You may be fine, but PWC's tend to be used by a wilder crowd than the previously mentioned craft. Thus their coverage is much higher and is even difficult to get in some areas.
While the Issue is Afoot
At what point does a PWC become a "Boat"? Of course they are subject to the same regulations unless more specific ones apply. What we were discussing and never came to a conclusion on was the definition. Our best guess was when you sit inside rather than on top of the vessel. Anyone know for certain?
At what point does a PWC become a "Boat"? Of course they are subject to the same regulations unless more specific ones apply. What we were discussing and never came to a conclusion on was the definition. Our best guess was when you sit inside rather than on top of the vessel. Anyone know for certain?
The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) defines
a vessel as: "Every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on waters of the United States." That makes a PWC no different from any other boat.
a vessel as: "Every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on waters of the United States." That makes a PWC no different from any other boat.
Missed the Point Peg
I mentioned they are all covered by the same regs unless there are any that are more specific for that vessel type. The question is what makes a PWC? The discussion started in reference to PWCs being restricted from the National Parks or their vicinity. SeaDoo makes a vessel that is either a big PWC you sit in or a small jet boat that looks like a PWC. Some regs seem to make no sense such as a PWC being an inboard vessel and therfore is required to carry a fire extinguisher. A rational person is not going to open a compartment find the fire bottle then open the engine compartment and put out the fire. They are going to swim away from it so that they do not get burned.
I mentioned they are all covered by the same regs unless there are any that are more specific for that vessel type. The question is what makes a PWC? The discussion started in reference to PWCs being restricted from the National Parks or their vicinity. SeaDoo makes a vessel that is either a big PWC you sit in or a small jet boat that looks like a PWC. Some regs seem to make no sense such as a PWC being an inboard vessel and therfore is required to carry a fire extinguisher. A rational person is not going to open a compartment find the fire bottle then open the engine compartment and put out the fire. They are going to swim away from it so that they do not get burned.
I didn't miss the point
Your didn't ask about regs applicable to PWCs, you asked what defines a boat ("vessel"). According to federal law, if it floats and can be used a transportation, it doesn't matter whether you sit in it or on it, it's a boat. If sitting IN it instead of on it made any difference, trampoline catamarans like Hobie cats wouldn't be boats. Neither would a pontoon boat (floating patio with an outboard on the back). If you put a sail or an outboard on a log and straddle it, it's a boat. PWCs float and can be used as transportation...that makes 'em boats. What I suspect you're missing is, there are different regs for different classes of vessels. Fire extinguishers aren't required on Sunfish, Hobies, canoes, sailing dinks...neither are flares. Yet they're all vessels. A paddle is required safety equipment on motorized vessels up to a certain sized, but not on larger vessels. I don't know whether fire extinguishers are required on PWCS (do you?). However, whether they are or not, I think that, if one were available, any rational adult WOULD grab a fire extinguisher to put out wiring or something else that's started smoldering, to prevent it from becoming a fire.
Your didn't ask about regs applicable to PWCs, you asked what defines a boat ("vessel"). According to federal law, if it floats and can be used a transportation, it doesn't matter whether you sit in it or on it, it's a boat. If sitting IN it instead of on it made any difference, trampoline catamarans like Hobie cats wouldn't be boats. Neither would a pontoon boat (floating patio with an outboard on the back). If you put a sail or an outboard on a log and straddle it, it's a boat. PWCs float and can be used as transportation...that makes 'em boats. What I suspect you're missing is, there are different regs for different classes of vessels. Fire extinguishers aren't required on Sunfish, Hobies, canoes, sailing dinks...neither are flares. Yet they're all vessels. A paddle is required safety equipment on motorized vessels up to a certain sized, but not on larger vessels. I don't know whether fire extinguishers are required on PWCS (do you?). However, whether they are or not, I think that, if one were available, any rational adult WOULD grab a fire extinguisher to put out wiring or something else that's started smoldering, to prevent it from becoming a fire.
do you have insurance on your car?
Why have insurance? We all pay insurance for homes, cars and boats with the intent of never using it. I would try to find cheaper insurance. After all, 1000/ year is one thing. What would be the cost if you had an accident?
Why have insurance? We all pay insurance for homes, cars and boats with the intent of never using it. I would try to find cheaper insurance. After all, 1000/ year is one thing. What would be the cost if you had an accident?
PWC Dinghy
Can you claim the PWC as the dinghy of the Mother Vessel sailboat and thereby have it covered under the sailboat policy?
Can you claim the PWC as the dinghy of the Mother Vessel sailboat and thereby have it covered under the sailboat policy?
The options appear to be limited . . .
I appreciate the discussion . . .the issue is the liability associated with the PWCs. I had no idea they were this expensive to insure! PWCs do require an on-board fire extinguisher. Considering the PWCs as a dingy on the larger sailboat is an interesting idea . . .but not too practical. I am in the health care business and I have a clear understanding of the costs of seemingly unfounded lawsuits . . .at some point we will all be working for plaintiffs lawyers and all productive activities will be futile.
I appreciate the discussion . . .the issue is the liability associated with the PWCs. I had no idea they were this expensive to insure! PWCs do require an on-board fire extinguisher. Considering the PWCs as a dingy on the larger sailboat is an interesting idea . . .but not too practical. I am in the health care business and I have a clear understanding of the costs of seemingly unfounded lawsuits . . .at some point we will all be working for plaintiffs lawyers and all productive activities will be futile.
When a Vessel is a PWC
The earlier poster is correct that a PWC is a vessel upon which you ride sitting, kneeling or standing upon vs inside of. I have about six out in the yard that the kids leave here because I am right on the water with my own dock. Not sure about the insurance on them as I do not own them. Some of the other things in question are correct also. A fire extinguisher is reqired as it is determined to be an inboard vessel. I agree that it would be foolish to try to put out a fire were one to start. There is just not room to find the extinguisher stand on the thing and spray it. Just swim away and let it burn that is what the insurance is for after all.
The earlier poster is correct that a PWC is a vessel upon which you ride sitting, kneeling or standing upon vs inside of. I have about six out in the yard that the kids leave here because I am right on the water with my own dock. Not sure about the insurance on them as I do not own them. Some of the other things in question are correct also. A fire extinguisher is reqired as it is determined to be an inboard vessel. I agree that it would be foolish to try to put out a fire were one to start. There is just not room to find the extinguisher stand on the thing and spray it. Just swim away and let it burn that is what the insurance is for after all.
PWC is not a dinghy
All the insurance companies will require a description of the vessel, if it meets THEIR definition of a PWC, claiming you use it as a dinghy won't work. The insurance companies deal in predicting statistical outcomes and setting rates in order to insure THEY make a profit.
All the insurance companies will require a description of the vessel, if it meets THEIR definition of a PWC, claiming you use it as a dinghy won't work. The insurance companies deal in predicting statistical outcomes and setting rates in order to insure THEY make a profit.
Plaintiffs' Lawyer's defensive rebuttal
So, when I'm not sailing or reading bulletin boards, I'm an attorney focused on representing plaintiffs in contingent fee personal injury and medical malpractice cases. While it is certainly true that there are people, both clients and lawyers, trying to pursue groundless claims, the reality is not that high insurance costs are the product of greedy lawyers. The reality is that high liability insurance costs are the result of too many payments on personal injury cases. If everybody learned how to operate reasonably, whether in a car, boat, or operating room, then I could never win a case. An outcome that I find desirable because it would mean that people were not being harmed unnecessarily. When I pursue a liability grounded case I start with a lecture to the client - I explain that this is not the lottery, and that the fact that they were harmed stinks and that we'll try to make them whole, but not beyond that other than in truly limited circumstances. On occasion we seek huge judgments but honestly only when there has been egrigous damage to a person as a result of another persons's malfeasance. Its simply remarkable how many people are blazing through life creating risks for others. When those others are harmed, why shouldn't they be made whole? That cost then gets amortized over the whole population of insurance buying people. You should be pissed. I'm pissed at my insurance rates. But you should be pissed at the jerks not thinking through the ramifications of their actions. They're the people creating the cost. Then come the insurance carriers. Insurance is a business needing to make a profit, but more to the point, most insurance carriers are corporate entities. This means that they actually have an absolute obligation to try to make a profit for their shareholders. The only way they can meet that obligation is to raise rates. Again, you should be pissed. But your anger is deserved by the guy who created the unnecessary risk, not the people who were harmed or the people who work for them. And before someone comesalong and says my opinion is limited by my view point - before I was an attorney I was an EMT. We got sued everytime someone died on one of our trucks because the families had seen too much ER where codes get saved and nobody bleeds out. Groundless suits, for sure. But we won them at comparatively low cost. Here in Maine, to get into Court with a medical malpractice caes you must first get through a screening panel. If the panel thinks the claim is groundless you're done. At very little cost to anyone. It works well to reduce the cost of defensive litigation in garbage cases. If you want to reduce your insurance costs castigate the jerks creating the risks and lobby your legislature for tort reform in the guise of screening panels. I'm an ambulance chaser and I'll be right there supporting you. After all, I pay for insurance too. Someone hand me my nomex and make sure that fire extinguisher is charged. Justin - O'day Owners' Web
So, when I'm not sailing or reading bulletin boards, I'm an attorney focused on representing plaintiffs in contingent fee personal injury and medical malpractice cases. While it is certainly true that there are people, both clients and lawyers, trying to pursue groundless claims, the reality is not that high insurance costs are the product of greedy lawyers. The reality is that high liability insurance costs are the result of too many payments on personal injury cases. If everybody learned how to operate reasonably, whether in a car, boat, or operating room, then I could never win a case. An outcome that I find desirable because it would mean that people were not being harmed unnecessarily. When I pursue a liability grounded case I start with a lecture to the client - I explain that this is not the lottery, and that the fact that they were harmed stinks and that we'll try to make them whole, but not beyond that other than in truly limited circumstances. On occasion we seek huge judgments but honestly only when there has been egrigous damage to a person as a result of another persons's malfeasance. Its simply remarkable how many people are blazing through life creating risks for others. When those others are harmed, why shouldn't they be made whole? That cost then gets amortized over the whole population of insurance buying people. You should be pissed. I'm pissed at my insurance rates. But you should be pissed at the jerks not thinking through the ramifications of their actions. They're the people creating the cost. Then come the insurance carriers. Insurance is a business needing to make a profit, but more to the point, most insurance carriers are corporate entities. This means that they actually have an absolute obligation to try to make a profit for their shareholders. The only way they can meet that obligation is to raise rates. Again, you should be pissed. But your anger is deserved by the guy who created the unnecessary risk, not the people who were harmed or the people who work for them. And before someone comesalong and says my opinion is limited by my view point - before I was an attorney I was an EMT. We got sued everytime someone died on one of our trucks because the families had seen too much ER where codes get saved and nobody bleeds out. Groundless suits, for sure. But we won them at comparatively low cost. Here in Maine, to get into Court with a medical malpractice caes you must first get through a screening panel. If the panel thinks the claim is groundless you're done. At very little cost to anyone. It works well to reduce the cost of defensive litigation in garbage cases. If you want to reduce your insurance costs castigate the jerks creating the risks and lobby your legislature for tort reform in the guise of screening panels. I'm an ambulance chaser and I'll be right there supporting you. After all, I pay for insurance too. Someone hand me my nomex and make sure that fire extinguisher is charged. Justin - O'day Owners' Web
Justin, (Sigh) The McDonalds Hot Coffee case
What about that? And the fact that the manufacturers of ladders must put the message "do not stand on the top step, it may cuase injury." You know the story. (lawsuits for mental midgets...) Duh !...too many ridiculous lawsuits with ridiculous payments. I can probably find many, many more. I am sure you are aware of them too.
What about that? And the fact that the manufacturers of ladders must put the message "do not stand on the top step, it may cuase injury." You know the story. (lawsuits for mental midgets...) Duh !...too many ridiculous lawsuits with ridiculous payments. I can probably find many, many more. I am sure you are aware of them too.
Wow, Justin
You did learn something at the lawyer school. You are right. The people that speed through life, not caring for others, should pay. I just wish that more of that burden would go back on the individual. I understand accidents happen and it is hard to blame someone for a mistake. Then there is the guy that pushes the limit all the time. He is the one that needs to be affected. r.w.landau justin, that e-mail address was the same as the last. rwlandau@aol.com
You did learn something at the lawyer school. You are right. The people that speed through life, not caring for others, should pay. I just wish that more of that burden would go back on the individual. I understand accidents happen and it is hard to blame someone for a mistake. Then there is the guy that pushes the limit all the time. He is the one that needs to be affected. r.w.landau justin, that e-mail address was the same as the last. rwlandau@aol.com
- Status