BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

JimH

Gene Kearns wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:03:02 -0400, wrote:

On 27 Sep 2006 18:35:02 -0700, "JimH" wrote:

You're kidding, right? They have NO responsibility? How do you
present
that claim to your insurance company?

Dan,
The contract can say anything it wants, it does not necessarily remove
them from having liability if your boat is damaged. It is happened to
me, I would report it to my insurance company, and they would fight it
with the botel.

If the contract included *specifically negotiated* hold harmless,
indemnification or other risk transfer verbiage the liability can
absolutely be transfered.over to the contractor.

This is the only country in the world where an unconditional hold
harmless waiver does not mean you can't find a lawyer who will sue for
you.
The scary thing is the number of times the plaintiff wins or simply
walks away with (half to 2/3ds of a) a nice settlement. The lawyers
take their piece off the top.

I would guess that there are *very, very, few* *specifically
negotiated* hold harmless clauses. Indemnification can be looked at as
a sort of insurance..... it does *NOT* protect any party from gross
negligence and the well founded issues of bailment.

Agreed, but they do exist. And they are the best type of indemnification.
I have never read of *specifically negotiated* hold harmless agreement
thrown out in court let alone on a regular basis as one person claims.

When the boatel accepts consideration for housing the bailor's
property they are held to a pretty high standard of care. Prior
negotiation of financial responsibility is fine, but I can't image
that any court of law in any country would allow the bailee to skip
without exercising reasonable and prudent care of the bailor's
property.
--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------