You can add my recommendation for Boat/US to the list. We were insured by
them for many years and were happy. When it came time to go cruising,
though, Boat/US wouldn't cover us past 200 miles offshore. We ended up
getting a Lloyds policy through Blue Water Insurance (they advertise in
Latitude 38 if you're on the West Coast). We were very happy with the
policy and service we got with them.

Another option is Fireman's insurance, a friend covered his 36' boat with
them and was happy, and last but not least, you can also call your
automobile insurance company. We're insured with USAA, and at times got
boat insurance with them as well. USAA is -the- best insurance company I've
ever dealt with, but they only service military, ex-military and their
famillies.

Hope this helps,

Paul

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:25:42 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


The t-bone incident had an surprising aspect: because my friends
admitted they didn't see the other boat, they were assessed 24% of the
blame - the port/starboard rule only applies "when in sight" and thus
was somewhat voided because of the lack of a proper lookout.


That has to be the worst reasoning I've heard of in years. Sounds like a
good reason not to use BoatUS.


So what's wrong?


Nothing wrong with the first part of the statement. The problem is with the
second part. Vessels are "in sight" of one another when one "can be
observed" from the other, not when one _is_ observed by the other. See Rule
3(j). If one didn't see the other because the first wasn't keeping a proper
lookout, it was nevertheless "in sight" because if a proper lookout had been
kept it _could_ have observed the second. The consequence of failing to
observe the port/starboard rule should be totally unaffected by whether a
proper lookout was being kept.

As usual, you're confusing a little bit of knowledge for wisdom. Of
course the rules are not abrogated because of the lack of a lookout.
I'm not claiming that the rules somehow changed because of the lack of a
lookout. The issue here is assessing blame. I simply passed on one
such judgment and a snippet of the logic, passed down third hand.
Unlike the racing rules, in these cases the total blame equals 100%,
thus the relative blame has to be assessed comparing the various
violations. Although I can't say that all courts would make the same
judgment, it is clear that if the "privileged" vessel did not maintain a
lookout, and that contributed to a collision, then that vessel is
assessed part of the blame.

In racing, you are correct: the consequence of being in the wrong in a
port/starboard case is a DSQ (or circles), the other boat may also
suffer a DSQ for not attempting to prevent the collision. In a sense,
200% blame can therefore be assessed.

Roger Long wrote:
Plus, even if they didn't see the other vessel, up to a point they
were probably proceeding exactly as a right of way vessel should in a
crossing situation. The right of way vessel has to maintain a
straight and predictable course so that they can be avoided. If it
becomes clear that there will be a collision, the right of way vessel
must take action to avoid it but doing that too soon can create a
hazard or collision out of a simple crossing if the burdened vessel
can't figure out the intent and predict the course.

If your friends were altering course as the right of way vessel and
not keeping a lookout, then they would be more than 24% wrong in my
book.

They weren't altering course - they had been holding a steady course for
a long time. If anything, I suspect the Soling maneuvered close to
them. They saw the Soling about a boat length away and started to turn
but it was to late. In their defense, this was one of their first
sails in a new (to them) center cockpit boat that has much less
visibility to leeward then the boat they were used to. With this
incident in mind, when I had a jib made for my boat I had the foot cut
high, sacrificing a bit of speed for visibility. BTW, this is the only
such incident my friends have had in 25 years of full time cruising.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:29:10 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


As usual, you're confusing a little bit of knowledge for wisdom. Of
course the rules are not abrogated because of the lack of a lookout.
I'm not claiming that the rules somehow changed because of the lack of a
lookout.


Ok, so what did you mean by


the port/starboard rule only applies "when in sight" and thus

was somewhat voided because of the lack of a proper lookout.


This is looking retrospectively, for the purpose of assessing financial
responsibility. It would be easy for someone to say "But I was on
starboard tack - its entirely his fault!" But being the stand-on vessel
has responsibilities, and one of them is maintaining a proper lookout.

In the traditional terms, the stand-on vessel is "privileged," but when
it comes times to assess liability, some of that privilege is lost if
you don't follow all of the rules.



Are you now distinguishing between "voided" and "abrogated?" Saying the
port/starboard rule was not somewhat "abrogated" (first quoted paragraph
above) but not somewhat "voided" (second quoted paragraph)?

I'm not a lawyer so I have no responsibility to use these terms in their
proper legal sense, if that's what you mean. Just like you, as a
lawyer, are not required to be truthful or honest as most ordinary
people understand those terms.

Dave wrote:
When I'm acting as a lawyer, I'm obliged to advocate my client's case with
zeal. And in that case you're right that I might be obligated to tell his
story in its most favorable light, and limit what I say if it might damage
his position.

One of the most startling aspects of serving on a jury was listening to
lawyers, presumably honest men in real life, tell obvious lies, over and
over, hoping that by repetition some of us might start to believe them.
And indeed, during deliberation we had to keep telling certain jurors
that what they remembered as testimony was actually the lawyer's
unsubstantiated claims. I know we're all entitled to the best defense,
but if we could have, we would have found the lawyers guilty!