Thanks for the input. It is providing quite a bit of food for thought.
I understand that this is not necessarily a black and white question. I
have had the unfortunate experience of a total vessel loss once before
and know first hand how hard any insurance company will look to avoid
paying a claim, hence the question. Fortuntately for me that time it
was a material failure and was documented by an investigator. Still
this was an unfortunate experience and not one I wish to relive!

So the problem rests with the company reimbursing my fuel expense. What
about the case where I and a few fellow employees go out for the day
and they contribute fuel money? Is that a boat for hire situation?
Another case is someone we do business with and I go out for an
afternoon for lunch... I expense the lunch and the fuel cost. This is
not intended as a charter... I still set the agenda and go where and
when I specify, not the guest. How can this be construed as a charter?
Another question revolves around me, as a manager, taking my team out
for a day... expense the fuel and I am not covered. If I pay for the
fuel... and we discuss business (hard not to) am I now covered or not.

Fog Dog wrote:
Thanks for the input. It is providing quite a bit of food for thought.
I understand that this is not necessarily a black and white question. I
have had the unfortunate experience of a total vessel loss once before
and know first hand how hard any insurance company will look to avoid
paying a claim, hence the question. Fortuntately for me that time it
was a material failure and was documented by an investigator. Still
this was an unfortunate experience and not one I wish to relive!

So the problem rests with the company reimbursing my fuel expense. What
about the case where I and a few fellow employees go out for the day
and they contribute fuel money? Is that a boat for hire situation?
Another case is someone we do business with and I go out for an
afternoon for lunch... I expense the lunch and the fuel cost. This is
not intended as a charter... I still set the agenda and go where and
when I specify, not the guest. How can this be construed as a charter?
Another question revolves around me, as a manager, taking my team out
for a day... expense the fuel and I am not covered. If I pay for the
fuel... and we discuss business (hard not to) am I now covered or not.

I'm certainly not an any sort of attorney nor am I an expert in the
subtleties of maritime law, but I'll share my personal and general
understanding.

Until a few years ago, it was actually illegal for a group of friends
out doing some casual fishing to "kick in" and help the boat owner
refuel at the end of the day. That didn't prevent it from being a
common practice, however, and the regulations were eventually relaxed
to permit non-paying passengers to voluntariily contribute toward fuel
costs, ice, bait, or other expenses (beer!) associated with a fishing
trip. If the friends aboard for the fishing trip or other general
boating adventure happen to be your fellow employees, that shouldn't
make any difference. People you work with are routinely going to be
among your "friends".

I think you're fine when you invite a client or prospective client out
for an afternoon on the boat- but a dedicated nitpicking.
trouble-making, ambulance chasing attorney might see it otherwise. Is
there any expectation, stated or implied, that the client will favor
your company with an order or with an increased volume of business in
exchange for the boat ride? If so, then you may be stepping onto a
slippery slope. The fact that you "expense" the lunch and the fuel is
pretty iffy, and could be used to establish a business purpose for the
use of the boat.

As far as inviting your sales crew out on the boat; I have done much
the same in years past but it has always been a strictly social event.
If you use a boat ride as a "spiff" for a certain level of performance
rather than just extending a general invitation to your entire staff
you might be flirting with trouble. Once again, I think you're hanging
out a mile by expensing fuel or any other costs back to your company.
After all, if there is no business purpose for the use of the boat why
in the world would your company be willing to remiburse you for the
expense? In fact, your company accountant needs to establish that there
*is* a business use for the boat in order to pay our expense voucher.
That could be ugly- the plaintiff or the insurance company calling your
own accountant to the stand to establish that you most certainly
considered the boat trip to be business related, as you had turned in a
claim for a business related expense.

I'd ask the CEO for a raise, (based solely on being a wonderful
employee and not in any way related to the ownership of a boat), and
ditch the expense vouchers for fuel. Your wages are just as deductible
as the expenses as far as the company is concerned, and it gets you a
little farther from the hook in case something goes wrong.

On 21 May 2006 20:13:36 -0700, "
wrote:

I'd ask the CEO for a raise, (based solely on being a wonderful
employee and not in any way related to the ownership of a boat), and
ditch the expense vouchers for fuel. Your wages are just as deductible
as the expenses as far as the company is concerned, and it gets you a
little farther from the hook in case something goes wrong.

I was going to suggest something similar but structured as a bonus
instead.

"Fog Dog" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the input. It is providing quite a bit of food for thought.
I understand that this is not necessarily a black and white question. I
have had the unfortunate experience of a total vessel loss once before
and know first hand how hard any insurance company will look to avoid
paying a claim, hence the question. Fortuntately for me that time it
was a material failure and was documented by an investigator. Still
this was an unfortunate experience and not one I wish to relive!

So the problem rests with the company reimbursing my fuel expense. What
about the case where I and a few fellow employees go out for the day
and they contribute fuel money? Is that a boat for hire situation?
Another case is someone we do business with and I go out for an
afternoon for lunch... I expense the lunch and the fuel cost. This is
not intended as a charter... I still set the agenda and go where and
when I specify, not the guest. How can this be construed as a charter?
Another question revolves around me, as a manager, taking my team out
for a day... expense the fuel and I am not covered. If I pay for the
fuel... and we discuss business (hard not to) am I now covered or not.



Have your attorney draw up a contract that includes a hold harmless clause
(in your favor) and have the company owner sign it. I would also ask to be
named as additional insured on their policy for the days you will be hosting
company events on your boat.

JimH wrote:
"Fog Dog" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the input. It is providing quite a bit of food for thought.
I understand that this is not necessarily a black and white question. I
have had the unfortunate experience of a total vessel loss once before
and know first hand how hard any insurance company will look to avoid
paying a claim, hence the question. Fortuntately for me that time it
was a material failure and was documented by an investigator. Still
this was an unfortunate experience and not one I wish to relive!

So the problem rests with the company reimbursing my fuel expense. What
about the case where I and a few fellow employees go out for the day
and they contribute fuel money? Is that a boat for hire situation?
Another case is someone we do business with and I go out for an
afternoon for lunch... I expense the lunch and the fuel cost. This is
not intended as a charter... I still set the agenda and go where and
when I specify, not the guest. How can this be construed as a charter?
Another question revolves around me, as a manager, taking my team out
for a day... expense the fuel and I am not covered. If I pay for the
fuel... and we discuss business (hard not to) am I now covered or not.



Have your attorney draw up a contract that includes a hold harmless clause
(in your favor) and have the company owner sign it. I would also ask to be
named as additional insured on their policy for the days you will be hosting
company events on your boat.


Can you be "held harmless" from the consequences of actions that you
knew, or should have known, are illegal? That's part of the insurance
companies position here, they refuse to indemnify a policy holder for
consequences of illegal activity.

wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
"Fog Dog" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the input. It is providing quite a bit of food for thought.
I understand that this is not necessarily a black and white question. I
have had the unfortunate experience of a total vessel loss once before
and know first hand how hard any insurance company will look to avoid
paying a claim, hence the question. Fortuntately for me that time it
was a material failure and was documented by an investigator. Still
this was an unfortunate experience and not one I wish to relive!

So the problem rests with the company reimbursing my fuel expense. What
about the case where I and a few fellow employees go out for the day
and they contribute fuel money? Is that a boat for hire situation?
Another case is someone we do business with and I go out for an
afternoon for lunch... I expense the lunch and the fuel cost. This is
not intended as a charter... I still set the agenda and go where and
when I specify, not the guest. How can this be construed as a charter?
Another question revolves around me, as a manager, taking my team out
for a day... expense the fuel and I am not covered. If I pay for the
fuel... and we discuss business (hard not to) am I now covered or not.



Have your attorney draw up a contract that includes a hold harmless
clause
(in your favor) and have the company owner sign it. I would also ask to
be
named as additional insured on their policy for the days you will be
hosting
company events on your boat.


Can you be "held harmless" from the consequences of actions that you
knew, or should have known, are illegal? That's part of the insurance
companies position here, they refuse to indemnify a policy holder for
consequences of illegal activity.


How is it illegal? It would certainly not be "illegal" if the insurance
responsibility legally defaults to that of the company by power of the hold
harmless agreement and being named additional insured on the company's
insurance policy.

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
"Fog Dog" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the input. It is providing quite a bit of food for thought.
I understand that this is not necessarily a black and white question. I
have had the unfortunate experience of a total vessel loss once before
and know first hand how hard any insurance company will look to avoid
paying a claim, hence the question. Fortuntately for me that time it
was a material failure and was documented by an investigator. Still
this was an unfortunate experience and not one I wish to relive!

So the problem rests with the company reimbursing my fuel expense. What
about the case where I and a few fellow employees go out for the day
and they contribute fuel money? Is that a boat for hire situation?
Another case is someone we do business with and I go out for an
afternoon for lunch... I expense the lunch and the fuel cost. This is
not intended as a charter... I still set the agenda and go where and
when I specify, not the guest. How can this be construed as a charter?
Another question revolves around me, as a manager, taking my team out
for a day... expense the fuel and I am not covered. If I pay for the
fuel... and we discuss business (hard not to) am I now covered or not.



Have your attorney draw up a contract that includes a hold harmless
clause
(in your favor) and have the company owner sign it. I would also ask to
be
named as additional insured on their policy for the days you will be
hosting
company events on your boat.


Can you be "held harmless" from the consequences of actions that you
knew, or should have known, are illegal? That's part of the insurance
companies position here, they refuse to indemnify a policy holder for
consequences of illegal activity.


How is it illegal? It would certainly not be "illegal" if the insurance
responsibility legally defaults to that of the company by power of the hold
harmless agreement and being named additional insured on the company's
insurance policy.

It is illegal to carry passengers for hire without a license.

When your company says, "Have your boat at the annual meeting on June
15. We want you to take individuals X,Y, and Z out for a fishing trip
or a sight seeing tour while they are in town. We'll pay you something
to offset your expenses......." that's a pretty clear case of a vessel
for hire. Simply because the operator isn't collecting enough to clear
a "profit" doesn't change the nature of the operation from a specific
charter to a pleasure cruise.

(When you invite some friends to join you on a fishing trip that you
would have taken anyway, (whether or not any friends joined you), and
with no requirement or expectation that they are going to pay for fuel
it isn't illegal for them to race you to the cashier when you refuel
and pay for a portion of the fuel costs- different scenario).

Nor would I rely on the employer's insurance company. The OP already
has insurance, but wisely checked to see if this operation would be
covered and was told that it would not because it was commercial in
nature. Simply getting a letter naming you as additionally insured on
the company liability policy doesn't do much if the company policy is
written so that there isn't any coverage for acts committed outside the
auspices of the law. All you actually become is "additionally
*un*insured" if a loss results from an activity excluded from the
policy.

wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
"Fog Dog" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the input. It is providing quite a bit of food for
thought.
I understand that this is not necessarily a black and white
question. I
have had the unfortunate experience of a total vessel loss once
before
and know first hand how hard any insurance company will look to
avoid
paying a claim, hence the question. Fortuntately for me that time it
was a material failure and was documented by an investigator. Still
this was an unfortunate experience and not one I wish to relive!

So the problem rests with the company reimbursing my fuel expense.
What
about the case where I and a few fellow employees go out for the day
and they contribute fuel money? Is that a boat for hire situation?
Another case is someone we do business with and I go out for an
afternoon for lunch... I expense the lunch and the fuel cost. This
is
not intended as a charter... I still set the agenda and go where and
when I specify, not the guest. How can this be construed as a
charter?
Another question revolves around me, as a manager, taking my team
out
for a day... expense the fuel and I am not covered. If I pay for the
fuel... and we discuss business (hard not to) am I now covered or
not.



Have your attorney draw up a contract that includes a hold harmless
clause
(in your favor) and have the company owner sign it. I would also ask
to
be
named as additional insured on their policy for the days you will be
hosting
company events on your boat.


Can you be "held harmless" from the consequences of actions that you
knew, or should have known, are illegal? That's part of the insurance
companies position here, they refuse to indemnify a policy holder for
consequences of illegal activity.


How is it illegal? It would certainly not be "illegal" if the insurance
responsibility legally defaults to that of the company by power of the
hold
harmless agreement and being named additional insured on the company's
insurance policy.

It is illegal to carry passengers for hire without a license.

When your company says, "Have your boat at the annual meeting on June
15. We want you to take individuals X,Y, and Z out for a fishing trip
or a sight seeing tour while they are in town. We'll pay you something
to offset your expenses......." that's a pretty clear case of a vessel
for hire. Simply because the operator isn't collecting enough to clear
a "profit" doesn't change the nature of the operation from a specific
charter to a pleasure cruise.

(When you invite some friends to join you on a fishing trip that you
would have taken anyway, (whether or not any friends joined you), and
with no requirement or expectation that they are going to pay for fuel
it isn't illegal for them to race you to the cashier when you refuel
and pay for a portion of the fuel costs- different scenario).

Nor would I rely on the employer's insurance company. The OP already
has insurance, but wisely checked to see if this operation would be
covered and was told that it would not because it was commercial in
nature. Simply getting a letter naming you as additionally insured on
the company liability policy doesn't do much if the company policy is
written so that there isn't any coverage for acts committed outside the
auspices of the law. All you actually become is "additionally
*un*insured" if a loss results from an activity excluded from the
policy.


He is still covered by following my suggestions and I think you are taking
this to an extreme Chuck.

Regardless, I am not a lawyer and neither are you. I suggest that Fog Dog
consult his attorney on this as I said initially.

I think your suggustion would have been a good suggestion if you did
not provide any advice except:

"Consult your attorney"

Chuck prefixed his comments with "99% of the time you can get away with
this". Insurance is designed to pay for the exceptions, if you provide
your insurance company with a legal loophole not to pay off on any
claims, why bother with paying for insurance in the first place.

Next time someone asks you for legal advice, why don't you just tell
them to "consult your attorney", and not give them a false sense of
security by providing "free legal advice"..

Chuck is not and has never pretended to be an attorney, but I am
willing to give very lucrative odds that an attorney will not only
agree with the Chuch's review of the dangers of following your
suggestions, but will know of a few more problems if he followed your
suggestions.

Anyone who follows the free legal advice offered in rec.boats is a
fool.