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.