As it turns out there a Many insurance providers that do not share the
same harsh definition of Business Use as Boat U.S. so... problem is
resolved now.

Thanks for the responses.

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
RCE wrote:
" JimH" jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote in message
...



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.


"Hold harmless" contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Ask any attorney.

RCE

This highlights the dangers of asking or following legal advice in
UseNet. The advice is worth exactly what you have paid for the legal
advice.

Nothing.

Fog Dog wrote:
As it turns out there a Many insurance providers that do not share the
same harsh definition of Business Use as Boat U.S. so... problem is
resolved now.

Thanks for the responses.

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
RCE wrote:
" JimH" jimhUNDERSCOREosudad@yahooDOTcom wrote in message
...


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.

"Hold harmless" contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Ask any attorney.

RCE
This highlights the dangers of asking or following legal advice in
UseNet. The advice is worth exactly what you have paid for the legal
advice.

Nothing.


Fog,
I have always thought asking a question in UseNet helps you narrow down
the focus of your research, and point you in different direction that
you might not even thought of.

With all of the REALLY BAD advice I have seen, I would only use any
advice as the gospel.

I am glad you found some insurance companies who provide broader
coverage, and you provided them will all of pertinent info concerning
the use of the boat and any possible reimbursement. If you have to file
a claim, the same company that was so friendly when it was trying to
sell you a policy can be looking for legal loopholes to get out of the
coverage.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Fog Dog wrote:
As it turns out there a Many insurance providers that do not share the
same harsh definition of Business Use as Boat U.S. so... problem is
resolved now.

Thanks for the responses.


Congratulations.
And good luck.
Very good luck, indeed.

wrote:
Fog Dog wrote:
As it turns out there a Many insurance providers that do not share the
same harsh definition of Business Use as Boat U.S. so... problem is
resolved now.

Thanks for the responses.


Congratulations.
And good luck.
Very good luck, indeed.

Chuck,

He should only have a problem if he needs to file a very large claim.
If he doesn't have an accident, or if the claim is minor he will not
have any problems.

I would hate to think what the insurance company would do if someone was
hurt and won a million dollar settlement. My guess is the Insurance
would be reviewing the situation very closely to see if the "business
use/charter" as defined by the Coast Guard, without a 6 pack license
would make the insurance policy null and void.

The odds are in his favor that he will not need to file insurance, so
what's the big deal. Heck, now that I think about it, I have had my car
insurance for over 35 yrs, and have never filed a claim, and the only
claim I have filed on my boat was due to hurricane damage, so I really
don't need car insurance, and I can only keep my boat insured during
hurricane season. Damn, I have never filed against my homeowners, so I
just saved some more money there.

Yeah, that's the ticket, I can save one hell of lot of money that way.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
wrote:
Fog Dog wrote:
As it turns out there a Many insurance providers that do not share the
same harsh definition of Business Use as Boat U.S. so... problem is
resolved now.

Thanks for the responses.


Congratulations.
And good luck.
Very good luck, indeed.

Chuck,

He should only have a problem if he needs to file a very large claim.
If he doesn't have an accident, or if the claim is minor he will not
have any problems.

I would hate to think what the insurance company would do if someone was
hurt and won a million dollar settlement. My guess is the Insurance
would be reviewing the situation very closely to see if the "business
use/charter" as defined by the Coast Guard, without a 6 pack license
would make the insurance policy null and void.

The odds are in his favor that he will not need to file insurance, so
what's the big deal. Heck, now that I think about it, I have had my car
insurance for over 35 yrs, and have never filed a claim, and the only
claim I have filed on my boat was due to hurricane damage, so I really
don't need car insurance, and I can only keep my boat insured during
hurricane season. Damn, I have never filed against my homeowners, so I
just saved some more money there.

Yeah, that's the ticket, I can save one hell of lot of money that way.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.


I suspect that the biggest reason Fog found a policy that he believes
will cover him as a pleasure boater -(while taking his boat where has
been instructed to take it by his employer, giving boat rides to people
selected by his employer, and receiving compensation for doing so from
his employer)- is pretty simple:

The agents for Brand X are on commission, while Boat US sells direct.

The salesman giveth, the claims representative taketh away.

I'm sure he's got a binder in hand, I hope he'll take the time to read
the policy in full when it shows up in a week or so. First I personally
ever heard of an insurance company indemnifying an illegal activity, if
indeed the coverage doesn't evaporate between the oral representations
of the salesman and the written reality of the policy.

With only moderately good luck, it won't ever be an issue. But if we
could always count on moderately good luck, we wouldn't ever need to
buy insurance in the first place. :-)

wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
wrote:
Fog Dog wrote:
As it turns out there a Many insurance providers that do not share the
same harsh definition of Business Use as Boat U.S. so... problem is
resolved now.

Thanks for the responses.

Congratulations.
And good luck.
Very good luck, indeed.

Chuck,

He should only have a problem if he needs to file a very large claim.
If he doesn't have an accident, or if the claim is minor he will not
have any problems.

I would hate to think what the insurance company would do if someone was
hurt and won a million dollar settlement. My guess is the Insurance
would be reviewing the situation very closely to see if the "business
use/charter" as defined by the Coast Guard, without a 6 pack license
would make the insurance policy null and void.

The odds are in his favor that he will not need to file insurance, so
what's the big deal. Heck, now that I think about it, I have had my car
insurance for over 35 yrs, and have never filed a claim, and the only
claim I have filed on my boat was due to hurricane damage, so I really
don't need car insurance, and I can only keep my boat insured during
hurricane season. Damn, I have never filed against my homeowners, so I
just saved some more money there.

Yeah, that's the ticket, I can save one hell of lot of money that way.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.


I suspect that the biggest reason Fog found a policy that he believes
will cover him as a pleasure boater -(while taking his boat where has
been instructed to take it by his employer, giving boat rides to people
selected by his employer, and receiving compensation for doing so from
his employer)- is pretty simple:

The agents for Brand X are on commission, while Boat US sells direct.

The salesman giveth, the claims representative taketh away.

I'm sure he's got a binder in hand, I hope he'll take the time to read
the policy in full when it shows up in a week or so. First I personally
ever heard of an insurance company indemnifying an illegal activity, if
indeed the coverage doesn't evaporate between the oral representations
of the salesman and the written reality of the policy.

With only moderately good luck, it won't ever be an issue. But if we
could always count on moderately good luck, we wouldn't ever need to
buy insurance in the first place. :-)


I have decided I can save $1000's annual by canceling all my insurance
policies including my life insurance policy, which to the best of my
recollection, I have not had to file one claim.

This thread should be very helpful to everyone who wants to save some
money to buy gas.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Let's close this out but I do believe there is a misconception
regarding this topic. This is personal use. I am in control of who goes
on the trip. Where I take them. The duration of the trip. Exclusively.
I have been boarded by the coast gaurd during one of these trips for a
safety check with no problems. All of my prior insurance companies for
the last 30 years have never had a problem with this use and
reimbursement except Boat US. I have found many other companies that
will take the premium and have spoken to underwriters to verify
coverage in this situation. The corporation reimbursing use is a
similar situation to having another person chip in on fuel. This is not
considered a charter situation.


wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
wrote:
Fog Dog wrote:
As it turns out there a Many insurance providers that do not share the
same harsh definition of Business Use as Boat U.S. so... problem is
resolved now.

Thanks for the responses.


Congratulations.
And good luck.
Very good luck, indeed.

Chuck,

He should only have a problem if he needs to file a very large claim.
If he doesn't have an accident, or if the claim is minor he will not
have any problems.

I would hate to think what the insurance company would do if someone was
hurt and won a million dollar settlement. My guess is the Insurance
would be reviewing the situation very closely to see if the "business
use/charter" as defined by the Coast Guard, without a 6 pack license
would make the insurance policy null and void.

The odds are in his favor that he will not need to file insurance, so
what's the big deal. Heck, now that I think about it, I have had my car
insurance for over 35 yrs, and have never filed a claim, and the only
claim I have filed on my boat was due to hurricane damage, so I really
don't need car insurance, and I can only keep my boat insured during
hurricane season. Damn, I have never filed against my homeowners, so I
just saved some more money there.

Yeah, that's the ticket, I can save one hell of lot of money that way.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.


I suspect that the biggest reason Fog found a policy that he believes
will cover him as a pleasure boater -(while taking his boat where has
been instructed to take it by his employer, giving boat rides to people
selected by his employer, and receiving compensation for doing so from
his employer)- is pretty simple:

The agents for Brand X are on commission, while Boat US sells direct.

The salesman giveth, the claims representative taketh away.

I'm sure he's got a binder in hand, I hope he'll take the time to read
the policy in full when it shows up in a week or so. First I personally
ever heard of an insurance company indemnifying an illegal activity, if
indeed the coverage doesn't evaporate between the oral representations
of the salesman and the written reality of the policy.

With only moderately good luck, it won't ever be an issue. But if we
could always count on moderately good luck, we wouldn't ever need to
buy insurance in the first place. :-)

Fog Dog wrote:
Let's close this out but I do believe there is a misconception
regarding this topic. This is personal use. I am in control of who goes
on the trip. Where I take them.

The source of the confusion would be your statement from May 21:

"my company has offered to cover the fuel expense
if I were to make myself and the boat available for employee and
customer outings while there."

"If" creates a condition. "We'll pay you $X
if you do Y thing" constitutes a hire. When the party demanding Y
service for $X is your customary employer it just slightly more
obvious. The fact that you're physically steering the boat doesn't make
it personal use.

As I said up thread a ways, the best of luck to you.

wrote:
Fog Dog wrote:
Let's close this out but I do believe there is a misconception
regarding this topic. This is personal use. I am in control of who goes
on the trip. Where I take them.

The source of the confusion would be your statement from May 21:

"my company has offered to cover the fuel expense
if I were to make myself and the boat available for employee and
customer outings while there."

"If" creates a condition. "We'll pay you $X
if you do Y thing" constitutes a hire. When the party demanding Y
service for $X is your customary employer it just slightly more
obvious. The fact that you're physically steering the boat doesn't make
it personal use.

As I said up thread a ways, the best of luck to you.

Chuck,
While you may not have convinced Fog Dog that he is placing himself at
risk for a major lose, you did educate many others who were lurking.

The odds are that Fog Dog will not have an accident, and if he does it
will not be enough to warrant a close inspection of the situation, but
it still was a great informative thread, heck, I guess Fog Dog is a more
informed boater today, than before he asked the question.

Heck, he now knows to say he was just bring some friends along for a
boat ride.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Yes you are right my thinking did Morph as the conversation moved
along. The first example I can see could be construed as use for hire.
The more important question for me then became... What about the
afternoon out with a client or co-worker and in this case Boat US would
void the policy as well if the fuel was reimbursed by a company.

Short answer... I will not seek reimbursement for fuel for any company
while insured by Boat US. I just thought that since I know many other
people that use thier boats this way they should understand the risk.
The worse possible time to find this out is after a claim has been
opened.

Now the only other question is... What if I stop at a crab house and
someone picks up the check and expenses it? Is that construed as
business use since the boat was the means of conveyance... Does this
ever end? Are you ever really protected?

Thanks for the input


Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
wrote:
Fog Dog wrote:
Let's close this out but I do believe there is a misconception
regarding this topic. This is personal use. I am in control of who goes
on the trip. Where I take them.

The source of the confusion would be your statement from May 21:

"my company has offered to cover the fuel expense
if I were to make myself and the boat available for employee and
customer outings while there."

"If" creates a condition. "We'll pay you $X
if you do Y thing" constitutes a hire. When the party demanding Y
service for $X is your customary employer it just slightly more
obvious. The fact that you're physically steering the boat doesn't make
it personal use.

As I said up thread a ways, the best of luck to you.

Chuck,
While you may not have convinced Fog Dog that he is placing himself at
risk for a major lose, you did educate many others who were lurking.

The odds are that Fog Dog will not have an accident, and if he does it
will not be enough to warrant a close inspection of the situation, but
it still was a great informative thread, heck, I guess Fog Dog is a more
informed boater today, than before he asked the question.

Heck, he now knows to say he was just bring some friends along for a
boat ride.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.