Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

For the last 15 years or so I have entertained customer's and fellow
employees on my boat. I have recently decided to take a trip from the
Chesapeake to NYC and 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.

In the past I have asked my insurance providers if I would be covered
under these circumstances. They always indicated that provided that I
was not a charter and I made no profit from the expense reimbursement I
would be covered.

I have just been told by a Boat U.S. insurance underwriter that if I
were reimbursed by the company for fuel expense only that this is
considered business use and I would not be covered.

I know literally scores of people who do this regularly and have done
so for years. My question is:

Can this be correct? Are there other insurance companies that have a
more realistic definition of business use? Are there any suggestions
for getting around this?

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

On 21 May 2006 16:45:37 -0700, "Fog Dog" wrote:

For the last 15 years or so I have entertained customer's and fellow
employees on my boat. I have recently decided to take a trip from the
Chesapeake to NYC and 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.

In the past I have asked my insurance providers if I would be covered
under these circumstances. They always indicated that provided that I
was not a charter and I made no profit from the expense reimbursement I
would be covered.

I have just been told by a Boat U.S. insurance underwriter that if I
were reimbursed by the company for fuel expense only that this is
considered business use and I would not be covered.

I know literally scores of people who do this regularly and have done
so for years. My question is:

Can this be correct? Are there other insurance companies that have a
more realistic definition of business use? Are there any suggestions
for getting around this?

It sounds like you are, in fact, chartering the boat to the company for the
cost of fuel. I'd want your company to provide liability insurance also.

In fact, I just wouldn't do it.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

Fog Dog wrote:
For the last 15 years or so I have entertained customer's and fellow
employees on my boat. I have recently decided to take a trip from the
Chesapeake to NYC and 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.

In the past I have asked my insurance providers if I would be covered
under these circumstances. They always indicated that provided that I
was not a charter and I made no profit from the expense reimbursement I
would be covered.

I have just been told by a Boat U.S. insurance underwriter that if I
were reimbursed by the company for fuel expense only that this is
considered business use and I would not be covered.

I know literally scores of people who do this regularly and have done
so for years. My question is:

Can this be correct? Are there other insurance companies that have a
more realistic definition of business use? Are there any suggestions
for getting around this?


Odds are probably 99 in a 100 that you could "get away" with doing
this, but should that other 1% come up I think you would be screwed in
a major way. You won't need your insurance unless something happens-
but in this age of exorbitant and punitive legal judgments your
insurance company has a perfectly legitimate and valid "out" in this
situation. Of course, if something happens you could lie like a rug and
hope the investigators don't look too hard at the situation- but once
again if there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars
involved you can be pretty sure the insurance company is going to look
at the situation *very* carefully.

Essential facts: Your *employer* (double red flag) is going to
reimburse you for expenses (iow: compensate you) if you will make your
boat available when and where they specify. Your employer will expect
you to take people who may or may not be known to you for sightseeing
tours or other sorts of boatrides. (This is a lot different situation
than you inviting one of your personal clients out on your boat at a
time and under circumstances of your own choosing and without
compensation).

If you aren't licensed for a minimum of OUPV then insurance is a moot
point- you're operating illegally if you take passengers for
compensation of any kind. In fact, you can't even accept charitable
donations in exchange for a boat ride unless you are licensed. The
determining questions: "Would you have taken Mr. and Mrs. Plaintiff for
a boat ride on that afternoon if they had *not* agreed in advance to
pay $XXX to the American XYZ Association for the privilege?" and (to
Mr. and Mrs. Plaintiff) "Would you have any reason to expect that the
soon-to-be-thoroughly screwed defendant would have invited you aboard
his boat for any reason *except* in response to your donation to the
XYZ Association?" Unless you can make a believable case that the answer
would be "yes", you're accepting compensation for your services and the
fact that you're passing the right of collection off to a third party
is of no consequence.

I'd expect the company to provide the liabilty insurance, and it's
unlikely that they will find anybody to write it unless you're
licensed.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

"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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

" 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

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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"..

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

Chuck,
This thread highlighted the dangers of being reimbursed for the use of
your boat. To many it may not look like a charter, but to an insurance
company and the coast guard it is operating a charter without a license
or insurance.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

On 22 May 2006 11:50:12 -0700, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

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"..

Sounds as good as the advice I gave him!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

You advice was sound because the OP would not have been harmed if he
followed your advice.

If someone thought they were covered because they had a "hold harmless
contract" and/or they were covered by the companies insurance policy
they would have been sadly mistaken. An insurance company would use
this a proof that you were operating a illegal charter and you knew you
were operating an illegal charter.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

You advice was sound because the OP would not have been harmed if he
followed your advice.

If someone thought they were covered because they had a "hold harmless
contract" and/or they were covered by the companies insurance policy
they would have been sadly mistaken. An insurance company would use
this a proof that you were operating a illegal charter and you knew you
were operating an illegal charter.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

Having been on the loss side of this equation before... I will not
expense fuel again until I find an insurer that does not disallow this
type of use. Better to get it in writing from the insurer upfront than
have a surprise after a loss!

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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. :-)

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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. :-)

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

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.

Marine Insurance Business Use Exclusion
 

Fog Dog wrote:


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?


I'm no attorney, but if I were sitting in the jury box I would ask
myself the following question:

Did Fog Dog convey this party to the crab house because the party
offered, in advance, to buy him a crab dinner, or did Fog Dog
unconditionally convey the party for a purely social purpose? Was
payment of the dinner tab a condition of the boat ride, or was Fog
Dog's passenger so overwhelmed with gratitude that he/she spontaneously
and without solicitation snatched up the dinner check and insisted on
paying the entire bill?

As a potential juror, I would place a lot of weight on those particular
considerations. :-)