Heard around the wharf...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Supposedly, some of the larger marina's around these parts are going
to start requiring million dollar liability policies for boats over 24
feet. Minimum liability coverage at $500,000 for boats under.

Hmmmm....

Anybody with a boat should have *at least* $1mm liability umbrella.

Run into a new 40-footer and sink it, and you're going to be in close
to 7 figures of trouble long before the "whiplash claims" get any
traction.

Good news is that a liability umbrella is pretty cheap insurance. We
carry a substantial
policy that has to be by far the lowest cost, per dollar of coverage,
of any insurance policy we own.

$1mm isn't any sort of money anymore. When I was a kid, anybody with
$1mm was considered set for life, now they're lucky to be considered
anything beyond middle class and unless they have a pension coming in
they are darn sure working for a living.

I don't think the new requirement is unrealistic.

Heard around the wharf...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 12 Sep 2006 09:26:14 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Supposedly, some of the larger marina's around these parts are going
to start requiring million dollar liability policies for boats over 24
feet. Minimum liability coverage at $500,000 for boats under.

Hmmmm....

Anybody with a boat should have *at least* $1mm liability umbrella.

I disagree. I understand your point, but putting a million dollar
liability policy on a '89 Aquasport 23 seems a little outrageous and
it is being viewed as such by those who have older, serviceable boats.

In particular with regard to operating areas. I know you NW types
have all these huge zillion dollar cruisers that you put-put up and
down the coast, but I'd be willing to bet that your average weekender
doesn't want to have a million dollar policy and is perfectly content
with a quarter of that in terms of liability. And to tell the truth,
I'm not sure that a million dollar policy is necessary for the average
boater.

Run into a new 40-footer and sink it, and you're going to be in close
to 7 figures of trouble long before the "whiplash claims" get any
traction.

That's not totally true. On my boats I have underinsured riders up to
the replacement value of the boat and I have full replacement on all
the boats regardless of how it was lost. The insurance companies can
argue, but I'm covered. So if that hypothetical '89 Aquasport
breaches and sinks the Contender, ain't no way his liability is going
to cover it anyway.

Good news is that a liability umbrella is pretty cheap insurance. We
carry a substantial policy that has to be by far the lowest cost, per
dollar of coverage, of any insurance policy we own.

Can't be for a smaller, older boat - the cost has to be prohibitive in
terms of boat value.

For something like your boat, I can understand it. For our
hypothetical '89 Aquasport, it isn't cost effective.

Heck, the insurance premium is probably more than the net worth of the
boat in that situation.

$1mm isn't any sort of money anymore. When I was a kid, anybody with
$1mm was considered set for life, now they're lucky to be considered
anything beyond middle class and unless they have a pension coming in
they are darn sure working for a living.

Heh - well, on that we can agree. :)

Then again, a good cigar was .05¢ too. :)

I don't think the new requirement is unrealistic.

For boats like yours or Eisboch's, I totally agree. For mine, it's
borderline for the Contender and definitely not for the Ranger and
Princecraft or the Halman.

It is not a matter of the age or size of the boat but the fact that you can
possibly be responsible for a fatal or otherwise serious accident with your
boat. The money to cover medical costs and possible civil damages has to
come from somewhere.......either your insurance or your bank account. ;-)

Heard around the wharf...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 12 Sep 2006 09:26:14 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Supposedly, some of the larger marina's around these parts are going
to start requiring million dollar liability policies for boats over 24
feet. Minimum liability coverage at $500,000 for boats under.

Hmmmm....

Anybody with a boat should have *at least* $1mm liability umbrella.

I disagree. I understand your point, but putting a million dollar
liability policy on a '89 Aquasport 23 seems a little outrageous and
it is being viewed as such by those who have older, serviceable boats.

In particular with regard to operating areas. I know you NW types
have all these huge zillion dollar cruisers that you put-put up and
down the coast, but I'd be willing to bet that your average weekender
doesn't want to have a million dollar policy and is perfectly content
with a quarter of that in terms of liability. And to tell the truth,
I'm not sure that a million dollar policy is necessary for the average
boater.

Run into a new 40-footer and sink it, and you're going to be in close
to 7 figures of trouble long before the "whiplash claims" get any
traction.

That's not totally true. On my boats I have underinsured riders up to
the replacement value of the boat and I have full replacement on all
the boats regardless of how it was lost. The insurance companies can
argue, but I'm covered. So if that hypothetical '89 Aquasport
breaches and sinks the Contender, ain't no way his liability is going
to cover it anyway.

Good news is that a liability umbrella is pretty cheap insurance. We
carry a substantial policy that has to be by far the lowest cost, per
dollar of coverage, of any insurance policy we own.

Can't be for a smaller, older boat - the cost has to be prohibitive in
terms of boat value.

For something like your boat, I can understand it. For our
hypothetical '89 Aquasport, it isn't cost effective.

Heck, the insurance premium is probably more than the net worth of the
boat in that situation.

$1mm isn't any sort of money anymore. When I was a kid, anybody with
$1mm was considered set for life, now they're lucky to be considered
anything beyond middle class and unless they have a pension coming in
they are darn sure working for a living.

Heh - well, on that we can agree. :)

Then again, a good cigar was .05¢ too. :)

I don't think the new requirement is unrealistic.

For boats like yours or Eisboch's, I totally agree. For mine, it's
borderline for the Contender and definitely not for the Ranger and
Princecraft or the Halman.

Which is not to say that I don't carry that much insurance I hasten to
add - I do just because of what I do. But if I didn't, I'd be hard
pressed to justify it just because a marina required it.

The $2MM liability coverage requirement for boaters docking at the marina is
most likely the result of a mandate from the marina's insurance company.

Heard around the wharf...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 12 Sep 2006 09:26:14 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Supposedly, some of the larger marina's around these parts are going
to start requiring million dollar liability policies for boats over 24
feet. Minimum liability coverage at $500,000 for boats under.

Hmmmm....

Anybody with a boat should have *at least* $1mm liability umbrella.

I disagree. I understand your point, but putting a million dollar
liability policy on a '89 Aquasport 23 seems a little outrageous and
it is being viewed as such by those who have older, serviceable boats.

In particular with regard to operating areas. I know you NW types
have all these huge zillion dollar cruisers that you put-put up and
down the coast, but I'd be willing to bet that your average weekender
doesn't want to have a million dollar policy and is perfectly content
with a quarter of that in terms of liability. And to tell the truth,
I'm not sure that a million dollar policy is necessary for the average
boater.

Run into a new 40-footer and sink it, and you're going to be in close
to 7 figures of trouble long before the "whiplash claims" get any
traction.

That's not totally true. On my boats I have underinsured riders up to
the replacement value of the boat and I have full replacement on all
the boats regardless of how it was lost. The insurance companies can
argue, but I'm covered. So if that hypothetical '89 Aquasport
breaches and sinks the Contender, ain't no way his liability is going
to cover it anyway.

Good news is that a liability umbrella is pretty cheap insurance. We
carry a substantial policy that has to be by far the lowest cost, per
dollar of coverage, of any insurance policy we own.

Can't be for a smaller, older boat - the cost has to be prohibitive in
terms of boat value.

For something like your boat, I can understand it. For our
hypothetical '89 Aquasport, it isn't cost effective.

Heck, the insurance premium is probably more than the net worth of the
boat in that situation.

$1mm isn't any sort of money anymore. When I was a kid, anybody with
$1mm was considered set for life, now they're lucky to be considered
anything beyond middle class and unless they have a pension coming in
they are darn sure working for a living.

Heh - well, on that we can agree. :)

Then again, a good cigar was .05¢ too. :)

I don't think the new requirement is unrealistic.

For boats like yours or Eisboch's, I totally agree. For mine, it's
borderline for the Contender and definitely not for the Ranger and
Princecraft or the Halman.

Which is not to say that I don't carry that much insurance I hasten to
add - I do just because of what I do. But if I didn't, I'd be hard
pressed to justify it just because a marina required it.


http://info.insure.com/auto/umbrella.html

Heard around the wharf...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Which is not to say that I don't carry that much insurance I hasten to
add - I do just because of what I do. But if I didn't, I'd be hard
pressed to justify it just because a marina required it.

IMO, you carry liability insurance to cover the amount of damage you
could do to somebody else, moreso than for the amount of loss you will
suffer if you screw up your own boat.

$Million boats are becoming pretty common, even though most of us (and
certainly I) don't own one.

Heard around the wharf...
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Which is not to say that I don't carry that much insurance I hasten to
add - I do just because of what I do. But if I didn't, I'd be hard
pressed to justify it just because a marina required it.

IMO, you carry liability insurance to cover the amount of damage you
could do to somebody else, moreso than for the amount of loss you will
suffer if you screw up your own boat.


To my knowledge that is *all* the liability rider covers.

Eisboch

Heard around the wharf...
 

Anybody with a boat should have *at least* $1mm liability umbrella.

I disagree. I understand your point, but putting a million dollar
liability policy on a '89 Aquasport 23 seems a little outrageous and
it is being viewed as such by those who have older, serviceable boats.

It's not about damage TO your boat, it's about damage BECAUSE OF your boat.
It doesn't take much to run up a pretty big bill when you take ALL of it
into account. Damage to another boat can be a lot, but damage to docks and
injuries to people can be a LOT more.

Call your homeowners insurance company, or your automobile. Ask them what
an umbrella liability policy will cost you. Our was dirt cheap, something
like $175/year. Given the potential loss risk that's a bargain.

Can't be for a smaller, older boat - the cost has to be prohibitive in
terms of boat value.
For something like your boat, I can understand it. For our
hypothetical '89 Aquasport, it isn't cost effective.

Check first, post second. Run the actual numbers, you may be surprised.

Which is not to say that I don't carry that much insurance I hasten to
add - I do just because of what I do. But if I didn't, I'd be hard
pressed to justify it just because a marina required it.

Then move to another marina, I'm sure the other boaters in the marina will
breathe a sigh of relief.

Heard around the wharf...
 

And a million dollar liability policy is like ****ing up wind in a
hurricane - it isn't barely going to touch the potential liability in
that situation.

For the average boater, it's too much.

That's just plain stupid. For the piddling amount it costs it's well worth
the added coverage. This is IN ADDITION to the coverage you might already
possess on your existing policy.

You assume that I don't carry liability - I do.

With the logic you use that seems prudent.

You might want to take the same approach. This is a discussion not a
competition.

With you it'd be a race... to the bottom.

Heard around the wharf...
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:52:28 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:

And a million dollar liability policy is like ****ing up wind in a
hurricane - it isn't barely going to touch the potential liability in
that situation.

For the average boater, it's too much.

That's just plain stupid. For the piddling amount it costs it's well worth
the added coverage. This is IN ADDITION to the coverage you might already
possess on your existing policy.

You assume that I don't carry liability - I do.

With the logic you use that seems prudent.

You might want to take the same approach. This is a discussion not a
competition.

With you it'd be a race... to the bottom.

Whatever Bill.

Over-insuring ANYTHING is just giving money to the insurance company!

Heard around the wharf...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:52:28 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:

And a million dollar liability policy is like ****ing up wind in a
hurricane - it isn't barely going to touch the potential liability in
that situation.

For the average boater, it's too much.

That's just plain stupid. For the piddling amount it costs it's well
worth
the added coverage. This is IN ADDITION to the coverage you might
already
possess on your existing policy.

You assume that I don't carry liability - I do.

With the logic you use that seems prudent.

You might want to take the same approach. This is a discussion not a
competition.

With you it'd be a race... to the bottom.

Whatever Bill.

Over-insuring ANYTHING is just giving money to the insurance company!


Speaking of which, here's a question that'll win you some money if you're
ever on Jeopardy.

During his time with the Spencer Davis Group and Traffic, Steve Winwood was
the first person to insure what?

Heard around the wharf...
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:38:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:52:28 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:

And a million dollar liability policy is like ****ing up wind in a
hurricane - it isn't barely going to touch the potential liability
in
that situation.

For the average boater, it's too much.

That's just plain stupid. For the piddling amount it costs it's well
worth
the added coverage. This is IN ADDITION to the coverage you might
already
possess on your existing policy.

You assume that I don't carry liability - I do.

With the logic you use that seems prudent.

You might want to take the same approach. This is a discussion not
a
competition.

With you it'd be a race... to the bottom.

Whatever Bill.

Over-insuring ANYTHING is just giving money to the insurance company!


Speaking of which, here's a question that'll win you some money if you're
ever on Jeopardy.

During his time with the Spencer Davis Group and Traffic, Steve Winwood
was
the first person to insure what?

I want to say fingers, but that wouldn't be right because others long
before Winwood insured their fingers - Duke Ellington comes to mind
immediately.

How about against loss of brain cells?

That could explain a lot. :)

Thanks for playing. Wrong answer, but we hope you enjoy the case of Mrs
Pauls Fish Sticks we have waiting for you at the door!

Heard around the wharf...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:38:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:52:28 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:

And a million dollar liability policy is like ****ing up wind in a
hurricane - it isn't barely going to touch the potential liability
in
that situation.

For the average boater, it's too much.

That's just plain stupid. For the piddling amount it costs it's well
worth
the added coverage. This is IN ADDITION to the coverage you might
already
possess on your existing policy.

You assume that I don't carry liability - I do.

With the logic you use that seems prudent.

You might want to take the same approach. This is a discussion not
a
competition.

With you it'd be a race... to the bottom.

Whatever Bill.

Over-insuring ANYTHING is just giving money to the insurance company!


Speaking of which, here's a question that'll win you some money if you're
ever on Jeopardy.

During his time with the Spencer Davis Group and Traffic, Steve Winwood
was
the first person to insure what?

I want to say fingers, but that wouldn't be right because others long
before Winwood insured their fingers - Duke Ellington comes to mind
immediately.

How about against loss of brain cells?

That could explain a lot. :)

Thanks for playing. Wrong answer, but we hope you enjoy the case of Mrs
Pauls Fish Sticks we have waiting for you at the door!

His presence!

Heard around the wharf...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:38:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:52:28 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
wrote:

And a million dollar liability policy is like ****ing up wind in
a
hurricane - it isn't barely going to touch the potential
liability
in
that situation.

For the average boater, it's too much.

That's just plain stupid. For the piddling amount it costs it's
well
worth
the added coverage. This is IN ADDITION to the coverage you might
already
possess on your existing policy.

You assume that I don't carry liability - I do.

With the logic you use that seems prudent.

You might want to take the same approach. This is a discussion
not
a
competition.

With you it'd be a race... to the bottom.

Whatever Bill.

Over-insuring ANYTHING is just giving money to the insurance company!


Speaking of which, here's a question that'll win you some money if
you're
ever on Jeopardy.

During his time with the Spencer Davis Group and Traffic, Steve Winwood
was
the first person to insure what?

I want to say fingers, but that wouldn't be right because others long
before Winwood insured their fingers - Duke Ellington comes to mind
immediately.

How about against loss of brain cells?

That could explain a lot. :)

Thanks for playing. Wrong answer, but we hope you enjoy the case of Mrs
Pauls Fish Sticks we have waiting for you at the door!

His presence!


His feet, with Lloyd's of London. He apparently thought nobody could
reproduce the bass pedal parts he played, if he were injured, and it would
spell the end of the world if there was no insurance.