Gene Kearns wrote in message
...

I would guess that there are *very, very, few* *specifically
negotiated* hold harmless clauses. Indemnification can be looked at as
a sort of insurance..... it does *NOT* protect any party from gross
negligence and the well founded issues of bailment.

When the boatel accepts consideration for housing the bailor's
property they are held to a pretty high standard of care. Prior
negotiation of financial responsibility is fine, but I can't image
that any court of law in any country would allow the bailee to skip
without exercising reasonable and prudent care of the bailor's
property.


One of the very few things I remember from Business Law 101 is that what
seems logical and to be common sense in deciding cases like this ....
usually isn't in the eyes of the law or court.

Eisboch

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:03:02 -0400, wrote:

On 27 Sep 2006 18:35:02 -0700, "JimH" wrote:

You're kidding, right? They have NO responsibility? How do you present
that claim to your insurance company?
Dan,
The contract can say anything it wants, it does not necessarily remove
them from having liability if your boat is damaged. It is happened to
me, I would report it to my insurance company, and they would fight it
with the botel.
If the contract included *specifically negotiated* hold harmless,
indemnification or other risk transfer verbiage the liability can
absolutely be transfered.over to the contractor.
This is the only country in the world where an unconditional hold
harmless waiver does not mean you can't find a lawyer who will sue for
you.
The scary thing is the number of times the plaintiff wins or simply
walks away with (half to 2/3ds of a) a nice settlement. The lawyers
take their piece off the top.

I would guess that there are *very, very, few* *specifically
negotiated* hold harmless clauses. Indemnification can be looked at as
a sort of insurance..... it does *NOT* protect any party from gross
negligence and the well founded issues of bailment.

When the boatel accepts consideration for housing the bailor's
property they are held to a pretty high standard of care. Prior
negotiation of financial responsibility is fine, but I can't image
that any court of law in any country would allow the bailee to skip
without exercising reasonable and prudent care of the bailor's
property.
--


Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC. http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Gene,

One of the reasons the contract includes the hold harmless clause is
shown in this thread. As we have seen there are people who do accept
them as "the law", and believe it has removed the contractor from all
liability. If 50% of the people believe that to be true, and don't file
a claim, even if the contractor was negligent and their actions are not
considered reasonable and prudent, the contractor and the contractor's
insurance company come out ahead.

The scary thing (as we have seen in this thread) is many individuals and
"contractors" believe their own hold harmless clause will actually
protect them from any and all responsibility. If these people do not
have adequate insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits they or
their company can suffer severe financial harm and/or bankruptcy.

Gene Kearns wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:03:02 -0400, wrote:

On 27 Sep 2006 18:35:02 -0700, "JimH" wrote:

You're kidding, right? They have NO responsibility? How do you
present
that claim to your insurance company?

Dan,
The contract can say anything it wants, it does not necessarily remove
them from having liability if your boat is damaged. It is happened to
me, I would report it to my insurance company, and they would fight it
with the botel.

If the contract included *specifically negotiated* hold harmless,
indemnification or other risk transfer verbiage the liability can
absolutely be transfered.over to the contractor.

This is the only country in the world where an unconditional hold
harmless waiver does not mean you can't find a lawyer who will sue for
you.
The scary thing is the number of times the plaintiff wins or simply
walks away with (half to 2/3ds of a) a nice settlement. The lawyers
take their piece off the top.

I would guess that there are *very, very, few* *specifically
negotiated* hold harmless clauses. Indemnification can be looked at as
a sort of insurance..... it does *NOT* protect any party from gross
negligence and the well founded issues of bailment.

Agreed, but they do exist. And they are the best type of indemnification.
I have never read of *specifically negotiated* hold harmless agreement
thrown out in court let alone on a regular basis as one person claims.


When the boatel accepts consideration for housing the bailor's
property they are held to a pretty high standard of care. Prior
negotiation of financial responsibility is fine, but I can't image
that any court of law in any country would allow the bailee to skip
without exercising reasonable and prudent care of the bailor's
property.
--


Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Gene Kearns wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:28:00 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @
pffftt.com wrote:



Agreed, but they do exist. And they are the best type of
indemnification.
I have never read of *specifically negotiated* hold harmless agreement
thrown out in court let alone on a regular basis as one person claims.


This is kinda interesting.

Out of curiosity, I've read a few cases, and it seems that if one
seeks a binding *specifically negotiated* hold harmless agreement it
must have some fairly specific language. For example, it must
specifically say that the parties have agreed to the conditions that
the bailee is not responsible for any sort of negligence. Now, I can't
imagine any bailor in their right mind signing this sort of thing...
other than some city or governmental agency which has protection via
some other route.

This might make some sense if you tell me that you'll transport my
boat for $1000 or give me a deal and transport the boat for $300 if I
sign a hold harmless..... ASSUMING, of course, I can find some
insurance to cover my situation for something less than $700.

Amazing what some people will sign!
--


Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

It is all a matter of where you are in the food chain.

If you want to do business with Ford I am sure there will be a written
contract with a specifically negotiated hold harmless provision attached.
However, try to get Ford to buy into one and they will tell you to kiss off.
;-)

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:28:33 GMT, Dan Krueger
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:29:17 GMT, Dan Krueger
wrote:


I once asked a forklift operator at a dry storage place if he had ever
dropped a boat. He said there had been damage but never anything serious.

This isn't just some kid on a big forklift...

http://www.local10.com/news/9948836/detail.html



...and in three of the three boatels I've used, the 'fine print' says the
marina is not responsible for dropping the boat from the fork lift.

FWIW.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

You're kidding, right? They have NO responsibility? How do you present
that claim to your insurance company?

My insurance company would be the ones to whom I'd go for recourse. My
deductible would be out the window. Of course, the insurance company could,
and probably would, take on the marina. But, the contract says they're not
liable.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:41:50 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 9/28/2006 8:39 AM, JimH wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:00:31 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Which is the reason the insurance companies have so many lawyers on
retainer. The specifically negotiated hold harmless waiver is
overturned in courts all the time.

Nope. A general hold harmless perhaps. But not a specifically negotiated
one.




Ahh. American business...irresponsible as always.

"We dropped your boat, but it isn't our fault."

Hey, your contract said the same thing as mine!
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:10:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 9/28/2006 9:06 AM, JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 9/28/2006 8:39 AM, JimH wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:00:31 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Which is the reason the insurance companies have so many lawyers on
retainer. The specifically negotiated hold harmless waiver is
overturned in courts all the time.
Nope. A general hold harmless perhaps. But not a specifically
negotiated one.

Ahh. American business...irresponsible as always.

"We dropped your boat, but it isn't our fault."


Serves them right if they are foolish enough to sign a contract stating the
company is not responsible for damages if they drop your boat. Anyone in
their right mind would cross out that part of the contract before they
signed it.




Better yet would be large signs outside and inside the marina, saying
"we're not responsible if we drop your boat."

If that is their attitude, they need to be in another business.

Have you read all the fine print on the back of the Breezy Point contract?

I won't discuss the stupidity of the post to which you responded!
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:59:33 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:03:02 -0400, wrote:

On 27 Sep 2006 18:35:02 -0700, "JimH" wrote:

You're kidding, right? They have NO responsibility? How do you present
that claim to your insurance company?
Dan,
The contract can say anything it wants, it does not necessarily remove
them from having liability if your boat is damaged. It is happened to
me, I would report it to my insurance company, and they would fight it
with the botel.
If the contract included *specifically negotiated* hold harmless,
indemnification or other risk transfer verbiage the liability can
absolutely be transfered.over to the contractor.
This is the only country in the world where an unconditional hold
harmless waiver does not mean you can't find a lawyer who will sue for
you.
The scary thing is the number of times the plaintiff wins or simply
walks away with (half to 2/3ds of a) a nice settlement. The lawyers
take their piece off the top.

I would guess that there are *very, very, few* *specifically
negotiated* hold harmless clauses. Indemnification can be looked at as
a sort of insurance..... it does *NOT* protect any party from gross
negligence and the well founded issues of bailment.

When the boatel accepts consideration for housing the bailor's
property they are held to a pretty high standard of care. Prior
negotiation of financial responsibility is fine, but I can't image
that any court of law in any country would allow the bailee to skip
without exercising reasonable and prudent care of the bailor's
property.
--


Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC. http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Gene,

One of the reasons the contract includes the hold harmless clause is
shown in this thread. As we have seen there are people who do accept
them as "the law", and believe it has removed the contractor from all
liability. If 50% of the people believe that to be true, and don't file
a claim, even if the contractor was negligent and their actions are not
considered reasonable and prudent, the contractor and the contractor's
insurance company come out ahead.

The scary thing (as we have seen in this thread) is many individuals and
"contractors" believe their own hold harmless clause will actually
protect them from any and all responsibility. If these people do not
have adequate insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits they or
their company can suffer severe financial harm and/or bankruptcy.

To be fair, the marina *did* repair, at outside cost, the damage to my
fiberglass on two occasions. The damage wasn't extensive, but the repair
was perfect.

They did this even though the contract said they weren't liable.
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:10:31 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 9/28/2006 9:06 AM, JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 9/28/2006 8:39 AM, JimH wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:00:31 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Which is the reason the insurance companies have so many lawyers on
retainer. The specifically negotiated hold harmless waiver is
overturned in courts all the time.
Nope. A general hold harmless perhaps. But not a specifically
negotiated one.

Ahh. American business...irresponsible as always.

"We dropped your boat, but it isn't our fault."


Serves them right if they are foolish enough to sign a contract stating
the
company is not responsible for damages if they drop your boat. Anyone
in
their right mind would cross out that part of the contract before they
signed it.




Better yet would be large signs outside and inside the marina, saying
"we're not responsible if we drop your boat."

If that is their attitude, they need to be in another business.

Have you read all the fine print on the back of the Breezy Point contract?

I won't discuss the stupidity of the post to which you responded!
--
******************************************
***** Hope your day is great! *****
******************************************

John

Yes John, it is stupid to cross out ridiculous clauses in a contract before
signing it (in your case, a statement that says the marina is not
responsible for damages if they dropped your boat).

Thanks for the good laugh!

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:29:17 GMT, Dan Krueger
wrote:


$500k isn't a "yacht" that is just a nice boat.
A yacht has a $500k boat swinging on davits.

Not my words. Did you read the article? So how much do you have to
spend to have a yacht?