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.