STB,
Your rates don't only relate to your vessel and neither do mine. If that were the case, my insurance would be near zero cost as I have 45 years with zero claims. Instead, insurance is based on the area you operate in, the vessel, your qualifications and track record.
For the record, I sold my boat in April. I always considered my rates to be very reasonable as a function of 35 years with a 100 ton masters license and over 4,000 days of sea time. They were also based on the boat being North of Savannah June 1st through November 1st for the 10 years I owned it.
"As for moving boats, only what is possible is possible." That's probably what the insurance company hears before they cancel the policy and only offer "no coverage for named storms". Insurance companies are in the business to make money. As such, part of the goal is to remove high risk boat / owners. When the owner says, "I live in New York and won't be able to move my boat before a hurricane. So my boat will stay at the fixed (as opposed to floating) dock irrespective of how bad the storm surge will be". Those are the owners that "high deductible" or "no coverage for named storms" is designed for. Why shouldn't it be that way?
Ted
Okay. We agree that our rates relate to our own vessel's risk, which I certainly agree includes the attendant risks of its geographic location.
If the insurance companies choose not to insure certain risks, I agree that is their choice. Same w.r.t. the rate. No argument there.
I'm in approximately the situation you describe w.r.t. geography, but fortunately, I've found insurance companies have been able to rate the risk and I've had no trouble at all with getting reasonably unrestricted full coverage. The price is what it is and I think it is totally fair.
As I've mentioned, I protect my boat pretty effectively in place, but I assume my risk is, in part, being pooled with those who don't, since it is easier to validate location than preparation once a loss occurs. Having said that, I suspect I am partly insulated by my decades long (no) claim history across policies that shows I'm pretty careful with people and things. In any case, my rates are determined by whatever the insurance company case tease out about my risk.
As for floating vs fixed docks, I've weather storms in both, and "it depends" is my personal answer. I've seen it go both ways.
All things being equal, I'd prefer a floating dock. Obviously easier to get right.
But it seems that among those I've seen, the floating docks are more likely to be newer, pre-fab systems, and installed with economy as a primary concern. They, in my experience, for what little it is, are more likely to be shorter, less stout, and less protected.
I've been at some floating docks that were barely stubs or stern dock-only, some without additional pilings. Don't like those one bit. I have greater exposure to my neighbor's decisions and greater exposure for my own choices. Lots resting on few cleats. Yuck!
And some floating docks I've been at "top out" well below those hurricane storm surge.
My current slip doesn't float, but has a truly full length finger dock on one side and lots of pilings on the other. Tying up involves more choices and compromises than on a floating dock, and I'm probably more at risk for minor damage, which had occasionally happened at a prior fixed slip, but I'm pretty well insulated from being able to damage the dock or my neighbors and as protected as I can be from the world around me.
As for insurance w/wreck removal, that woukd be nice. At least marinas and mooring fields, and other managed storage typically have such requirements.