Any lawyers out thar?

[ancora]

From the latest issue of the Log in the "Ask an Attorney" section- Question " I recently lost my boat in a marine fire in Northern California. (Walnut Creek?) The burned out hull of my boat is still in the slip but is submerged. The marina has demanded that I remove the wreck but the boat was not insured and I don't have the funds to take care of it on my own. Since it is not in a navigable channel, am I legally required to have it removed.
Answer- Yes, you are legally obligated to remove the wreck. Under the California Harbors and Navigation Code #525, it is a crime to abandon a vessel upon a public waterway or on public or private property without the express permission of the property owner. If convicted of failing to remove an abandoned wreck the fine ranges from $1,000 to $3,000 PLUS the cost of wreck removal.
In conclusion: This should serve as a lesson for all boat owners. Boat insurance is cheap. (?) The alternative may be very, very, expensive.

 

[MurrayM]

We just had a bunch of boats go down because of a 5.5 foot snowfall. The marina has demanded copies of everyones up to date insurance, or the boat gets hauled at the owners expense.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. MM. "...everyones up to date insurance...". Any marina I've ever rented a slip at has required proof of current insurance before they would rent me a spot. Different in Canada?

 

[MurrayM]

Greetings,
Mr. MM. "...everyones up to date insurance...". Any marina I've ever rented a slip at has required proof of current insurance before they would rent me a spot. Different in Canada?

Probably not different. The marina used to be managed by the Kitimat Stikine Regional District, but was sold a couple months ago. It wouldn't surprise me that double checking whether boats were insured or not was something that fell off the radar. Things got pretty lax towards the end.

 

[mbevins]

Nope same in Canada. Unless your at a Mom & Pop marina that doesn't worry about "details"

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Trawler

 

[markpierce]

Greetings,
Mr. MM. "...everyones up to date insurance...". Any marina I've ever rented a slip at has required proof of current insurance before they would rent me a spot. Different in Canada?

Currently the same here as well as proof of annual registration/documentation; however, in my 1980s marina it was not.

 

[FF]

Boat insurance is cheap. (?)

WHERE?

 

[Tony B]

My sailboat was in Oak harbor Marina in Slidell, La. (North side of lake from New Orleans) during Hurricane Katrina. The harbor master was fairly new and didn't check for current insurance. The Katrina devastation eventually led to a clean-up. You would be amazed at some of the high dollar boats that did not have insurance and couldn't be pulled from land or re-floated for removal.
Every marina I can remember required proof of current liability insurance when I came in. Some were just more lax about checking to verify renewals.

 

[READY2GO]

Boat insurance is cheap. (?)

WHERE?

Just got a Gieko liability policy in Florida for my 36 footer for $124 a year. I did have to get a survey though which was $324. I would consider that cheap.

Underwritten by Seaworthy.

100,000/300/000 and $826,000 clean up.

 

[Robster_in_edmonds]

Boat insurance is cheap compared to what it covers and the potential costs of not having insurance. Someone who is too cheap to buy insurance is likely to be too cheap to properly maintain his boat, and probably most likely to damage other boats...

 

[ancora]

We are in our yacht club marina and are required to show registration/documentation, and proof of insurance every year. We recently had a meeting to discuss mandatory VEs for our marina boats with the CG in attendance. One of our members asked the CG why they pull over boats with current VE stickers and he said they do not do that. The room erupted over that statement. How about other areas?

 

[captgrail]

Someone who is too cheap to buy insurance is likely to be too cheap to properly maintain his boat, and probably most likely to damage other boats...

Isn't that the truth. Every Marina I've been berthed in required proof to get in AND to have their name added as additional insured with annual renewal proof. Others may also have a "hold harmless" clause in the slip agreement you sign. In some less than reputable marinas they can let a non-insured or un-insurable boat in and if anything happens - whoever gets affected is responsible.

Always good to read the fine print and have a reputable insurance company. BoatUS has a good article about it if your interested look for "Boat Marina Liability"

I'm really surprised Geiko is offering boat insurance. The rate you quoted for the premiums and even the survey are super cheap! I may have to look into that - thanks for the tip.

As for that fire in Northern CA, I wonder if the owner of the sunken boat has any legal recourse against the marina or boat owner who's boat caused the fire? Seems to me the marina should have some responsibility for not requiring birthed boats to be insured.

 

[psneeld]

We are in our yacht club marina and are required to show registration/documentation, and proof of insurance every year. We recently had a meeting to discuss mandatory VEs for our marina boats with the CG in attendance. One of our members asked the CG why they pull over boats with current VE stickers and he said they do not do that. The room erupted over that statement. How about other areas?

USCG might have local "latitude" in not stopping vessels with a sticker...but not USCG policy that I know of. A recent boarding form yes...but not VE sticker.

Too easy to load your boat up with your buddies gear and lose it 10 seconds after the inspector leaves.

I would be totally against mandatory VE inspections....while some are great....I have heard more urban legend boating stuff coming out of VEs than probably any one source.

 

[READY2GO]

From Captgrail
"I'm really surprised Geiko is offering boat insurance. The rate you quoted for the premiums and even the survey are super cheap! I may have to look into that - thanks for the tip."



I was surprised at the rate. We have been with Progressive for three years but they changed their policy to where they will not insure a boat over 35' Hence we started looking elsewhere. It also surprised me that Gieko did not care that we lived on the boat full time. The first quote I got from them was full coverage so to speak with an agreed value of $40k. It was only $1,200 per year, but my work is seasonal and right now is not the season. In the summer I will go ahead and add the other overages.

The price for being 1. In the Keys and 2. living on the boat full time I think is amazing. I do not know much about Seaworthy the underwriters but here's hoping.

 

[Ski in NC]

In the case of the original post, if the boat was burned by a fire originating from another boat, is not the boat where the fire started responsible for the damage?

 

[writerly1]

"In the case of the original post, if the boat was burned by a fire originating from another boat, is not the boat where the fire started responsible for the damage?"

Maybe, but:
1. Usually third party culpability is sorted out among the insurance companies involved, with each insurer paying out claims on its own clients and then subrogating, ie., going after the insurance of the culpable person.
2. If the original poster in this thread had no insurance, the chance of him getting the culpable third party to pay out in any fashion are slim and none. He'd need a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm a public insurance adjuster, ie., someone who advocates for the insured. I'm not giving advice, I'm suggesting what often happens on property insurance.

My actual advice is on any insurance with cheap premiums: Gosh, folks, if you go that route, take the time to read the actual policy, because you may not be covered for things you think are automatic. If you're lost in a sea of verbiage with a 20-page policy in eight-point type that references cryptic acronyms and numbers, see if you can pay a public adjuster in your state to look it over for you. And check it every renewal: exclusions, conditions, etc. can change.

Many of the homeowners I deal with had cheap insurance they didn't understand until they were forced by circumstances to file a claim. It's often an unhappy revelation, either because of coverage limits or peril exclusion. It's no different whether it's car, boat, trailer or home: Really cheap insurance requires due diligence.

 

[BruceK]

"In the case of the original post, if the boat was burned by a fire originating from another boat, is not the boat where the fire started responsible for the damage?"
Maybe, but: ......

It is necessary to show the original fire was negligently caused. Most likely it was, but bad things can happen without negligence.

 

[ancora]

In any case, the sunken boat owner does not have enough money to remove the boat. I'm bettin' he don't have enough money to hire a lawyer either. On contingency? Not a chance.

 

[Ski in NC]

Let's say boat A caught fire due to something negligent like leaving a stove on with bacon in a pan.. and fire investigation report reveals that. Just speculating here. And the subject uninsured boat B catches fire as a result.

Would that require a lawyer? Or could owner B simply file a claim with boat A's insurance?

 

[Spottsville]

The cost of a burning boat may be way more that just removing your boat....See my post Titled "Boat on FIRE"!

 

[Mick Scarborough]

All the lawyers are swimming under the boats

 

[BruceK]

Let's say boat A caught fire due to something negligent like leaving a stove on with bacon in a pan.. and fire investigation report reveals that. Just speculating here. And the subject uninsured boat B catches fire as a result.

Would that require a lawyer? Or could owner B simply file a claim with boat A's insurance?

Gee you guys hate lawyers.
Here at least, B does not normally have direct access to A`s insurance, no privity. A has to make a claim, based on B seeking damages from A. Here B may get direct access if A is dead,can`t be found, bankrupt,etc.
Over there, can`t really say, but the principles are the same. Maybe some local will reply, if he hasn`t been lynched for being a lawyer.

 

[THD]

At the risk of identifying myself as a lawyer (currently non-practicing), Brucce is correct. B has to seek damages from A, who is then required by his policy to notify his insurance company of the claim for damages. His insurance company will then deal directly with B regarding the claim,

 

[ksanders]

OK

Lets say that boat A catches on fire and the fire spreads to my boat, and both boats are lost.

If I did not have insurance (I do though) Couldn't I file a lawsuit abainst owner A claiming that their boat catching fire caused the loss of my boat?

Assuming the lack of an act of god or other external force, wouldn't a cause and effect just need to be proven?

Or do I have to prove that they were negligent, which sounds like I would have to be able to get to the root cause of the original fire, and prove that it was something specific they did or didn't do?

 

[CPseudonym]

All the lawyers are swimming under the boats

Many of them own boats and hire out their hull maintenance to professional divers.

 

[BruceK]

Kevin, there used to be case law here (Rylands v Fletcher)that the escape of something dangerous, like fire, grounded an action, but I think it got taken up into the normal law of negligence. So I`d say you need to show something more than there was a fire on A which spread to B. Bad things can happen without negligence. Note there are 2 potential areas of negligence in your example, cause of the fire, and allowing it to spread (escape), ie failing to contain it.
Most fires are the subject of an inquiry(here by a Coroner) or investigation which may provide ammunition. There is a point at which the onus re causation shifts from the claimant(depends on the facts), and a situation where the law says something "speaks for itself" (in Latin, often used for causation, "res ipsa loquitur").
This is Aussie based, just helping out the diminished US lawyer pool. Heard the one about sharks forming a guard of honor for the hearse at the lawyers funeral?

 

[ksanders]

Kevin, there used to be case law here (Rylands v Fletcher)that the escape of something dangerous, like fire, grounded an action, but I think it got taken up into the normal law of negligence. So I`d say you need to show something more than there was a fire on A which spread to B. Bad things can happen without negligence. Note there are 2 potential areas of negligence in your example, cause of the fire, and allowing it to spread (escape), ie failing to contain it.
Most fires are the subject of an inquiry(here by a Coroner) or investigation which may provide ammunition. There is a point at which the onus re causation shifts from the claimant(depends on the facts), and a situation where the law says something "speaks for itself" (in Latin, often used for causation, "res ipsa loquitur").
This is Aussie based, just helping out the diminished US lawyer pool. Heard the one about sharks forming a guard of honor for the hearse at the lawyers funeral?

Ok, I think I understand. It could be anything on boat A having nothing to due with neglagance that started the fire.

Thanks!!!

 

[writerly1]

Getting money out of boat owner A's insurance for boat owner B's damage might seem to be logical and proper; property damage to others is one reason boat owners even have liability insurance.
Practically speaking, if you are boat owner B and don't have your own insurance, so that your own insurance will pay you and then do the many things that have to be done to get boat owner A's insurance to reimburse them, you have much more difficult task. Boat owner A's insurance company is not going to willy-nilly hand over anything. They'll want proof that your damage was caused by A's fire, including a detailed list of what was damaged, photos, receipts, etc. This assumes boat owner A's insurance is even acknowledging the fire was a peril covered by boat owner A's insurance, which we don't know yet.

The marina owner, as a named insured on boat owner A's policy, is in a much better position. That's why marinas want to be on policies as named insureds: They've already opened the door to filing a claim.

If I was boat owner B, I'd sure want a lawyer's opinion before doing anything in pursuit of owner A's insurance. There is an excellent chance that a regular person like us will accidentally trigger an exception or exclusions or excuse to confuse the issues in the initial letter to the insurance company, like, "Imagine my chagrin at returning home from the bar at 3 a.m. and finding my boat damaged by fire, and me without insurance. I was so afraid it was because I forgot to turn off my gas barbecue. It turns out your client, though, is responsible." Kiss it goodbye, right there, because not only are you a drunk who can't remember important things, you've admitted you've got a hazard on your boat and were not present when the fire occurred. You're vulnerable to an assertion you probably caused your own fire. And you demonstrated a sort of moral insufficiency: You don't even have your own insurance. It's guaranteed boat owner A's insurance company is going to find out whether you've been unable to get insurance (because you're uninsurable) or you're simply remiss; either alternative is not helping you.

Lawyers are very good at analysis, for instance: Would you spend $3,000 to file a tort claim to pursue, but possibly not get, $5,000 in insurance money? Or $5,000 to get $40,000, maybe? They'll lay that out for you and in all probability you can get the initial consultation for no fee at all.

I empathize with anyone in the position of boat owner B, but it's an uphill fight and a lawyer consultation is probably the smartest move.

 

[writerly1]

Oh, and the trigger for boat owner A's own coverage, including liability insurance for damage to the property of others, isn't negligence, it's simply whether the condition triggering coverage was sudden, accidental, and occurred within the period covered by the policy. One reason insurance exists is because people have accidents, behave stupidly, and produce unintended consequences, eg., run out of gas, lose way, get picked up by the tide, and slam into Donald Trump's yacht. You might feel like a gormless chump, but your insurance probably has you covered.

 

[ksanders]

Getting money out of boat owner A's insurance for boat owner B's damage might seem to be logical and proper; property damage to others is one reason boat owners even have liability insurance.
Practically speaking, if you are boat owner B and don't have your own insurance, so that your own insurance will pay you and then do the many things that have to be done to get boat owner A's insurance to reimburse them, you have much more difficult task. Boat owner A's insurance company is not going to willy-nilly hand over anything. They'll want proof that your damage was caused by A's fire, including a detailed list of what was damaged, photos, receipts, etc. This assumes boat owner A's insurance is even acknowledging the fire was a peril covered by boat owner A's insurance, which we don't know yet.

The marina owner, as a named insured on boat owner A's policy, is in a much better position. That's why marinas want to be on policies as named insureds: They've already opened the door to filing a claim.

If I was boat owner B, I'd sure want a lawyer's opinion before doing anything in pursuit of owner A's insurance. There is an excellent chance that a regular person like us will accidentally trigger an exception or exclusions or excuse to confuse the issues in the initial letter to the insurance company, like, "Imagine my chagrin at returning home from the bar at 3 a.m. and finding my boat damaged by fire, and me without insurance. I was so afraid it was because I forgot to turn off my gas barbecue. It turns out your client, though, is responsible." Kiss it goodbye, right there, because not only are you a drunk who can't remember important things, you've admitted you've got a hazard on your boat and were not present when the fire occurred. You're vulnerable to an assertion you probably caused your own fire. And you demonstrated a sort of moral insufficiency: You don't even have your own insurance. It's guaranteed boat owner A's insurance company is going to find out whether you've been unable to get insurance (because you're uninsurable) or you're simply remiss; either alternative is not helping you.

Lawyers are very good at analysis, for instance: Would you spend $3,000 to file a tort claim to pursue, but possibly not get, $5,000 in insurance money? Or $5,000 to get $40,000, maybe? They'll lay that out for you and in all probability you can get the initial consultation for no fee at all.

I empathize with anyone in the position of boat owner B, but it's an uphill fight and a lawyer consultation is probably the smartest move.

See, thats the way (from your post) that I thought the system worked.

You prove that a fire on boat A (regardless of cause) damaged your boat, then boat A's owner is liable for your damages.

But...

it appears thats not how the system really works.

You have to prove that boat A's owner was negligent, and his negligence caused the fire which resulted in damage to your boat, to establish boat A's owners liability for your damages.

The mere fact that boat A had a fire and your boat was destroyed, does not appear to create liability.

I spent allot of time last night considering this concept of liability. Lets imagine that boat A's fire was due to an electric heater causing an electrical fire on the boat.

In that case was boat A's owner automatically negligent? Not really. If it could be shown that boat A's owner should have conducted more through inspections of the electrical conductors then it's possible boat A's owner could be negligent, but if boat A's owner was using for example the heater within the heaters intended application, and using the boats electrical system within its intended application, then boat A's owner wasn't really negligent.

So, the thing I learned is that you need full coverage insurance because the issue of who owes who is not quite as simple as a "this caused that" concept.