Home Cookin'
Fleet Admiral
- Joined
- May 26, 2009
- Messages
- 9,715
A recent court opinion in Virginia should make you reconsider your insurance coverage.
a drunk boater (call him DB) crashed into a moored sailboat (SB) and did $50,000 damage. When SB sued DB, DB's insurance company denied coverage, saying that insurance does not cover his liability occurring while DB was engaged in an illegal act (boating under the influence), per the insurance policy. The court agreed; it was a simple matter of contract and the contract controls.
So DB has no coverage and has to cough up $50,000. And you can't discharge that debt in bankruptcy. Not that we feel sorry for drunk boaters (who by the way also had a small quantity of pot on board), but....
And SB, assuming DB has no money, has to pay the repair himself. Hopefully he has insurance to cover it, and luckily a claim like this won't affect his rates, but still. And I doubt his policy will give him a "loaner" while his boat is in the shop for the rest of the summer--damages you might be able to recover from DB's policy.
Some things to consider:
If the damages had been worse, including injury to SB himself, that extra insurance would have been needed.
SB better have "uninsured/underinsured boater" coverage--do you?
Here's the "but" and why hard cases make bad law:
What if DB were you, but you weren't drunk; the "illegal act" was really ordinary negligence that happens also to be illegal: you go just a little above "no wake" under a bridge or in a NW zone, illegally close to another boat and something happens (steering breaks), turn to port and not starboard, you have an extra passenger on board, one bulb in your running lights doesn't work (even in daytime), you are operating with expired registration. You hit a moored boat while not paying attention--and you have one more fish in the box over the limit. There are dozens of laws you can violate that "just aren't that bad." You expect to have coverage anyway.
Think of it in the context of cars--as SB we expect the other guy's insurance to cover us if DB hits our car. And as SB, we all know that insurance doesn't cover us for a wreck occurrung during an illegal act like drag racing, driving a stolen car or the getaway car from the bank robbery. But if we get in a wreck for running a red light or stop sign, or while speeding (4 mph over is speeding and illegal) or driving on expired registration, we expect our insurance to protect us (perfect people who never do these things, please do not comment--we humans don't like your type nor do we believe in your existence).
Also keep in mind that if you call your agent today to ask about your coverage for ssomething like this, and his advice is wrong (and often is) you have no recourse. You have to read your own policy. Further, some state laws may require insurance coverage for something like this; it' starting to come up in DUI cases and some states and courts say "public policy" requires coverage. But not all.
Have a nice day.
a drunk boater (call him DB) crashed into a moored sailboat (SB) and did $50,000 damage. When SB sued DB, DB's insurance company denied coverage, saying that insurance does not cover his liability occurring while DB was engaged in an illegal act (boating under the influence), per the insurance policy. The court agreed; it was a simple matter of contract and the contract controls.
So DB has no coverage and has to cough up $50,000. And you can't discharge that debt in bankruptcy. Not that we feel sorry for drunk boaters (who by the way also had a small quantity of pot on board), but....
And SB, assuming DB has no money, has to pay the repair himself. Hopefully he has insurance to cover it, and luckily a claim like this won't affect his rates, but still. And I doubt his policy will give him a "loaner" while his boat is in the shop for the rest of the summer--damages you might be able to recover from DB's policy.
Some things to consider:
If the damages had been worse, including injury to SB himself, that extra insurance would have been needed.
SB better have "uninsured/underinsured boater" coverage--do you?
Here's the "but" and why hard cases make bad law:
What if DB were you, but you weren't drunk; the "illegal act" was really ordinary negligence that happens also to be illegal: you go just a little above "no wake" under a bridge or in a NW zone, illegally close to another boat and something happens (steering breaks), turn to port and not starboard, you have an extra passenger on board, one bulb in your running lights doesn't work (even in daytime), you are operating with expired registration. You hit a moored boat while not paying attention--and you have one more fish in the box over the limit. There are dozens of laws you can violate that "just aren't that bad." You expect to have coverage anyway.
Think of it in the context of cars--as SB we expect the other guy's insurance to cover us if DB hits our car. And as SB, we all know that insurance doesn't cover us for a wreck occurrung during an illegal act like drag racing, driving a stolen car or the getaway car from the bank robbery. But if we get in a wreck for running a red light or stop sign, or while speeding (4 mph over is speeding and illegal) or driving on expired registration, we expect our insurance to protect us (perfect people who never do these things, please do not comment--we humans don't like your type nor do we believe in your existence).
Also keep in mind that if you call your agent today to ask about your coverage for ssomething like this, and his advice is wrong (and often is) you have no recourse. You have to read your own policy. Further, some state laws may require insurance coverage for something like this; it' starting to come up in DUI cases and some states and courts say "public policy" requires coverage. But not all.
Have a nice day.
