Insurance for my boat.
James Maes
I just brought a new glastron 22' and need ins for it. I have my auto
with progressive so I went there first. The quote was $800 a year for
full coverage.
That was more then I was wanting to pay to say the least. So I went
shoppinh around and got a quote for www.boats.com. The agancy is
INAMAR. They specialize in marine insurance. For the same coverage
they want $360.
My question is has anyone worked with this company before? There is a
large difference between the quotes so I want to make sure this
company is for real.
Thanks all
Jim Woodard
Steve Barker
Larson. What area are you in? We're in Kansas. I know, boo hiss. But
that's where we are.
--
===============
Steve
"James Maes" <jm...@sportingnews.com> wrote in message
news:bb88fee8.02031...@posting.google.com...
Harry Krause
> Ours was $225 for full coverage and 300,000 liability from progressive. 21'
> Larson. What area are you in? We're in Kansas. I know, boo hiss. But
> that's where we are.
>
> --
> ===============
> Steve
Gotta be wary of those sudden onset Kansas tostitos...Why, the last time
it happened, there were waves 30' high, with breakers, rolling down
the Kaw...
--
Harry Krause
- -
Conservatives tell us that if the workers want to share profits, it is
communism, but if management wants to share profits, it is a bonus.
Steve Barker
--
===============
Steve
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C8FD69D...@mindspring.com...
Harry Krause
It really upset the Pi Phi gals from KU, who were sunning themselves
while topless on the sandbar...
--
Harry Krause
- -
On the evening bus, the tense, pinched faces of young file clerks and
elderly secretaries tell us more than we care to know. - Studs Terkel
FoxTrot2
We recently quoted all our insurance through a number of carriers, including
Westfield, Cincinnati, State Farm, Nationwide and Metlife for the package;
Geico, Progressive and GMAC for the car only; and Boat US and National
Marine Underwriters for the boat only.
We found Boat US and Westfield the cheapest by far for the boat insurance.
Gieco came in cheapest on the auto. Westfield came in cheapest on the
package.
We ended up putting all our personal lines insurance with an agency who
placed it with Westfield Insurance.
FYI: The insurance market went "hard" after 9-11 (Enron also hit the
insurance companies hard with payments on Surety Bonds) and it is wise for
everyone to shop their insurance this year, including home, auto, boat and
umbrella (if you carry it). Rates will increase along all lines of coverage
generally around 30% this year.
Good luck in your search.
"James Maes" <jm...@sportingnews.com> wrote in message
news:bb88fee8.02031...@posting.google.com...
Jack Redington
James Maes wrote:
I have my boat insurance with them but have yet to have a claim. One
thing I liked speaking with them is they could tell me what they would
pay if I had a total loss since they use "agreed hull value" Where the
company I was with (The guys I have my cars insured with) Could not tell
me this at any given time as they would have to figure it out based on
any numbers they could come up with that we could argue about.
But I had to insure it for say 20k bad if I had a total loss they would
go and see what they though replacement value was worth and pay me that
up to 20k etc. It was a bunch of you know what.
Capt Jack R..
Larry Weiss
insurance. I also suggest you check out the US Power Squadron boat
insurance program. You have to join the squadron to take advantage of it,
but the benefits of membership are well worth the relatively inexpensive
dues. And their insurance program is excellent.
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."
SJP
The St.Paul). I've found it to be cheaper for me, though BoatUS insurance
is close. The only major difference in pricing that I've found is West
Marine includes $500 for towing, while you have to add the price of the
BoatUS membership with a comparable amount of towing to make it equal.
jm...@sportingnews.com (James Maes) wrote in
news:bb88fee8.02031...@posting.google.com:
Jim Woodard
days...anybody else having any problem?
Gould 0738
>days...anybody else having any problem?
West Marine's home page is oversubscribed, so they are relying on "cookies" to
determine access.
Seems that modern computer technolog has finally evolved to the point where WM
can check a shopper's credit card balances in a nano-second. Those with the
most "room" left go to the head of the line.
That tends to eliminate any of us who recently bought anything at West Marine.
And with all that HS in this response, there must be a pony 'round here
somewhere.
:-)
Larry Weiss
insurance: allowing someone to operate your boat who does not have a
valid automobile drivers license will void your insurance. They will not
pay a claim if an accident occurs under this circumstance. Good reason to
stay away from Boat/US if you have kids who don't drive yet, or if anyone
else without a drivers license may operate your boat. And its one more
thing to check before you buy a policy with anyone else.
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."
FoxTrot2
including auto.
Why should an insurance company pay a claim if the vehicle (boat or car) was
being driven by an unlicensed driver?
"Larry Weiss" <lil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C90F88A...@ix.netcom.com...
Larry Weiss
not in most boat policies. The reality is possession of an automobile drivers
license does not indicate in any way whether the licensee has any boating skills
what-so-ever. Many, many young people in this country, underage for an
automobile license, know how to safely operate watercraft, and do so every day.
It would be wise, however, for policies to require every boater, regardless of
age, to pass a boating safety course. New York State requires young boaters (16
and under) to pass such a course before they may operate a boat.
Personally, our Carver is covered by a Boat/US policy (which I got before I
learned of this clause - the kids aren't driving it anyway), but I got a Power
Squadron policy for the Bayliner, which does not have this restriction. Our 15
year old daughter passed the boating safety course a couple of years ago. Why
should she be precluded from operating the boat just because she isn't yet old
enough to get an automobile drivers license?
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."
FoxTrot2
safety regulations. It does not show in any way you can safely operate a
boat.
I believe many boating safety courses will result in the permitting of
operators under the age of 15 1/2 only to small boats under 12 feet in
length and powered by a maximum of 10 HP engines.
While a drivers license does not show you are capable of operating a boat,
it does show some level of maturity to be able to operate a large motorized
vehicle.
Again, I can fully understand and find it totally reasonable for insurance
companies to put the clause in their marine policies.
"Larry Weiss" <lil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C910041...@ix.netcom.com...
Larry Weiss
> Passing a boating safety course shows you are knowledgeable of boating
> safety regulations. It does not show in any way you can safely operate a
> boat.
Agreed. It is only the beginning of training. But at least it is a beginning.
And it certainly shows you know more about operating a boat than the mere
possession an automobile drivers license, which indicates nothing about boating
knowledge or skills.
> While a drivers license does not show you are capable of operating a boat,
> it does show some level of maturity to be able to operate a large motorized
> vehicle.
I have seen no evidence to support that, especially observing the insane
behavior of drivers on the roads around here. More seriously, as a Power
Squadron instructor myself, I see far too many well meaning and mature adult
boaters who are legally licensed to drive their automobiles to my boating safety
class, but don't have a clue who left all those green garbage cans floating out
there on the water, and think they don't have to turn their blowers on because
its cool enough outside.
> Again, I can fully understand and find it totally reasonable for insurance
> companies to put the clause in their marine policies.
You make some excellent arguments for licensing of boaters - which is an opinion
I fully agree with. I believe all boaters should be able to demonstrate
knowledge and skill before being allowed at the helm. However, an automobile
license has nothing to do with boating. The only thing similar between
operating a boat and an automobile is, in most powerboats, you start the engine
by turning a key. Steering is different. Moving is different. Stopping is
different. Signaling is different. Fueling is different. Navigating is
different. The dangers are different. The rules are different. Everything is
different. An automobile license has nothing what-so-ever to do with boating
and should not be a pre-requisite for operating a boat, whether by an insurance
company or any other entity.
Giles Morris
> Again, I can fully understand and find it totally reasonable for insurance
> companies to put the clause in their marine policies.
Hm... I wonder what the (several) people I know who choose not to have
drivers licenses would think about it. And since one of them is sometimes in
command of my boat I'll be looking at the West Marine policy when the
current Boat/US one expires. Perhaps a pilot's (flying) license would do the
trick? Or a USCG captain's license? Or membership of ACM? Or AARP? Perhaps
auto insurance should be ok with a boat safety certificate if it's legal for
you to drive without a drivers' license (say, on your own property)?
Tell you what -- It Really Pisses Me Off when some know-nothing decides that
a good predictor of <X> is <Y> when <X> and <Y> have nothing to do with each
other, and chooses to ignore predictors at least as good. But hey... It
avoids having to think -- they're in business to make money (despite being
a quasi-club) and they can do that if they want to. But not with my money
(well, not with any more of it if I can come up with a reasonable
alternative).
Giles Morris
FoxTrot2
"Giles Morris" <Giles....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:a6qqba$gleir$1...@ID-18277.news.dfncis.de...
> "FoxTrot2" <m...@nospam.net> wrote
>
> > Again, I can fully understand and find it totally reasonable for
insurance
> > companies to put the clause in their marine policies.
>
> Hm... I wonder what the (several) people I know who choose not to have
> drivers licenses would think about it.
It would probably force them to go out and take the test to get a license.
If they are too lazy or incompetent to obtain a license, that is their
problem. Or perhaps they lost their license because of DUI/DWI or
wreckless op convictions. In that case I would consider them uninsurable
for a boat or car.
If you rented out boats, what would be your qualifications to rent one? In
my case, I would minimumly ask for the operator to have a current and valid
drivers license. Does it show they know how to operate a boat? Nope. But
it shows they are mature and intelligent enough to drive a car.
Until we have mandatory boating licensing (not just boating safety but
actual operation of a boat), the drivers license is the only reasonable
thing to ask for.
>And since one of them is sometimes in
> command of my boat I'll be looking at the West Marine policy when the
> current Boat/US one expires. Perhaps a pilot's (flying) license would do
the
> trick? Or a USCG captain's license? Or membership of ACM? Or AARP? Perhaps
> auto insurance should be ok with a boat safety certificate if it's legal
for
> you to drive without a drivers' license (say, on your own property)?
Don't be an ass Giles.
Giles Morris
news:tm6k8.34535$702.15774@sccrnsc02...
> It would probably force them to go out and take the test to get a license.
> If they are too lazy or incompetent to obtain a license, that is their
> problem. Or perhaps they lost their license because of DUI/DWI or
> wreckless op convictions. In that case I would consider them uninsurable
> for a boat or car.
(Let's see, it was in this closet somewhere.... Ah, there it is. Fuel? Yep.
<pump> <pump> <pump>
click! FOOSH! It works)
<flame>
HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT MY FRIENDS LIKE THAT YOU WITLESS, SNIVELLING
BASTARD!!!!!
They choose not to have driver's licenses because they live in town and have
no need for them Lazy? Incompetent? DUI? DWI? Every one of them is a fine
person and, based on that obnoxious comment above, worth ten of you. If you
think they should go and stand in line at the DC DMV so that somebody at
Boat/US, with no more brains than you, thinks they're ok then I've known
hamsters with more of a clue than you! No, I take that back -- you've
already shown yourself inferior to a cockroach in logical thinking.
And I notice that you chose not to address my comments about other
qualifications having just as much to do with boats.
> Don't be an ass Giles.
Don't call me an ass you clueless moron!!!
</flame>
FoxTrot2
I did not address your friends as incompetent, lazy or having DUI/DWI
convictions. My comment referred to all potential boat operators without
drivers licenses. You chose to read it that way and over react with
childish insults. But I guess that is to be expected from someone of your
intelligence.
>
> And I notice that you chose not to address my comments about other
> qualifications having just as much to do with boats.
I addressed them as I saw fit.
>
> > Don't be an ass Giles.
>
> Don't call me an ass you clueless moron!!!
OK. You are an asshole. Better?
Capt Lou
age are allowed to operate a motorboat with 25 or greater horsepower without
adult supervision if they pass an approved basic boating course. Minimum age to
operate a jet ski is 16 years of age, and those 16 amd 17 years old must take
an approved safe boating course and a personal watercraft course.
"Listen to 'Nautical Talk Radio' with Captain Lou every Sunday afternoon from
4 - 5 (East Coast U.S. time) on the web at www.959watd.com or if you are in
Boston or Cape Cod set your radio dial for 95.9FM.
Curtis CCR
> While it might be (and probably should be) in most auto policies, this clause is
> not in most boat policies.
This clause does not appear in my Boat/US policies.
Boat/US writes different types of policies for boats depending on what
you need or ask for.
Both of my boats are covered by Boat/US "yacht" policies underwritten
by CNA. Neither have exclusions you mention below.
Their basic "boat" policy may be more restrictive - but you also pay
less for it.
<snip>
SJP
Jim Woodard <jimwo...@att.net> wrote in
news:3C90B18D...@att.net:
Curtis CCR
> "FoxTrot2" <m...@nospam.net> wrote
>
> > Again, I can fully understand and find it totally reasonable for insurance
> > companies to put the clause in their marine policies.
>
> Hm... I wonder what the (several) people I know who choose not to have
> drivers licenses would think about it. And since one of them is sometimes in
> command of my boat I'll be looking at the West Marine policy when the
> current Boat/US one expires.
You know several people that simply "choose" not to have driver
licenses? I also know numerous adults that choose not to have driver
licenses - and the reasons they choose not to have one are also a
pretty good reason for me NOT to let them drive my boat (at least not
without close, immediate supervision) - they have disabilities, or may
be too old to drive, or in the case of one person I know - she is
simply not comfortable driving a car anywhere - like a phobia. Then
there are the people that don't have driver license because they have
proven they shouldn't have one, whether it be DUIs or other legal
issues.
And I am just curious about your wording... You let a friend of yours
be "in command" of your boat? I regularly let others take the helm on
my boat, but even if I am down in the galley eating lunch, I am still
in command.
Before you decide to look into new a policy, you should check the
Boat/US policy you have. It would be rather silly to change insurance
companies for no other reason than a clause you heard about on a news
group that may not be in your policy. My Boat/US policy DOES NOT
contain the exclusion that Larry says is in his.
> Perhaps a pilot's (flying) license would do the
> trick? Or a USCG captain's license? Or membership of ACM? Or AARP? Perhaps
> auto insurance should be ok with a boat safety certificate if it's legal for
> you to drive without a drivers' license (say, on your own property)?
Again, you may be worrying about nothing. Heck I looked at the
BOAT/US insurance website last night - they extend coverage on jet
skis to family members as young as 14. Any state giving driver
licenses to 14 year olds these days? I don't doubt that Larry's
policy has this particular exclusion, but do not infer from what he
says about HIS policy applies to all BOAT/US policies.
> Tell you what -- It Really Pisses Me Off when some know-nothing decides that
> a good predictor of <X> is <Y> when <X> and <Y> have nothing to do with each
> other, and chooses to ignore predictors at least as good.
Believe it or not, the people creating these policies probably aren't
know-nothings. Exclusions are usually based on the companies
experience or data they pull from somewhere. It is entirely probable
that whoever underwrites Larry's BOAT/US policy has accident/claim
data to support the exclusion. And exclusions affect your premiums.
In general, you will pay less when you have more exclusions. For
example, I have an exclusion on my car insurance for anyone under 25
years old - whether they have a driver license or not. I have no
reason to let anyone under 25 drive my car, so that exclusion saves me
over $100 a year.
Do they still give "good student" discounts on car insurance to
teenagers? How does getting good grades make you a better driver?
Giles Morris
> You know several people that simply "choose" not to have driver
> licenses?
Indeed. They don't need them and simply prefer not to drive. They use
bicycles.
It's a strange thing about some Americans, especially the less educated.
They simply can't understand why anybody would prefer not to involve
automobiles in their lives. Whether it's practical or not isn't the issue --
it's up to them, and it isn't a good predictor of their behaviour. They
don't need to justify their choice.
It's interesting that, like the other person whose name I can't be bothered
to look up, you seem to have assumed that they're handicapped, drunks,
mentally ill or whatever. And, come to think of it, that's exactly the
thinking (or, rather, lack of it) that pisses me off. Explicitly or
implicitly both you and The Other Person have made assumptions about an
adult without a driver's licence. As has Boat/US. Would it be reasonable of
me to assume that, because of the circles you move in (you know "numerous
adults" who do not have a driver's license), you're a drunk and unfit
yourself? Well, no. (BTW: I would agree that being barred from holding a
license for DUI/DWI is probably a good predictor.)
>I regularly let others take the helm on
>my boat, but even if I am down in the galley eating lunch, I am still
>in command.
You're mostly right there. It's almost always simply that I'm below. On the
other hand, I may ask somebody else to take the boat round to the pumpout
while I'm busy elsewhere.
> Before you decide to look into new a policy, you should check the
> Boat/US policy you have. It would be rather silly to change insurance
> companies for no other reason than a clause you heard about on a news
> group that may not be in your policy.
Well, yes. that got edited out on the grounds that it was rather obvious.
Sorry.
The point remains that a blanket "driver's license" requirement is a lazy,
and inaccurate, way of winnowing out incompetent captains.
Billy Madison
"Eugene Kearns" <ewke...@triad.brrb.com> wrote in message
news:5uj29uc5j3d0a1a36...@4ax.com...
> With this sort of logic, your auto insurance should not pay if you do
> not hold a boat license.
There is no such thing as a boat license.
>Your auto insurance should not pay if you
> do not have a pilots license...... Convoluted logic......
You are on drugs Eugene.
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:36:58 GMT, "FoxTrot2" <m...@nospam.net>
> pontificated:
>
> # That is most likely a clause or stipulation in most insurance
> policies,
> # including auto.
> #
> # Why should an insurance company pay a claim if the vehicle (boat or
> car) was
> # being driven by an unlicensed driver?
> #
> #
> # "Larry Weiss" <lil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> # news:3C90F88A...@ix.netcom.com...
> # > Be aware of a little known and quite retarded clause in Boat/US
> # > insurance: allowing someone to operate your boat who does not
> have a
> # > valid automobile drivers license will void your insurance. They
> will not
> # > pay a claim if an accident occurs under this circumstance. Good
> reason to
> # > stay away from Boat/US if you have kids who don't drive yet, or if
> anyone
> # > else without a drivers license may operate your boat. And its one
> more
> # > thing to check before you buy a policy with anyone else.
> # >
> # > Larry Weiss
> # > "...Ever After!"
> # > "a little after..."
> # >
> # > James Maes wrote:
> # >
> # > > Hey all. Got a question about boat insurance for you.
> # > >
> # > > I just brought a new glastron 22' and need ins for it. I have
> my auto
> # > > with progressive so I went there first. The quote was $800 a
> year for
> # > > full coverage.
> # > >
> # > > That was more then I was wanting to pay to say the least. So I
> went
> # > > shoppinh around and got a quote for www.boats.com. The agancy
> is
> # > > INAMAR. They specialize in marine insurance. For the same
> coverage
> # > > they want $360.
> # > >
> # > > My question is has anyone worked with this company before?
> There is a
> # > > large difference between the quotes so I want to make sure this
> # > > company is for real.
> # > >
> # > > Thanks all
> # >
> #
>
>
>
> --
> 23' Grady White, out of Oak Island, NC.
> To Mail - Remove the Bee Bees from my address.
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION =
http://www.binaries.net
FoxTrot2
"Eugene Kearns" <ewke...@triad.brrb.com> wrote in message
news:5uj29uc5j3d0a1a36...@4ax.com...
> With this sort of logic, your auto insurance should not pay if you do
> not hold a boat license.
Boat license?
>Your auto insurance should not pay if you
> do not have a pilots license...... Convoluted logic......
>
Yours certainly is.
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:36:58 GMT, "FoxTrot2" <m...@nospam.net>
> pontificated:
>
> # That is most likely a clause or stipulation in most insurance
> policies,
> # including auto.
> #
> # Why should an insurance company pay a claim if the vehicle (boat or
> car) was
> # being driven by an unlicensed driver?
> #
> #
> # "Larry Weiss" <lil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> # news:3C90F88A...@ix.netcom.com...
> # > Be aware of a little known and quite retarded clause in Boat/US
> # > insurance: allowing someone to operate your boat who does not
> have a
> # > valid automobile drivers license will void your insurance. They
> will not
> # > pay a claim if an accident occurs under this circumstance. Good
> reason to
> # > stay away from Boat/US if you have kids who don't drive yet, or if
> anyone
> # > else without a drivers license may operate your boat. And its one
> more
> # > thing to check before you buy a policy with anyone else.
> # >
> # > Larry Weiss
> # > "...Ever After!"
> # > "a little after..."
> # >
> # > James Maes wrote:
> # >
> # > > Hey all. Got a question about boat insurance for you.
> # > >
> # > > I just brought a new glastron 22' and need ins for it. I have
> my auto
> # > > with progressive so I went there first. The quote was $800 a
> year for
> # > > full coverage.
> # > >
> # > > That was more then I was wanting to pay to say the least. So I
> went
> # > > shoppinh around and got a quote for www.boats.com. The agancy
> is
> # > > INAMAR. They specialize in marine insurance. For the same
> coverage
> # > > they want $360.
> # > >
> # > > My question is has anyone worked with this company before?
> There is a
Larry Weiss
based on the in the application process. The application requires a completed signed supplemental
application from each person who either co-owns or may operate the boat. The supplemental application asks,
among other things, for each operators drivers license number. If any of the supplemental applicants do
not have a drivers license, the entire application will be declined. In other words, if one of the listed
operators of the boat does not have an automobile drivers license, you will not be issued a policy in the
first place. That being said, if you omit the unlicensed operator from the application and the policy is
approved, and that unlicensed person subsequently operates the boat and has an accident, Boat/US can decline
the claim and void the policy, based on misrepresentations in your application. I was told this when I was
trying to insure the Bayliner last summer. I called Boat/US Insurance again this morning, and they verified
that this is indeed the case. Don't believe me? Call them yourself ... 1-800-283-2883.
(By the way, the Power Squadron insurance program does not follow this policy, and we insure the Bayliner
through them, fully covering our 15 year old daughter should she operate the boat. Our Carver is still
through Boat/US - for now).
Second, and most important: Were this post not from Karl, who is a long timer here and shares some valuable
wisdom, I wouldn't respond to it at all. I detest harsh language and insulting challenges here (or
anywhere) - especially in message headers. It is devoid of all manners and civility, and it is what has
driven most of the really valuable rec.boaters away from here, including myself on many occasions. Please
think twice, and be kind, considerate and helpful when posting. I can handle disagreements, and I can (and
have) acknowledge those times when I'm wrong, but headers like "Larry Bullshit" won't get anybody anywhere
with me. Name calling like this is insulting to those at whom they are directed, and it can be embarrassing
for those who post in such a manner without knowing all the facts. Why do so many rec.boats people feel
compelled to talk to each other like middle school children do? It is really sickening to know that this is
how so many people try to relate in this world. No wonder it is in the state it is in.
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."
Karl Denninger wrote:
> I checked my Boat/US policy and cannot find the "exclusion" that was noted
> here.
>
> Reference please.
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
>
> In article <3c876a96.02031...@posting.google.com>,
Curtis CCR
> "Curtis CCR" <curt...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > You know several people that simply "choose" not to have driver
> > licenses?
>
> Indeed. They don't need them and simply prefer not to drive. They use
> bicycles.
>
> It's a strange thing about some Americans, especially the less educated.
Was that supposed to be an around-and-about way of calling me a stupid
American?
> They simply can't understand why anybody would prefer not to involve
> automobiles in their lives. Whether it's practical or not isn't the issue --
> it's up to them, and it isn't a good predictor of their behaviour. They
> don't need to justify their choice.
I would assume from your grammer, and your apparent attempt to insult
my intelligence (and linking it to my nationality), that you are not
an American. Though your e-mail address, and the fact that you are
criticizing policies of an insurance program administered by the Boat
Owners Association of the United States, would make it reasonable for
one to infer otherwise.
If you are in the United States, your are statistically unusual to
know so many adults that simply choose not to have a driver license
because "They don't need them and simply prefer not to drive. They use
bicycles." There may be places in the US where that is not be so
unusual - maybe Davis, CA or Boulder, CO. Or I suppose it may be
slightly more common among foriegn nationals in Washington, DC.
> It's interesting that, like the other person whose name I can't be bothered
> to look up, you seem to have assumed that they're handicapped, drunks,
> mentally ill or whatever. And, come to think of it, that's exactly the
> thinking (or, rather, lack of it) that pisses me off. Explicitly or
> implicitly both you and The Other Person have made assumptions about an
> adult without a driver's licence.
Yes, I have made assumptions. They are reasonable assumptions based
on the way things usually are in this country. It is very unusual
for an adult in the US not to have a driver license for the reasons
you are presenting. This may not be the case in your country -
therefore the exculsion may be unreasonable on insurance policies from
the Boat Owners Association of [insert you country here].
However I made no assumptions about *your friends*. You explained
their circumstances right up front, before I made any other reasonable
assumptions.
> As has Boat/US. Would it be reasonable of
> me to assume that, because of the circles you move in (you know "numerous
> adults" who do not have a driver's license), you're a drunk and unfit
> yourself? Well, no. (BTW: I would agree that being barred from holding a
> license for DUI/DWI is probably a good predictor.)
Well, I don't think Boat/US has made such assumptions about me - or
you.
<snipped discussion about others at the helm while skippers go below>
> The point remains that a blanket "driver's license" requirement is a lazy,
> and inaccurate, way of winnowing out incompetent captains.
Actually it may simply be very efficient for the types of risks they
are underwriting in a policy. You may not like it, but again, the
circumstance of your friends are unusual. Since the formulas for
determining risk and premiums of an insurance policy are based on
statistics, it can be efficient to use a broad brush for exclusions
and then look at exceptions.
Have you or Larry asked Boat/US about removing the exclusion on a case
by case basis? (For the sake of making my point, I'll just assume that
you have the exclusion in your policy) Your friend probably wouldn't
need to "justify" his choice not have a driver license, but it may not
be very tough to "clarify" that it is not because of anything
negative. I'll bet he could even be named as a regular operator on
your policy regardless of whether or not he has a driver license.
You mentioned in another post that "perhaps a pilot's (flying) license
would do the trick?"
Maybe so - because - In the US, the FAA wants driver license
information from pilots. They check your driving records everytime
you renew your medical. If you say that you don't have a driver
license, but you want to fly planes, you are going to raise an eyebrow
- because its unusual. It's a safe bet that the FAA will double
check.
But then again, it may be that the FAA is under the control of less
educated Americans like Norm Minetta... ;-)
Larry Weiss
Here's the number. 1-800-283-2883. Do it now.
If an underwriter from an insurance company tells me what their normal operating policies are, and a second one
tells me the same thing eight months later, and I don't agree them, even if its not in the written policy, I will
go elsewhere. I suggest others who feel the same way do the same.
Personally, as I have posted here in the past, I had had a major claim denied by another major insurance company
(Royal Insurance) on a much smaller loophole than this. Now I am very careful about insurance. My only
statement was and is: "be aware".
Regarding Larry Bullshit header, which I changed in the name of civility and you changed back in the name of
immaturity, despite my comments about it, I never realized you, Karl, were such an asshole. I've really about
had it with this group and its childish ways. You can hang out here and enjoy Mr. Foxtrots company. I'm outa
here folks.
Larry Weiss
Karl Denninger wrote:
> Wrong Larry.
>
> The application statement (I have it right here in front of me) is:
>
> List all REGULAR operators.
>
> It is not "List all POSSIBLE operators."
>
> There is HUGE difference between the two statements.
>
> If someone is an OCCASIONAL operator, you do not need to list them.
>
> Second, there is no declaration in the policy itself that only APPROVED
> (by Boat/US) persons may operate the boat.
>
> Now if someone is a REGULAR operator, then you must declare them. But what
> is a "regular" operator? Certainly not someone who occasionally is at the
> helm. Probably someone who is allowed to, on a regular basis, take the boat
> out on their own, yes. Certain members of your family if they are regular
> operators of the vessel.
>
> But if I choose to allow a friend to take my boat out I am not required first
> to verify that they have a valid driver license, provided that I do not
> do so with that particular person on a REGULAR basis.
>
> If you can't list a REGULAR operator without a driver license number, then
> that may cause some people heartburn. But the entire issue turns on what
> the definition of "regular" is.
>
> What someone SAYS on the phone has no relavence over what is printed on a
> piece of PAPER. The policy and application's written documents control;
> even you know that Larry. This is PARTICULARLY true when it comes to legal
> documents like insurance applications and policies.
>
> There is no misrepresentation in your application if a person occasionally,
> but not regularly, operates the vessel and you do not list them, particularly
> since Boat/US does not have anything in their policy that states that only
> LISTED operators are permitted or that you must gain their permission before
> permitting an unlisted operator.
>
> Oh, by the way, my policy with them was issued with a specific endorsement
> that a paid master who I hire is acceptable as well. Note that this paid
> master could easily be a "regular operator" and yet there is no requirement
> that I list him or her - and since the endorsement was issued AFTER the
> application was tendered, it controls as well!
>
> Ergo, I can hire a captain to drive while I fish, for example, and all is
> perfectly fine, even if I do this on a REGULAR basis.
>
> The "exclusion" is a LOT more narrow than you originally represented Larry,
> which makes your original claim EXTREMELY suspect to begin with.
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
>
> In article <3C93C388...@ix.netcom.com>,
FoxTrot2
> I've really about
> had it with this group and its childish ways. You can hang out here and
enjoy Mr. Foxtrots company. I'm outa
> here folks.
>
> Larry Weiss
Whiner. Don't let the door hit you.
FoxTrot2
"Gael Wind" <gael...@bcinet.net.bs> wrote in message
news:aph79usfs1kgmhiif...@4ax.com...
> This doen't seem unreasonable to me. Please explain how an automobile
> license makes one a better boater.
Where did I say that it did?
Harry Krause
> I don't care WHAT someone tells me on the phone.
>
> What I care about when it comes to insurance is what is WRITTEN DOWN.
>
> Breach of contract by an insurance company is a federal offense and a civil
> tort. Done as an active conspiracy it could be racketeering. Even if not
> bad faith in most states triggers treble ACTUAL damages provisions and
> makes available punitive damages - the kind and amount that I'd really like
> to get from someone who pulled that crap. If they attempt to deny a claim
> on a non-loophole (that is, it clearly does not apply) then I will sue their
> asses to Mars and make an example out of them.
You and Larry the ham operator ought to form a law firm, as soon as one
of you graduates from law school.
--
Harry Krause
- -
"Mr. Bush said yesterday that the war on terrorism had
'transformationed' the U.S.-Russia relationship." --New York Times, 11/14/01
FoxTrot2
> If following the implications of the thread has become that difficult
> for you, I'm not sure I can explain it to you, either.
I would pass anyway as this whole thread went over your head.
ZOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM
Hear it?
Not too smart, are you Gael?
Gould 0738
>you changed back in the name of
>immaturity, despite my comments about it, I never realized you, Karl, were
>such an asshole. I've really about
>had it with this group and its childish ways. You can hang out here and
>enjoy Mr. Foxtrots company. I'm outa
>here folks.
>
>Larry Weiss
>
Being able to "disagree without becoming disagreeable" is a vanishing art,
maybe more so among the Gen X children of excess who seem to want everything
their way, no other way, and right now too, damit.
And it's easy to get sucked into the vortex
of demonization and bad manners.
Please reconsider. Everybody has some redeeming value, and when the people who
are turned off by the tantrum technique in a debate all pack up and go, then
only those who have the most to learn about disagreeing without becoming
disagreeable
will be left.
Larry Weiss
> I don't care WHAT someone tells me on the phone.
>
> What I care about when it comes to insurance is what is WRITTEN DOWN.
Sure - and after several years and tens of thousands of $$$ in legal fees you can take it in front of the judge, and
possibly even win. I, and most other boaters, don't care to go through all that trouble. Been there ... done that.
Believe me, its not worth the time, effort or money. I'd rather my boat be insured by a company that doesn't have
that attitude in the first place, written, spoken or otherwise.
> I know several people who have had boats damaged or destroyed while with
> Boat/US. Every one of them got prompt, courteous and appropriate service. None got the runaround, none got played
> with, and none had any games played.
Myself included. But that's not what my post was about, idiot. Read it again and then stop the asshole routine.
> Boat/US is an organization that has way too many members - and insurance
> policies out there on boats - to keep this quiet if it was happening.
They are not quite about it. They are quite upfront about it, if you ask them.
> Now do they require YOU, as the NAMED INSURED, to have a driver license?
Yes.
> Second, I know who ACTUALLY underwrites their policies - its CNA. Not
> Boat/US themselves.
Whoopee, you actually know something. I have the same Boat/US policy you do, asshole. CNA is written in nice big
plain block letters, about the only thing you seem to be able to read, Karl. Honestly, if you had any higher reading
capabilities, you would re-read my posts and realize what an asshole you are making out of yourself.
> You have made a personal crusade out of this Larry. Its come up several
> times before and each time you've made this into a doom-and-gloom scenario [snipped] I can only conclude that your
> dislike for them, for some reason, has led you on this crusade - and that it has nothing to do with the facts.
Above is every single message I have ever posted about Boat/US. Please, please, tell me what brings you to the
conclusion that I have a personal crusade or dislike toward them. (Oh, I forgot, you either can't, or are too lazy to
read). For the record, as evidenced by the posts above, I have had nothing but good experiences with Boat/US. They
paid a difficult claim quickly and with minimum hassle. They also towed me out of a jam when I didn't even have my
membership card on me. They are helpful, respectful and generally upfront. My only issue is that I would like my
daughter to be covered should she operate the boat. They won't do it because of the drivers license thing. That they
won't do it is their business, and its okay with me. I bought insurance for the boat she may use from another
source. My post was simply about letting others know in case they are in a similar situation.
> As for my change of the subject, you're damn right I did.
And there is one reason and one reason only for that. You are a complete, bona fide, unmitigated asshole who needs to
go back to school and learn some manners, as well as how to read.
> I will call them Monday, during normal business hours, and clarify their
> EXACT policy. I will also ask them to put it in WRITING, which will
> make it mean something, as opposed to some wonk on the phone saying whatever
> he or she wants. As a named insured with two of their policies, I have every
> right to ask for that, and will do so.
>
> I will also post an EXACT copy of that WRITTEN policy here.
>
Make sure you say to the person you speak to, "hey - you're a 'wonk".
You are an asshole, Karl. Go back to the seventh grade and bully someone your own age.
Larry Weiss
FoxTrot2
remains. He is nothing more than a whiner, flamer and true asshole.
"Karl Denninger" <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> wrote in message
news:a72sc4$7jj$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> Oh, let me correct the record.
>
> Larry's exact phrase was:
>
> " I've really about
> had it with this group and its childish ways. "
>
> Of course calling someone seven names in one post doesn't qualify.
>
> Riiight.
>
> (My point stands)
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
>
> In article <a72rbk$6m9$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> Karl Denninger <ka...@FS.Denninger.Net> wrote:
> >Larry said, I believe:
> > "I don't call names"
> >
> >Ok, let's count them.
> >
> >
> >>idiot.
> >>asshole.
> >>
> >>asshole.
> >>asshole
> >>
> >>lazy
> >>
> >>unmitigated asshole
> >>
> >>You are an asshole
> >>
> >>Larry Weiss
> >
> >Let's see....
> >
> >One... two... three... four... five... six... seven!
> >
> >Wow, that's pretty good for someone who "doesn't call names."
> >
> >I'll just call you one name Larry:
> >
> > Hypocrite.
Boatbasin
>remains. He is nothing more than a whiner, flamer and true asshole.
And also a hell of a nice guy that has shared tons of good info with this group
for many years.
I am trying to think of a single shred of good info or advise that I have
gleaned from you in this forum. I can't think of any.
Mark
FoxTrot2
"Boatbasin" <boat...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20020318074336...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Ditto.
FoxTrot2
> nospam,
>
> Since you wandered into this newsgroup shortly after this
> Xmas, you have contributed only one thread including the word "boat"
> that was actually about boats.
>
> Hiding behind your fake address, you have taken pot-shots at
> people on nearly every thread you have posted to. You have taken every
> chance imaginable to belittle others (even on the above thread), call
> other people names, brag about winning the war of northern aggression,
> and spout off-topic opinion.
>
> "Yeah, what he said", is not a valid response . If you don't
> have anything constructive to offer on your own, how about just
> sitting quietly in front of your computer and try to learn from other
> people that actually DO know something and have something positive to
> offer.
Actually Eugene, I was here before Christmas.
As far as off topic political posts, you seem to be a pro at that. Or have
you forgotten?
As far as boating contributions go, I can't seem to find anything worthwhile
you ever contributed.
I disagree with you when you post an asinine comment and you throw a hissy
fit.
As far as whining goes, you take the cake.
Was it tough growing up with a name like Eugene? I would think so.
Later.
FoxTrot2
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:17:14 GMT, "FoxTrot2" <m...@nospam.net>
> pontificated:
>
>
> # Actually Eugene, I was here before Christmas.
> #
> Dejanews says otherwise, unless, of course, you used a different
> alias.
> reference:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_oq=Foxtrot2&as_uauthors=m...@nospam.net&as_
drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=28&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2001&n
um=100&hl=en
>
> # As far as off topic political posts, you seem to be a pro at that.
> Or have
> # you forgotten?
> #
> I think my ratio of signal to noise is magnitudes better than yours.
> The archives will prove me correct.
The point is you post a good number of off topic tirades. Don't complain
when others post OT.
Got it?
>
> # As far as boating contributions go, I can't seem to find anything
> worthwhile
> # you ever contributed.
> #
> Only because you choose to think so. If you aren't interested in what
> I post, let it go and don't post acerbic, whiny, pouting, little snide
> remarks that don't add to the discussion.
Actually, I cannot find anything useful you have contributed to this NG. I
can, however, find a number of whiny, pouting and OT posts of yours. But
that is to be expected from a priss named Eugene.
>
> # I disagree with you when you post an asinine comment and you throw a
> hissy
> # fit.
> #
> Again, your opinion of what is asinine and what is not. As far as I
> know, you have not been appointed to the "rec.boats assinine comment"
> police and enforcement unit. Again, ignore posts that you don't agree
> with and pass on the urge to whine, if you don't have anything
> positive to offer.
Ditto. Got it?
> Additionally, I'd like to see a repost of my hissy
> fit, that is, if it exists?
Obviously too difficult for you to comprehend. I will pass Eugene. LOL.
>
> # As far as whining goes, you take the cake.
> #
> I have accurately described your posting history and given references
> for same. If that is whining, so be it.
Yes, it is whining.
>
> # Was it tough growing up with a name like Eugene? I would think so.
> #
> Actually, it wasn't at all. I'm kinda proud of the name.
Ouch! Sort of on par with Francis and Deborah. I would not even name my
cat Eugene.
> I don't
> feel compelled to hide my real name, either. Are you so ashamed of
> your real name or are you hiding your identity for some other reason?
> Hmmmmmm?
Actually only fools post their real names and email addresses in NG's or
internet forums. You are one of them.
Posting your real name and email address does not make your post any more
valid than one who wisely chooses to remain anonymous. The anonymous
person, however, will not receive the spam you do nor threaten his safety or
security when crazies like you come unglued.
Ask Harry. He claims that a nut like you went after him.
>
> Since you haven't responded with anything on topic, accurate, or
> substantive enough to respond to, you can consider this thread(with
> me) over. Conversation with you is a waste of bandwidth and my time.
> End of conversation.
Gee Eugene (thank God I did not have to grow up with a sissy name like
that), I did not find anything you posted on topic or otherwise informative
either, so I guess it is a draw.
Goodnight Eugene (LMAO!).
Harry Krause
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Today I got ahold of the Director of Underwriting from Boat/US's insurance
> program and we had a LONG talk.
>
> The upshot of the conversation was this:
>
Karl has nothing to do all day long but harass people. And he didn't get
it in writing, despite his admonitions to do so.
--
Harry Krause
- -
This is known as the carrot-and-stick policy: for the rich, the carrot;
for the poor, the stick. - Lane Kirkland
RGrew176
1. There is no unwritten policy of denying coverage for persons who
occasionally operate the boat, with your permission, and who are under 18.
2. There IS an underwriting process for any "regular" operators. The specific
example, of a daughter turning 14 and getting a boater card (allowing her to
operate a boat), and being listed, MAY - MAY - trigger the "youthful operator"
endorsement. The various conditional issues include where you are, where the
boat will be operated, the type of boat and the individual. In some parts of
the country the endorsement is an almost-given, while in others it is not. (In
my part of the world it is not, but that's a matter of traffic density and
claims history I suspect)
3. The endorsement that got "magically added" to my Pursuit policy has been
removed. Jim stated that Brian misunderstood my query in adding it. I'll take
that at face value, since it has been removed (and he is also confirming that
in writing.)
4. If I permit someone to operate a boat of mine that they are legally entitled
to operate in my state on an occasional basis, coverage is good. Period.
I still believe that the underwriters need to have some education on this
issue, and not to issue blanket statements such as this (and particularly, not
to add riders to someone's policy without clearly understanding whether the
situation applies or not!) This entire episode should not have occurred -
jumping the gun leads to misunderstandings like this, and being overly eager to
find an exclusion is and remains an issue.
I hope that Boat/US undertakes to clarify their underwriting procedures and the
issuance of various endorsements on policies to avoid these kinds of
misunderstandings in the future. As things stand today, my insurance will be
remaining with Boat/US.
Don't know if this will help or add to the confusion.
27 days to go..
Wayne B
with all due respect, I believe you owe Larry a public apology.
Basically you have documented that what Larry reported is very likely
to have taken place, and that BOAT US gives inconsistent and arbitrary
information to people on the telephone. Since Larry boats out of
Oyster Bay on Long Island Sound, which qualifies as a high density,
high traffic area by anyones definition, BOAT US would almost
certainly invoke their most restrictive policies.
My personal experience with BOAT US insurance is that they DO sprinkle
various exclusionary language throughout their policies, and that they
WILL be quick to invoke and interpret those exclusions to their
advantage in the event of a major loss. Not exactly what you want to
hear as an owner when you've just incurred a loss on what you thought
was an "all risk" policy.
============================================================
On 20 Mar 2002 01:02:49 GMT, ka...@FS.Denninger.Net (Karl Denninger)
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>Today I got ahold of the Director of Underwriting from Boat/US's insurance
>program and we had a LONG talk.
>
>The upshot of the conversation was this:
>
>1. Boat/US does NOT "automatically require" a driver license. They DO
> expect that the PRIMARY insured have one unless there is a good
> reason why not, and they believe that there is a correlation between
> a good driving record and a good marine insurance risk. I may
> disagree, but its their decision (and their right to make it)
>
>2. Boat/US DOES NOT automatically disqualify you if you have a regular
> user (say, your daughter) who is legally able to operate the boat
> alone but not licensed as a driver (say, because she is too young.)
>
> They MAY insert an endorsement in your policy though. You won't
> like it if they do; it makes the hull deductable 50% and cuts the
> liability coverage to $25,000 while a "youthful" (defined as under
> 18!) operator is at the helm, if you are not aboard!
>
> THAT is a problem, but its NOT automatic. It depends on:
>
> 1. The boat.
> 2. Where you are.
> 3. Who the youthful operator is.
> 4. The area of operation of the boat while the youthful operator
> will be in command.
>
> We talked SPECIFICALLY about my small boat, a 22 foot fishing cuddy
> with a single outboard. He said that if my daughter were to turn 14
> and get her boating safety card, making her a legal operator, and I
> wanted to list her, it MIGHT trigger the "youthful operator"
> endorsement. Or it might not. He DID say that at 16 it almost
> CERTAINLY would not, but that it MIGHT not even before then,
> depending on where she intended to use the boat and any experience
> that could be cited to that point (in my particular case she'll have
> close to a decade's worth of "sea experience" by the time she can
> legally get that certificate - which would, I assume, bode well)
>
> We also talked about the fact that in some areas of the country,
> where traffic levels and congestion are high, such a rider on a
> youthful operator might be close to automatic. Essentially, higher
> risk overall, and particularly relavent to a youthful operator since
> they are, by definition, less mature as a group.
>
> Regardless, if I OCCASIONALLY (but not regularly) allowed her to
> take the boat out (say, as a "surprise" for her birthday) it would
> NOT trigger any problems or endorsements.
>
> (We also spoke specifically of the possibility of her having her OWN
> boat, say, a small whaler with an outboard. He thought that would
> likely be insurable with reasonable limits as well, but of course
> the particulars would control once again.)
>
>3. For a CASUAL user (no matter who it may be), but not a REGULAR
> operator, YOU ARE COVERED AND JUST FINE with Boat/US. Their
> OFFICIAL STANCE is that their insurance is PERMISSIVE USE. That is,
> provided you have given the user permission AND they are legally
> able to operate the craft (that is, they have the appropriate
> boating safety certification if state law requires) your insurance
> is valid with them.
>
>4. The boundary between CASUAL and REGULAR OPERATOR is potentially
> fuzzy. However, and this is key, someone living in your home is NOT
> necessarily a "regular operator". The issue is intent and actual
> pattern of use. I posited SEVERAL "what ifs" that are from ACTUAL
> situations with my friends and associates who spend time around
> here, and NONE of them triggered Jim's read of a "regular operator"
> nor the endorsement. They're all documented now with Boat/US as
> well, so no claim that they haven't been informed down the road
> can be made either!
>
>5. There IS a class of vessel (high performance boats and PWCs) that
> have more stringent, non-permissive use requirements. If your
> vessel falls into this category operators must be listed and/or
> you (the primary listed operator) must be on board. There are
> a whole host of endorsements related to these kinds of craft; I
> didn't explore them significantly, since there was no reason to
> (I didn't personally care about insurance on an 80mph Cigarette-style
> boat.)
>
>However, I understand where Larry got HIS information from. The FIRST guy
>I talked with, one of their underwriters, said something even MORE
>outrageous than what Larry reported - that ANY operator under 18 would
>trigger their "youthful" provision, making your hull deductable 50% and
>your liability coverage $25k (for all intents and purposes void!)
>
>Further, HE said that Boat/US considered this STANDARD POLICY and if they
>discovered you MIGHT have such an operator they would slap you with the
>endorsement. He followed up that threat by putting that endorsement on
>my policy while I was on the phone since I asked the question!
>
>Jim Nolan, their director of underwriting, set the record straight. He
>also said that Brian (the original underwriter I talked with) was "mistaken"
>about the contents of our conversation. I dispute that, but am willing to
>accept that (1) they have dropped the rider on my policy, even though it
>would be of no effect to me at the present time and (2) have stated that
>their policy is as above.
>
>Jim has promised to send both of these items in writing. I assume he will
>follow up as promised. Since he is the one in charge of such things, I also
>assume his word as to what their policy actually happens to be is good on
>this.
>
>I consider the issue closed; Larry is wrong about the general case, but may
>be right about his SPECIFIC case due to either his loss history, his
>cruising and operation area, or the specifics of his attempted addition of
>his daughter as a "regular operator" (that is, the specifics of the boat,
>her, and/or something about the two in conjunction with each other)
>
>The only part of Larry's rant that is correct is that IF you do not have a
>driver license you will face increased scrutiny from the underwriters.
>However, it is NOT an automatic disqualification.
>
>Anyone who wants to confirm all of this can call Jim Nolan; he is the
>director of underwriting at Boat/US.
>
>- --
Wayne B
wrote:
>I don't owe Larry anything.
>
Putting aside the incivility issue for a moment, I thought you were
pretty rough on him, especially in view of the subsequent facts which
have emerged.
>Larry stated that it was the policy of the company to ALWAYS deny insurance
>to ANYONE under ANY circumstances who had an non-licensed driver operating
>the boat, ever, even once.
>
It seems entirely possible to me that if Larry got the wrong
underwriter on the phone that they may have left him with exactly that
impression.
>The first underwriter I got didn't try to go that route. He instead invoked
>a rider he claimed they would attach that would reduce loss limits for
>liability and impose a 50% deductable for the hull.
>
>That is NOT denying all coverage or cancelling your policy (in some ways its
>potentially worse, but in others its better!)
>
Everything I've heard so far leads me to believe that inconsistent
and/or inaccurate information is being given out.
>At no time did I hear them threaten to cancel the policy or flatly deny all
>coverage. At NO time.
>
>Larry's claim that this was their position, in all cases, without exception
>was false.
That may have been what he was told however.
>
>Now where there IS (at least as of yesterday) an issue, apparently, is a
>disconnect between the actual underwriting rules and the agent's view of
>them. What Brian Yeager (who I spoke to originally) and Jim Nolan, who is
>at the director level (and thus authorized to bind the corporation) related
>are two very, very different things.
>
>In fact, when I told Brian that I intended to post his view of things on
>Boat/US's web site he *ENCOURAGED ME TO DO SO*, saying that HE felt that the
>company was being less than forthright about the rules in this area!
>
>That truly surprised me; to hear something like that is, well, extraordinary.
>
Yes it is, and it certainly reinforces my view that Larry did us a
service by bringing our attention to this mess.
>Brian's position made no sense. Out of many thousands of policies if they
>had actually tried to cobb someone after a loss on the basis of what Brian
>said was their policy they (1) wouldn't have gotten away with it, and (2)
>would have immediately sent out an amendment to all their other insureds so
>that they couldn't be stuck with an unacceptable loss more than once.
>
>Since neither has taken place, it was clear that either Brian misunderstood
>the rules or that somehow we were talking past each other.
>
Imagine how you'd feel if you got this kind of double speak while
getting a claim processed. In theory and practice you can litigate
these claim issues, but the wasted time, aggravation and expense is
not what you want from an insurance policy.
>But, instead of just screaming and cancelling my policy, I posted to Boat/US's
>discussion group (as I told Brian I was going to, and as he ENCOURAGED me to
>do) AND, after Jim identified himself in a reply on that forum, I called him
>and we talked about the issue.
>
>Boat/US's insurance folks appear to need some additional consistency in
>their view of the world and their policy.
>
Too say the least.
>However, their ACTUAL policies are nowhere near what Larry related, and in
>fact, they appear to be just fine.
>
If memory serves, Larry was quoting what he'd been told on the phone.
>You say that Boat/US "will" try to evade payment on a major loss in ways
>that are borderline or worse. I'd like to see some documentation of that
>claim - that's a pretty serious indictment of their insurance program.
That's not what I said. What I said is requoted below:
"My personal experience with BOAT US insurance is that they DO
sprinkle various exclusionary language throughout their policies, and
that they WILL be quick to invoke and interpret those exclusions to
their advantage in the event of a major loss. "
Here's an example. My former policy contained a phrase which excluded
losses resulting from "corrosion or faulty maintenance." Seems half
way reasonable on the surface but think about the implications. I
experienced a dismasting under that policy. Upon being verbally
notified of the loss, BOAT US immediately sent me an official letter
informing me of the "corrosion and faulty maintenance" clause and
warning me that my loss would likely not be covered as a result. All
this before any official claim being filed, or explanation of
circumstances. The claim was eventually settled fairly but not
without considerable delay since I felt obligated to retain legal
counsel after receiving the letter.
>
>The people I know who have suffered a loss with their insurance in force
>(a couple) have been treated well and promptly so. I also know a surveyor
>who does a fair amount of work for them on adjusting claims and he feels
>that they are one of the few companies that does NOT pull that kind of crap
>in the event of a loss....
>
>YMMV, of course, but as things stand right now I don't see where the "fire"
>is that Larry originally "reported."
>
This is largely a matter of opinion regarding what constitutes a
"fire." Given the official smoke that has emerged after a little
probing I think you have to admit there are serious issues here, and
I'm grateful to Larry (and you) for bringing them to our attention.
You may disagree with Larry's style of delivery but he was certainly
correct that there are issues of concern that we should be aware of,
and questioning.
And then there's that nagging incivility thing that makes this group
what it is, for better or worse...
Mostly worse.
>- --
Boatbasin
>that are borderline or worse. I'd like to see some documentation of that
>claim - that's a pretty serious indictment of their insurance program.
>
Karl, If you want documentation of this, I have plenty of it for you.
They used a bogus surveyors report, one where he used his x-ray vision to look
through a engine block to determine one of a dozen possible scenerios, the one
that allowed Boat/US to not pay a claim, was the cause of an engine failure and
fire. They sent an immediate, and unconditional denial letter. The adjuster
in Florida, Tammy Buriak, was rude and unyeilding in her steadfast claim that
Boat/US would never pay. She was belligerent and accusatory in her
conversation. Of course I want to higher levels, When they found out I was a
marina operator and have for many years been a Boat/US participating Marina,
and that I was going to post a huge sign with the details, and instead of
giving a discount to arriving boat/US customers, I would give them a earful of
what I thought about Boat US, they sent out a new surveyor. The second
surveyor (from Boat/US) aggreed that there was no way for the first surveyor to
make any determination as to the cause of the fire without a full mechanical
breakdown, and that Boat/US certainly might be responsible for paying. Needless
to say, the claim was reopened and is now waiting on the manufacturers final
determination. I will never insure with Boat/US again, and probably will not
give any more Boat/US discounts. All it takes is one experience with a Tammy
Buriak and you too might feel the same way.
Mark
Larry Weiss
Boat/US underwriters, one last July, and one this past week. Both times I was
clearly given the same information that I accurately related in this thread. Now
you have had a conversation with them, and you have posted the information you
derived from them, and yet still accuse me of making it all up because your
experience, while still turning up equally disturbing problems along the same
lines, is different?
I have several points to make about this:
POINT 1: THE DISCREPANCY. Since I absolutely guarantee that my post was a
completely accurate representation of two separate conversations I had with
Boat/US personnel, and you represent your post to be an accurate representation of
your conversation with Boat/US personnel, readers can assume only one of three
possible conclusions as a result of our combined experiences:
(a) Boat/US has different underwriting rules based on different geographic
areas (or even some other un-named criteria). I am in New York. You are out
there somewhere else (Chicago? Wherever). Perhaps one of us, or someone else,
should ask them if this is the case. Or...
(b) As you so indicated, Boat/US personnel and underwriters do not have their
act together - one hand has no idea what the other hand is doing (a "disconnect"
as you put it), and few if any have any clarity at all about the nuances of the
insurance policies they write. Or ...
(c) One of if us is completely full of shit. Since I know my representations
are accurate, I can easily take the same stance against you that you have taken
against me in this thread: I can easily accuse you of making all this up and being
on some crusade of your own, or whatever it was you accused me of. But I won't.
I will discount possibility (c) in the name of civility if not absurdity.
Possibilities (a) or (b) are highly likely. I recommend that everyone reading
this call Boat/US on the matter, and post your findings here. It will be
interesting to see how many different responses show up.
Meanwhile, I stand by my original post, as well as the references I posted as per
your rude request, because my posts accurately represent what I was told by
Boat/US. My original post, which merely warns rec.boaters to be aware, reads as
follows:
"Be aware of a little known and quite retarded clause in Boat/US
insurance: allowing someone to operate your boat who does not have a
valid automobile drivers license will void your insurance. They will not
pay a claim if an accident occurs under this circumstance. Good reason to
stay away from Boat/US if you have kids who don't drive yet, or if anyone
else without a drivers license may operate your boat. And its one more
thing to check before you buy a policy with anyone else."
Now that I have read your experience (assuming it is believable, which I do), I
still wouldn't change a single word of my post save for one: I would change the
word "will" to "may". (all right, perhaps I should also change the word "clause"
to "internal Boat/US directive", not that it changes the issue).
In my opinion, for the average recreation boater, who is boating for fun and
relaxation and not for hassles, my change(s) should not diminish anyone's cause
for concern. Indeed, it should heighten concern, because the potential for real
problems is increased now that their rules have been shown to be more ambiguous.
POINT 2: "THE FINAL WORD"????? Who the hell made you the official rec.boats
judge and jury. So you had a conversation with Boat/US and posted the results.
Big Deal! So did I. That those results were different does not make either you
or me wrong. It makes Boat/US wrong. I resent your harsh and childish
accusations that I fabricated all of this. Your finger and everybody else's
should be pointed at the real culprit: Boat/US.
POINT 3: THE APOLOGY: As others have pointed out, you do indeed owe me an
apology. Not for being right or being wrong (I don't really care who the hell is
right or wrong at this point), but for the uncivil, boorish, immature and
narcissistic tone in your viscous posts, and the false, misleading and derogatory
accusations you have made toward me. You owe me an apology for continually
twisting my words to make your flimsy points. You owe me an apology for the
derogatory way you portrayed my name in the message headers, despite my requests
not to. You owe me an apology for immediately pointing a finger my way, instead
of considering the possibility that what I posted may have had validity. You owe
me, and everyone in this newsgroup, an apology for your intense disrespect in what
should have been a mature intellectual discussion that you took downhill fast.
You owe everyone an apology because it is mannerisms such as yours that bring the
level of communication here and across the Internet down to the gutter.
And I owe you and everyone an apology because one of my responses to you went just
as low, and it is bothering me that I actually pressed the "send" button on that
one.
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."
Karl Denninger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I don't owe Larry anything.
>
> Larry stated that it was the policy of the company to ALWAYS deny insurance
> to ANYONE under ANY circumstances who had an non-licensed driver operating
> the boat, ever, even once.
>
> The first underwriter I got didn't try to go that route. He instead invoked
> a rider he claimed they would attach that would reduce loss limits for
> liability and impose a 50% deductable for the hull.
>
> That is NOT denying all coverage or cancelling your policy (in some ways its
> potentially worse, but in others its better!)
>
> At no time did I hear them threaten to cancel the policy or flatly deny all
> coverage. At NO time.
>
> Larry's claim that this was their position, in all cases, without exception
> was false.
>
> Now where there IS (at least as of yesterday) an issue, apparently, is a
> disconnect between the actual underwriting rules and the agent's view of
> them. What Brian Yeager (who I spoke to originally) and Jim Nolan, who is
> at the director level (and thus authorized to bind the corporation) related
> are two very, very different things.
>
> In fact, when I told Brian that I intended to post his view of things on
> Boat/US's web site he *ENCOURAGED ME TO DO SO*, saying that HE felt that the
> company was being less than forthright about the rules in this area!
>
> That truly surprised me; to hear something like that is, well, extraordinary.
>
> Brian's position made no sense. Out of many thousands of policies if they
> had actually tried to cobb someone after a loss on the basis of what Brian
> said was their policy they (1) wouldn't have gotten away with it, and (2)
> would have immediately sent out an amendment to all their other insureds so
> that they couldn't be stuck with an unacceptable loss more than once.
>
> Since neither has taken place, it was clear that either Brian misunderstood
> the rules or that somehow we were talking past each other.
>
> But, instead of just screaming and cancelling my policy, I posted to Boat/US's
> discussion group (as I told Brian I was going to, and as he ENCOURAGED me to
> do) AND, after Jim identified himself in a reply on that forum, I called him
> and we talked about the issue.
>
> Boat/US's insurance folks appear to need some additional consistency in
> their view of the world and their policy.
>
> However, their ACTUAL policies are nowhere near what Larry related, and in
> fact, they appear to be just fine.
>
> You say that Boat/US "will" try to evade payment on a major loss in ways
> that are borderline or worse. I'd like to see some documentation of that
> claim - that's a pretty serious indictment of their insurance program.
>
> The people I know who have suffered a loss with their insurance in force
> (a couple) have been treated well and promptly so. I also know a surveyor
> who does a fair amount of work for them on adjusting claims and he feels
> that they are one of the few companies that does NOT pull that kind of crap
> in the event of a loss....
>
> YMMV, of course, but as things stand right now I don't see where the "fire"
> is that Larry originally "reported."
>
> - --
> - --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
>
> In article <mfuf9u08gbvm4qq9d...@4ax.com>,
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQA/AwUBPJf0h5grbGiC8CqTEQI/CwCfcVJy6IVGlGDa/zhQ27YZ9GmZsWIAnAhm
> c6NTz7NRQ8D0hhIFOR91Rao+
> =wyOP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Larry Weiss
Anyone masochistic enough to have followed this thread already knows what I am about
and what my intentions are and were. I don't have to explain myself to the likes of
you. I don't know why I even tried. You are just an overgrown bully who obviously
must still be suffering from some old dysfuntional family childhood abuse problems. Go
get yourself a good therapist and work your pent-up anger out there. Not here.
Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."
Karl Denninger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <3C98E99A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Larry Weiss <lil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Now hang on just a minute here, Karl. I had two separate telephone exchanges with
> >Boat/US underwriters, one last July, and one this past week. Both times I was
> >clearly given the same information that I accurately related in this thread. Now
> >you have had a conversation with them, and you have posted the information you
> >derived from them, and yet still accuse me of making it all up because your
> >experience, while still turning up equally disturbing problems along the same
> >lines, is different?
>
> I didn't accuse you of "making it up".
>
> Well, ok, except for the part about them enforcing an UNWRITTEN part of
> their policy (which they cannot do, as a matter of both state and federal
> law)
>
> >I have several points to make about this:
> >
> >POINT 1: THE DISCREPANCY. Since I absolutely guarantee that my post was a
> >completely accurate representation of two separate conversations I had with
> >Boat/US personnel, and you represent your post to be an accurate representation of
> >your conversation with Boat/US personnel, readers can assume only one of three
> >possible conclusions as a result of our combined experiences:
> >
> > (a) Boat/US has different underwriting rules based on different geographic
> >areas (or even some other un-named criteria). I am in New York. You are out
> >there somewhere else (Chicago? Wherever). Perhaps one of us, or someone else,
> >should ask them if this is the case. Or...
>
> Of course they do. ALL insurance companies do. Your car insurance, for
> example, is based in no small part on your geographic area. It has a massive
> effect on risk.
>
> YOU are the one who made the original blanket statement Larry.
>
> > (b) As you so indicated, Boat/US personnel and underwriters do not have their
> >act together - one hand has no idea what the other hand is doing (a "disconnect"
> >as you put it), and few if any have any clarity at all about the nuances of the
> >insurance policies they write. Or ...
>
> Entirely possible. As I said, I had to go over the underwriter's head to
> get to the bottom line. But even that is wildly different than a "hidden
> policy of denying coverage".
>
> >"Be aware of a little known and quite retarded clause in Boat/US
> >insurance: allowing someone to operate your boat who does not have a
> >valid automobile drivers license will void your insurance. They will not
> >pay a claim if an accident occurs under this circumstance.
>
> This is the part that is false.
>
> Nowhere in any of their policy documents is such a statement made. Further,
> Jim Nolan has said that this is absolute, utter bullshit - and he is putting
> this in writing and sending it to me.
>
> He is a director of the company and is thus authorized to bind the firm.
>
> You have admitted that no such statement is made anywhere in their policy
> documents.
>
> Second, Boat/US's insurance is "permissive use" insurance. While there may
> be an issue with a "regular operator" - someone who is effectively a named
> insured - there is NOT with allowing someone to operate your boat on an
> occasional basis.
>
> > Good reason to
> >stay away from Boat/US if you have kids who don't drive yet, or if anyone
> >else without a drivers license may operate your boat. And its one more
> >thing to check before you buy a policy with anyone else."
>
> Again false.
>
> >Now that I have read your experience (assuming it is believable, which I do), I
> >still wouldn't change a single word of my post save for one: I would change the
> >word "will" to "may". (all right, perhaps I should also change the word "clause"
> >to "internal Boat/US directive", not that it changes the issue).
>
> No "internal directive" exists according to Jim Nolan.
>
> Why don't YOU call HIM!
>
> I did Larry.
>
> Why don't YOU have the conversation I had with him? Why don't you follow
> this up? Why didn't you with someone in management when you first "learned"
> of this? Why, rather than slamming them here, did you not follow this up
> the chain of command until you found someone with the authority to bind the
> company to a given policy, rather than someone who is a clerk and might be
> wrong?
>
> WHY Larry?
>
> >or me wrong. It makes Boat/US wrong. I resent your harsh and childish
> >accusations that I fabricated all of this. Your finger and everybody else's
> >should be pointed at the real culprit: Boat/US.
>
> I didn't say you fabricated your understanding. You obviously have it.
>
> What I said was that your understand was (and is) bullshit. A fact that I
> have now confirmed with someone with the authority to bind the firm.
>
> And, by the way, I ripped Mr. Nolan a new behind on the fact that his
> underwriter(s) were either misinformed or not following company policy.
> Call and ask him. He'll remember me, I'm quite sure - he spent the better
> part of an hour on the phone with me.
>
> >POINT 3: THE APOLOGY: As others have pointed out, you do indeed owe me an
> >apology.
>
> I don't owe you shit.
>
> You, in fact, owe Boat/US an apology.
>
> Specifically, for posting your tripe without following up the chain of
> command something that was implausible (and turned out to be wrong).
>
> Instead, you took a cheap shot at the company - and one that turned out to
> be based on bad information.
>
> I used to run into people like you all the time Larry. People who would
> take the statements that someone made, without verification, and either
> through misunderstanding (on one of their parts) or with malice aforethought
> and twisting of their words turn around and blast my company based on
> something completely different than what the policy of the company WAS.
>
> The irony was that it was usually someone who had just tried to rip us off
> by, for example, getting an account, cancelling under the 14-day "risk free"
> period, then getting ANOTHER ONE and trying it again, despite the WRITTEN
> policy that they signed, directly above their signature, that the "risk
> free" policy was available only once to a given person or family. When the
> computer caught them in their attempted theft they'd then call our agents
> all kinds of names, claiming we were trying to "steal" from them. Of course
> the truth was that they just got caught trying to steal from us!
>
> Or, similarly, someone who thought that we, as an ISP, ought to carry child
> pornography and stolen software on Usenet for their enjoyment - and got
> upset when they found out (despite the VERY clear disclosure in those same
> membership documents) that we did not.
>
> Or, similarly, someone who, despite our sending them a notice that their
> credit card was declined, would do nothing about it, then two weeks later
> their account would go off. They'd call screaming and yelling, demanding
> that we turn it back on - without receiving payment, of course. Of course
> it was our fault - never mind that we had notified them by WRITTEN NOTICE
> in the mail. More often than not they'd admit, after they got done yelling
> at one of my agents (or me personally) that they had either trashed the notice
> unopened or, in more than a few cases, it was still sitting, unopened, on
> their kitchen counter!
>
> A big part of why I got out of the business and now spend my time fishing
> and raising my kid is people like you Larry. People JUST like you. I lost
> count of the number of people who utterly refused to verify anything, who
> refused (in many cases) to bother to read, and who then called someone else
> names when it was discovered that the misunderstanding was at LEAST
> partially their fault.
>
> Go ahead Larry, call Jim. You know the number.
>
> You dared me to call them. I did.
>
> You didn't like the results. Oh well.
>
> Will you be man enough to call Jim and, when you're done, post the results
> of THAT conversation?
>
> Or will you continue to sit here, sniveling and demanding apologies for what
> is increasingly looking like YOUR mistake - even if the entire gist of that
> mistake is your failure to verify what you were told with someone who
> actually has authority over there?
>
> - --
> - --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQA/AwUBPJjLM5grbGiC8CqTEQJbRwCgxFssniN95dfVitNdNFkPyB8LiR4AoNyD
> 28mf165hkHuF4w8J3sIpc+vJ
> =M0PJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FoxTrot2
> Oh, stop it already and grow up. Jerk.
>
> Anyone masochistic enough to have followed this thread already knows what
I am about
> and what my intentions are and were. I don't have to explain myself to
the likes of
> you. I don't know why I even tried. You are just an overgrown bully who
obviously
> must still be suffering from some old dysfuntional family childhood abuse
problems. Go
> get yourself a good therapist and work your pent-up anger out there. Not
here.
>
> Larry Weiss
> "...Ever After!"
> "a little after..."
Someone corrects your inaccurate and slanderous post and you whine. You
then threaten to take your bat and ball and run home to Mommy. Then you
decide to stay but whine some more.
Leave already like you promised.
Larry Weiss
FoxTrot2
"Larry Weiss" <lil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
"I never realized you, Karl, were such an asshole. I've really about
had it with this group and its childish ways. You can hang out here and
enjoy Mr. Foxtrots company. I'm outa
here folks."
Can't keep your promises asshole?
Harry Krause
>
> A big part of why I got out of the business and now spend my time fishing
> and raising my kid is people like you Larry.
Now *there* is a scary thought...Karl Derringer raising a little girl
without benefit of a responsible, adult woman in the household.
--
Harry Krause
- -
It's no secret that George W. Bush hates campaign finance reform. And he
hasn't exactly been making a big secret of the fact that he is opposed.
And yet, as CFR passed the House of Representatives last week and
passage in the Senate seemed inevitable, Ari Fleischer comes up with
this whopper: "If campaign finance reform is enacted into law, I believe
that you can thank President George W. Bush, because he changed the
dynamic of how this phony debate has finally ended in Washington, D.C."
I guess in a way, Ari was telling the truth. Bush "changed the dynamic"
of the debate by getting so far into bed with Enron that Congress
realized they would actually have to do something about it. Of course,
giving Bush credit for this would be kind of like giving Osama credit
for improving airport security...
Harry Krause
> Oh, stop it already and grow up. Jerk.
>
> Anyone masochistic enough to have followed this thread already knows what I am about
> and what my intentions are and were. I don't have to explain myself to the likes of
> you. I don't know why I even tried. You are just an overgrown bully who obviously
> must still be suffering from some old dysfuntional family childhood abuse problems. Go
> get yourself a good therapist and work your pent-up anger out there. Not here.
>
> Larry Weiss
> "...Ever After!"
> "a little after..."
>
>
>
Karl indeed is unique character who suffers from excessive rigidity and
a Napoleonic personality that he believes bestows him with high moral
honor. In fact, he's just a little man. Read one of his anti-woman,
anti-child support web pages and you'll get great insight into Karl.
--
Harry Krause
- -
Trade unions are the mouthpiece for the struggle of social justice. -
Pope John Paul II
Larry Weiss
> Can't keep your promises asshole?
Changed my mind. I don't want to miss out on all the fun.
Harry Krause
> Who the hell cares? Go somewhere else if you don't like BOAT/US's
> insurance deal. There's gazillions of others.
>
> Let the buyer beware.
>
> PS: Nobody cares about this new obsession with PGP. Nothing said in
> this ng is important enough for "signing".
>
> My $.02.
>
>
Karl does...whenever someone gets his goat, he starts "signing" his
posts with PGP, as if anyone gives a damn. I guess he wants us all to
know his posts are "authentic" Karl. But you don't need a weatherman to
know which way his wind blows.
--
Harry Krause
- -
Larry Weiss
Karl Denninger wrote:
> You don't have to do anything Larry.
>
> You're correct.
>
> But, and this is the other side of that point - you have no standing to tell
> me what to do in this regard either.
>
> I don't give a damn what you think of me.
>
> This isn't about you. This is about a report you posted here about a
> company that, as far as I can determine, is flatly false.
>
> I do not deny that it is probable that they denied YOU coverage for YOUR
> daughter in YOUR specific circumstance with her as a named, regular
> operator. They very well might have done so.
>
> But there is no "hidden" term in their policy that ANY operation by an
> unlicensed person will void your coverage.
>
> You have failed to produce any evidence of this, even my conversations with
> the original underwriter (who appears to have been mistaken as to their
> actual polciy) never mentioned any such thing, and in fact that underwriter
> CATEGORICALLY DENIED that any such policy on the part of Boat/US exists - or
> ever did.
>
> Now what he DID tell me was at odds with what I thought was REASONABLE (even
> though it was not "hidden"), which is why I went over HIS head to Jim Nolan
> and sought clarification.
>
> Something that, by the way, you apparently never bothered to do.
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
>
> In article <3C9933F2...@ix.netcom.com>,
del cecchi
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To interject a question from a polite bystander (all you guys seem to be
getting pretty wound up over a pretty dry subject) Do they define
"regular operator" in the policy anywhere? When I had teenage kids
living at home they had to be named insured on ONE of the cars in order
to be covered at all.
It seems they must define it somewhere, what is the definition. It
seems that is mostly what this is about.
del (the peaceful poster) cecchi
Dave Hall
>
> In article <RZbm8.377$si2....@eagle.america.net>,
>
> But clearly, if you regularly permit those teenage kids to use the boat,
> they would be a 'regular operator' and would have to be declared.
>
> There is a matter of a judgement call there, which is not too cool, and which
> I noted in my conversation with them (and reported here.) On the other hand
> this is somewhat different than teen drivers who, if they have a driver
> LICENSE are pretty much presumed to be operating SOME car on a fairly
> regular basis in today's world.
>
> This is not necessarily true for watercraft.
>
> The salient point, Del, is that even THAT (listing a teen operator) is not
> even an automatic disqualifier. It all depends on the specifics of the
> situation - what is the boat, where is it being used, who is the operator,
> your claims history, etc etc etc. There were two specifics that I posited
> to Jim Nolan, both involving a hypothetical daughter who turns 14, has her
> safe boating card, is legal to operate and has significant on-water
> experience under her belt (driving with me legally "in command" for a
> few years prior), my claims record and their underwriting experience with me.
> The two examples I posited were a boat they currently insure, a 22' Pursuit,
> and a mythical (at least for now) 15' whaler with a small outboard that I
> purchase for her birthday.
>
> In those specific situations Jim did not believe, given my circumstances
> TODAY, that listing her in either event would trigger the youthful endorsement
> OR a denial of coverage. Of course their mileage (and mine) might vary
> at the time that hypothetical situation became an ACTUAL situation, as
> my claims and operating history may be different then in relationship to
> what it is now, the area may have changed, etc.... But EVEN IF THEY DID
> disallow her as a regular operator, allowing her to use the boat as an
> OCCASIONAL, but not REGULAR, operator would not void coverage. The specific
> example I used was allowing her to take the boat for special occasions, say,
> her birthday or if she was to receive an academic award for the year (say,
> letting her take it for the day as a reward for maintaining a 4.0 GPA in
> school)
>
> In fact Jim told me that even if I was to let her take my BIG boat (an
> essentially inconceivable thing from my point of view) in such a
> situation I would still be covered (!)
I'm sure glad things were simpler in the '60s. My dad never had any
quams about letting me "pilot" his 29 footer at the ripe age of 9 while
he and my mother enjoyed the sun in the back cockpit. Back then people
didn't give much thought about liability or other insurance conditionals
and exclusions.
The thing that troubles me about this whole situation is that there
(IMHO deliberately) are certain vague clauses that can be subjectively
interpreted depending on circumstances. By deliberatly not establising
clear definitions and limits, they leave the door open to deny you
coverage depending on their mood at the time. The fact that they can
point to some vague clause as proof of their policy, would then require
a long and expensive litigation process in order for you to stand a
chance of overturning their decision.
Dave
Dave Hall
>
> Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> >
> > A big part of why I got out of the business and now spend my time fishing
> > and raising my kid is people like you Larry.
>
> Now *there* is a scary thought...Karl Derringer raising a little girl
> without benefit of a responsible, adult woman in the household.
And why is that? There are plenty of single mothers raising their kids.
Why shouldn't the same social courtesy be applied toward men?
Dave
FoxTrot2
"Dave Hall" <nojunkma...@worldlynx.net> wrote in message
news:3C99CE...@worldlynx.net...
Because Karl is a Republican. If he were a Democrat, he would be a friend
of Krause and you would not have seen that post from him.
Krause is clueless but harmless. Just ignore him.
Harry Krause
Oh, it should be. But to Krazy Karl? That little girl really needs a
responsible, adult woman to guide her.
--
Harry Krause
- -
Mon Feb 18 2002 - TOKYO - The yen dipped against the dollar Monday after
U.S. President George W. Bush said he had discussed devaluation with
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. White House officials quickly
said Bush had misspoken, and that he had meant to say the two leaders
had talked about deflation.
hkrause
>
> Do you not see the irony in this statement?
>
> "However, and this is important, what Jim Nolan told me is that under
> no circumstances does Boat/US insurance attempt to enforce "hidden" or
> "unwritten" policies after the fact",
>
> Your conversation had deteriorated(with Boat/US), at that
> point, to getting an unwanted(essentially retroactive) rider
> concerning "youthful operators" rescinded? The irony that it took the
> DIRECTOR OF UNDERWRITING to un-do this? How many products do you buy,
> essentially off the shelf, and have to work your way up to the
> director of marketing to get the right model, color, or size?
>
Most people would say anything to get Krazy Karl off their phone line.
Wayne B
[snip]
>
>The thing that troubles me about this whole situation is that there
>(IMHO deliberately) are certain vague clauses that can be subjectively
>interpreted depending on circumstances. By deliberatly not establising
>clear definitions and limits, they leave the door open to deny you
>coverage depending on their mood at the time. The fact that they can
>point to some vague clause as proof of their policy, would then require
>a long and expensive litigation process in order for you to stand a
>chance of overturning their decision.
Exactly right.
It occurred to me while digesting and indigesting some of the
implications, that it might be interesting to hear the view of the
marine finance industry since they are a silent partner in much of
this. After all, it's their collateral at risk in many cases. Could
they be expected to jump in and help litigate a disputed insurance
claim, and is there a possibility than the insurance underwriters
might be less likely to dispute a claim knowing here is a loan holder
as co-payee?
Anybody have any experience here?
Dave Hall
I realize that. I just like to pop up out of the woodwork every so often
to illustrate one of Harry's frequent bouts of hypocricy, or double
standards.
Positions like his, pretty much underscore the fallacies of his whole
viewpoint.
Dave
Dave Hall
>
> Dave Hall wrote:
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> >>
> >> Karl Denninger wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A big part of why I got out of the business and now spend my time fishing
> >> > and raising my kid is people like you Larry.
> >>
> >> Now *there* is a scary thought...Karl Derringer raising a little girl
> >> without benefit of a responsible, adult woman in the household.
> >
> > And why is that? There are plenty of single mothers raising their kids.
> > Why shouldn't the same social courtesy be applied toward men?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
>
> Oh, it should be. But to Krazy Karl? That little girl really needs a
> responsible, adult woman to guide her.
Oh I don't know. Karl may be a bit overzealous when it comes to matters
of policy, and the law, and I suspect he's learned this behavior through
his business dealings, as a defense against the many morally bankrupt
people out there looking to take advantage of anyone that they can. But
be that as it may, Karl has managed to successfully build a business and
cash out at an appropriate time. I'd say that his principles and
practices have allowed him to become a successful person, which is
something his children should strive to emulate. Besides, none of us
have any inside information on what kind of "dad" Karl is. Making an
assumption that Karl would be a poor father based on his posts here
pertaining to legal and ethical matters, is irresponsible.
Many single parents have managed to raise well balanced "good" children
with much less. Do not let your personal disapproval of Karl's methods,
cloud your objectivity.
Dave
Larry Weiss
I rarely post about off topic matters, especially about other people. When I do, it
is because it is important to me, and this is.
Karl may be quite intelligent, but that alone does not make for a suitable parent,
single or otherwise. Karl clearly has a lot of emotional problems, as evidenced by
his temperament toward me and others he disagrees with. Karl has an uncontrollable
temper. He is a stubborn, rigid, vindictive, extremely controlling, extremely
childish and extremely angry man. He does not know how to communicate with any
degree of civility. He certainly doesn't know how to listen. He uses his
intelligent mind to twist people's words to fit his exaggerated reasoning,
outsmarting sometimes even himself.
This has much to do with Karl's upbringing and personality. I highly doubt it is
merely a learned response to his prior business challenges. Many people who post
here are successful in business and face the same challenges daily, including
myself. I know hundreds of people running large businesses. I encounter many
strong and firm people, but few with Karl's level of narcissism and immaturity. And
Karl's financial success in no way makes him a "successful person". Personal
success involves balance, an enjoyment and love of life, peace of mind and an
ability to interrelate with others, as well as the ability to afford what one
desires in life; all things that Karl has never demonstrated in his years of posting
here, expect, perhaps, his bank account. Indeed, it is the style of his posting
history here that demonstrates all the negative traits I list in the paragraph
preceding this one. One can't help but connect his lack of civility here to his
inner mindset, which must translate in some way to his mannerisms as a parent. Face
it, he is a scary guy, way beyond mere "overzealous".
I don't always agree with Harry, but he is right on this one. I pity this poor
girl. What in the world will happen to her if she has a serious problem or
disagreement with her father? How in the world can she possibly communicate her
feelings or needs, especially as an adolescent, to a so-called father who is really
just a child himself, in an adult body with an overactive mind, who prides himself
in bragging that he "ripped" an underwriter at Boat/US "another ass"? And what
recourse will she have without "a responsible, adult woman" in her life. It is no
wonder Karl has found himself having to fight for father's rights, and having to
deal with issues like the "kidnapping" he went through sometime back. I actually
felt sorry for him and supported him back then. Now I know better. Indeed, were I
a responsible other adult in this young girl's life, I, too, would do everything in
my power to protect her from this overgrown bully.
FoxTrot2
A psychological evaluation of a person he never met from a would be marina
owner, all gleaned from a couple of postings in a boating NG. Unbelievable!
Your anger towards Karl for proving you wrong is quite evident in your post.
Get some professional help Larry. Seriously.
Larry Weiss
> Your anger towards Karl for proving you wrong is quite evident in your post.
> Get some professional help Larry. Seriously.
And there's the other one heard from. I miss Skipper.
Larry Weiss
> Usenet I do for fun... especially when I can show up hypocrites and liars
This is what you do for fun? I rest my case.
Larry Weiss
Larry Weiss
Karl Denninger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <3C9B6831...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Larry prefers Skipper because he could actually win some of those arguments
> and Skip wasn't all that great at catching people in a bald-faced falsehood.
>
Skipper was at least funny.
Larry Weiss
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <3C9B7201...@ix.netcom.com>,
> You still haven't called Jim Nolan.
And I probably won't bother. However, if I do call him, it will be for my own
edification, not in response to your adolescent "challenges". I've already
accurately posted the results of my conversations with Boat/US. If there is an
alarming discrepancy it is their's, not mine. That you, and only you (okay, you
and "fox-droppings" over there), can't see that, and choose to viciously attack me
instead, only confirms my expressed opinions of you, which I stand by even more so
now. Clearly, any further posts of mine on the subject would once again provoke
your vicious responses, since, as you say, that is how you have fun. I finished
playing that game many posts ago..
I have nothing to prove to you or any other readers of this utterly ridiculous
thread. Anyone who has concerns is welcome to call Boat/US themselves, as they
always have been. Nobody needs you to be judge and jury.
> Perhaps I'll set up a robot to post this as a reply to EVERY posting you
> make to Usenet.... :)
>
> Now THAT would be fun.
And this is how you live a "satisfying" life? Again, I rest my case. That being
said, I appreciate the "smiley face". There may be hope after all.
Larry Weiss
FoxTrot2
> Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In article <3C9B7201...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > Larry Weiss <lil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >Karl Denninger wrote:
> > >
> > >> Usenet I do for fun... especially when I can show up hypocrites and
liars
> > >
> > >This is what you do for fun? I rest my case.
> > >
> > >Larry Weiss
> >
> > You still haven't called Jim Nolan.
>
> And I probably won't bother.
One can obviously see why you would not. You just hate to be proved wrong.
> If there is an
> alarming discrepancy it is their's, not mine. That you, and only you
(okay, you
> and "fox-droppings" over there), can't see that, and choose to viciously
attack me
> instead, only confirms my expressed opinions of you, which I stand by even
more so
> now. Clearly, any further posts of mine on the subject would once again
provoke
> your vicious responses, since, as you say, that is how you have fun. I
finished
> playing that game many posts ago..
Vicious attacks??? Give me a break, You were the one attacking and name
calling. The proof is in the thread. Then you threaten to pick up your
ball and bat and run home to Mommy, with more name calling and attacks along
the way. Then you decide to stay put as you seem to live your life through
this NG....losing it would mean losing part of your life...so you stay.
Then you personally attack Karl and his family...a real low blow.
As I stated earlier, you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are
sick and need professional help.
Now go back into your hole and fantasize about owning a marina.
Harry Krause
There's a book out called Antagonists in the Church, in which the author
discusses folks like Karl, who suffers from several emotional problems,
including what some call inflexibile personality or rigid personality
disorder. The book states: "Someone with a rigid personality sees the
world as totally static; his or her explanation of
events is by defintion, the unquestionably correct interpretation. Rigid
individuals ridicule or ignore differing opinions and skillfully
overlook contrary evidence." These stonewallers typically say something
like Karl does...or Karl implies virtually every time he posts. Does
this look familiar:
Karl: "I'm right and I know I'm right, so there's no use talking to me
about it." A person with Karl's approach to life is not open to logic,
reason, persuasion or negotiation.
You can find Karl described in the DSM-IV under Axis II Personality
Disorders, or in Weiten's
writings on rigid and inflexible personality types, who suffer from "a
long-standing, inflexible,
maladaptive pattern of perceiving, thinking, or behaving.*
Karl's rigid right-wing politics are a bit off the wall, but Karl
himself, like Humpty Dumpty, has fallen off entirely. Some years ago,
when I first noticed his promoting of that anti-woman, anti-child
website, I took a look at it and was absolutely astonished. The goal of
the entire site, so far as I could tell, was to counsel errant husbands
how to minimize the child support they might have to pay if they dumped
their wives and children,how to force through anti-abortion legislation
from a fake "father's rights" point of view and how to limit one's
financial liability for one's children. Perhaps Karl has toned his site
down over the years. I dunno.
What I do know is that based upon Karl's site and Karl's extreme
rigidity, as expressed here, your fears for the welfare of his daughter
are well-founded.
--
Harry Krause
- -
No issue can be negotiated unless you first have the clout to compel
negotiation. - Saul Alinsky
Harry Krause
Indeed. At least Skippy was fun. And articulate. Karl is no fun and
Foxtrot is barely literate.
--
Harry Krause
- -
Harry Krause
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> and Skip wasn't all that great at catching people in a bald-faced falsehood.
>
> - --
> Karl Denninger
You're a flaming rectal opening, Karl.
Harry Krause
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
You don't pass the WGAS test, Karl. You know the one...who gives a s---.
Harry Krause
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> That you WILL have to take back your scurrilous indictment of a company -
> that's what.
>
> We all know its the truth LARRY.
>
> Go ahead.
>
> Be a man.
You can prove your manhood, Karl...go get a vasectomy.
Charles
Harry Krause wrote:
> You're a flaming rectal opening, Karl.
Better back off his ass then, aye krause?
-- Charlie
R Ransbottom
Wayne B <Way...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"My personal experience with BOAT US insurance is that they DO
>sprinkle various exclusionary language throughout their policies, and
>that they WILL be quick to invoke and interpret those exclusions to
>their advantage in the event of a major loss. "
A common legal principle: a contract, where unclear/vague, will
be interpreted to favor the party that did not author/offer the
contract.
>Here's an example. My former policy contained a phrase which excluded
>losses resulting from "corrosion or faulty maintenance." Seems half
>way reasonable on the surface but think about the implications. I
>experienced a dismasting under that policy. Upon being verbally
>notified of the loss, BOAT US immediately sent me an official letter
>informing me of the "corrosion and faulty maintenance" clause and
>warning me that my loss would likely not be covered as a result. All
>this before any official claim being filed, or explanation of
>circumstances. The claim was eventually settled fairly but not
If an agent of an insurer talks you out of making a claim, that is
one claim they settled real cheaply.
If you did not have a lawyer "on tap", you might have waited until
there was some official response to your official claim.
--
rob Live the dream.