Someone wrote me and asked if I would chip into this thread. I handle individual boat insurance, and Regatta Liability insurance (for clubs through The David Agency) being the first to ever provide this type of insurance 30 years ago and have lots of experience with injuries and sadly, deaths.

I always find this stuff easier when breaking it down into pieces:

BOAT OWNER
With or without insurance, the Boat Owner is responsible financially for the operation of his or her boat. He or she can be sued for damaging other peoples property (example - hitting a starboard tack boat), or injuring people (crew gets hit in the head with a boom), of a fatality (boat turtles and the crew gets trapped in the rigging). Let's say for anyone of these examples, the court provides an award to the plaintiff for $750,000 (sank a really big boat, made crew a quadraplegic or the crew died). Without insurance, the individual is responsible to come up with that money. They will find their wages attached for many years (possibly their whole life) and have very little take home pay. Now if they elected to buy insurance on their boat, or as a poster showed previously that in many Home, Condo and Apartment Liability Policies, that Liability Insurance is automatically included at no-charge for sailboats under 26' in length, their insurer will pay the loss up to the policy limit. Now, if the individual bought a $100,000 limit, the insurer pays the $100,000 and walks away (they also will pay all of the lawyers bills for the lawsuit previously mentioned in addition to the $100,000). However, the Boat Owners wages will be attached for the remaining $650,000 (think OJ and how the Goldman family continues to chase after any money he has, years after the verdict). While a lawyer is free to correct me, it is my understanding that filing for personal bankruptcy will not erase the attachment of wages for the remainder of your life, they still go after your wages after coming out of bankruptcy.

What does requiring the boat owners to have insurance at an event do for the boat owners in this instance? It just may help them in the event of calamity, but it also provides another layer of bureaucracy where many studies in sailing have shown that we need to break down barriers to the sport, not add barriers to the sport.

For those who have discussed that "proof of insurance" is meaningless, I would disagree. When you call your agent and ask for a certificate of insurance (which is proof that there is insurance coverage), it includes the effective date and expiration date of the policy, the limit, the Boat Owner's name, the isnurer, and a notice that requires the insurance company to notify the Organizing Authority IF the policy is cancelled for any reason (such as the guy just bought it for the certificate of insurance and then turned around and canceled it 24 hours later after he registered for the event, or had stopped paying his or her premium and canceled for failure to pay premium). Could someone photoshop one? Yes. Would it be a violation of the rules? Yes. When discovered could there be a Rule 69 hearing? Yes. And it would be incredibly easy to prove as the agency's name is right there on the certificate and a simple phone call can uncover a photoshop document faster than a New York Minute? Yes.

This is no different than turning short of the mark and continuing in the race in my book.

Enough about the Boat Owner.

THE ORGANIZING AUTHORITY (OA)
By running an event, the OA can be open to be sued, just as much as anyone else around. Of course the OA needs to do something negligent in order to be found guilty. Did they hoist a marks to port flag, and then switch to a marks to starboard flag during the starting sequence? Were there huge crashes at the windward mark, capsizes, turtles, and injuries and death as half the fleet was turning one way, and the other half the other way around the mark? That would be pretty negligent.

Actually what is the most common in claims is simply someone went overboard and died. Whether the OA is negligent or not, we have defended many of these lawsuits in the Regatta Liability insurance program. If the OA does not have insurance, their bank account will be emptied, more than likely they will file for bankruptcy and cease operations permanently. The injured party will not have any other way to squeeze money out of this entity.

If the OA purchases Regatta Liability insurance, their lawyers bill and any judgment, award or settlement can be paid out of this coverage.

CROSS OVER BETWEEN BOAT OWNER AND OA
With or without insurance, both the boat owner and the OA can be sued separately or together for a single accident, which is common. The same thing said before applies, if either one or both does not have insurance, the individual can have their wages attached, the OA more than likely goes bankrupt. But if both have the ability to pay without insurance (maybe large cash reserves at the club, or the boat owner is very wealthy) or if they both have insurance, what occurs is interesting. Sticking with the earlier story, the Jury awards $750,000 and finds both the boat owner and club liable. What occurs next is that the judge determines proportionately the amount each is responsible for. Let's say the example was an overboard with a fatality. The judge may find that the Boat owner is 90% responsible and the OA 10% responsible (maybe the OA watched the whole thing, never stepped in to offer help, or radio'd for professional help, or anything). These judgments are joint and several. What this means is, if one can't pay their share and the other one can, the other one picks up the full amount, regardless what their proportionate shares are!

Why would an OA make everyone have insurance? 1. It protects their insurance from getting stuck with the potential of many claims (if the guy has no insurance and the crew is injured, it will help prevent the OA from getting involved and save the concerns and headaches of the OA having to deal with someone else's negligence that is not theirs to begin with). 2. I have seen many cases where crew have been injured and either no insurance or low limits of insurance have lead to sad situations where the crew is financially distressed for the rest of their lives.

But I admit, I do recommend to OA's not to require insurance of the participants as long as they have Regatta Liability Insurance (through me, as I can not talk about other knock-offs out there, what they require or don't require). Most certainly the coverage I offer does not require anything such as waivers, boat owners to have insurance or any barriers, I like to hear of participation increasing and making things easy for sailors). I see it as a barrier to entrance in the sport. I see it as a headache for the participant to contact their agent, make sure they get the copy forwarded to the OA, the OA needing to check each and create a long-range filing system (lawsuits might take years before they are filed before the OA is even aware of it, and that recordkeeping is now critical since they required it to begin with).

Yes, it is not fair that the OA gets dragged into accidents which are not their responsibility to begin with. Comparing it to all of the planning, and the time consumed trying to make an event good and prosperous, and then after the spotlight has turned off and have to deal with the headaches, it doe not seem fair for the volunteers. This does happen and it shakes the confidence of the volunteers, typically leading to them finding someone else to take over.

So weigh it for yourselves, are the volunteers at your events due some relief from the possible injuries sustained at the events you go to have fun at, and are still dealing with the potential of being in courts, taking depositions, all because some guy at the event didn't buy insurance at all?