Dream yacht charters should accept libility.

[sailaboutvic]

My totally non-legal view is that the company is unlikely to be liable, although it could be if either the boat had known defects in equipment or if it were chartered to someone who was known to be either incompetent or with insufficient experience for the boat or cruising area. I wouldn't rule out the first, but it would be very hard to prove, which leaves the OP with only the options of indulging in the possibly ruinous expense of taking legal action or licking his wounds and contemplating the folly of not insuring something that it was not within his means to cover himself. If he means that he was sailing without third party insurance, then what little sympathy I may have shown disappears and I hope never to sail in the same waters.

Re the last part of your posting I agree 100% and have said the same thing earlyer , no one should not have some insurance for their boat .

As for the " if it were chartered to someone who was known to be either incompetent or with insufficient experience for the boat or cruising area. "
You not seen what I seen over the years , there some very good sailors who charter boats and there as many bad sailors too who have no idea how to handle a boat , I guess calling them sailors is an insult to us .
Just take a look at another thread that's running that included a video .
In places like Greece you see that kind of thing happen every day , as it happen it's very unusual not to see it happen .

 

[Hadenough]

I have unlimited single handed hours. It is from one of the major players. I suspect they will not do this for new business though.

And is one of the reasons the rest of us are of us are paying more.

 

[Deleted member 478]

And is one of the reasons the rest of us are of us are paying more.

And why the rest of us single handers can't get any cover what-so-ever. Oh well, at least that means we have an additional $5k p.a. to spend on beer and hookers.

Now the question is one of who gets the better value?

 

[Skellum]

Re the last part of your posting I agree 100% and have said the same thing earlyer , no one should not have some insurance for their boat .

As for the " if it were chartered to someone who was known to be either incompetent .....
Just take a look at another thread that's running that included a video .
In places like Greece you see that kind of thing happen every day , as it happen it's very unusual not to see it happen .

Indeed, and all of these charterers will have a piece of paper to show the charter company that says they are competent to at least RYA Dya skipper or equivalent level. In Greece I think you need two people with a skippers license.

 

[Sandy]

And is one of the reasons the rest of us are of us are paying more.

I've had one claim, an accident while on the hard.

It would be interesting to get the stats for claims solo sailors v crewed boats from the insurance industry.

Most insurance companies will give single handed sailing for up to 18 hours as that suits most leisure sailors in the UK. For some of us we need more. Plymouth, my current home port, to Roscoff on the mainland can take 24 hours. I could go via the Channel Islands, but that would be longer at sea and more risk.

 

[[178529]]

There are a few things about this thread that make me uneasy.

1. I don't like it when someone jumps on a forum that they've never contributed to before, just to complain about a product or service or company/person. Invariably you never see that poster again on the forum.

2. There are many costs involved in sailing. One of those is insurance. Whilst it might be legal to sail around without insurance to me it's as bad as driving without insurance. Presumably it's to reduce costs. I wonder if the OP had dragged it's anchor into the charter boat and caused a five figure sum of damage, would the OP have written a cheque to cover all the damage?

3. Thinking an internet petition is going to have any impact on a commercial operation makes you just wonder about the logic processes. The only route for the OP to have any redress is to go through the legal process. Running an online campaign against the charter company is only going to make the hole he has dug bigger. He first started the hole when he went sailing with no insurance.

 

[sarabande]

Moondancer, I can understand your concerns, but one of the advantages of the forum is the ready and speedy availability of advice when a poster has a problem. I don't think a poster should have a 'record' before being allowed to ask for help.

In this case, the event seems to have been going on for some time, and the charter company appears to have changed its mind, perhaps because the money involved is a painful amount and the company sees the solo sailor as an easy and soft target.

Yes, a prudent person should have insurance, but there are millions of house owners and businesses who get by with none. Until insurance is obligatory, the option to accept the risks and consequences of no insurance should be available.

As for the petition, it's the way of today's world, and perhaps the only means the owner has of putting public pressure on the charter company. Yes it is a coarse weapon, and may well cause the charter co to dig its heels in even further, but business reputation is very important. Provided the material in the petition is accurate and does not amount to harassment (by e.g. repetition and 'sharing') then it may be the only way the owner has of making his case public. The OP may have dug a bit of a hole, but I do not see that he has done anything wrong (i.e. illegal or unlawful) in not having insurance, nor in starting the petition.

 

[[178529]]

Moondancer, I can understand your concerns, but one of the advantages of the forum is the ready and speedy availability of advice when a poster has a problem. I don't think a poster should have a 'record' before being allowed to ask for help.

In this case, the event seems to have been going on for some time, and the charter company appears to have changed its mind, perhaps because the money involved is a painful amount and the company sees the solo sailor as an easy and soft target.

Yes, a prudent person should have insurance, but there are millions of house owners and businesses who get by with none. Until insurance is obligatory, the option to accept the risks and consequences of no insurance should be available.

As for the petition, it's the way of today's world, and perhaps the only means the owner has of putting public pressure on the charter company. Yes it is a coarse weapon, and may well cause the charter co to dig its heels in even further, but business reputation is very important. Provided the material in the petition is accurate and does not amount to harassment (by e.g. repetition and 'sharing') then it may be the only way the owner has of making his case public. The OP may have dug a bit of a hole, but I do not see that he has done anything wrong (i.e. illegal or unlawful) in not having insurance, nor in starting the petition.

I guess the first point is just a matter of opinion and you are clearly right in that the OP hasn't done anything unlawful in what they describe. However, not being insured does impact others. It puts up premiums for others in trying to recover uninsured losses and you could infer that the chances of someone paying for damage if they can't afford insurance are pretty low. So i'm not disagreeing with you but it just means I have little sympathy for the situation. I think there is a difference though if a person doesn't have insurance because an insurance compny or companies won't cover the risk.

 

[mjcoon]

Unfortunately the comment by Dutch01527 that you replied to was using the word "libel" to mean "libel", not "liable". That must be the problem with writing so much when dyslexic...

I've just remembered that the famous song "It Ain't Necessarily So" rhymes "liable" with "Bible"...

 

[Graham376]

Most insurance companies will give single handed sailing for up to 18 hours as that suits most leisure sailors in the UK. For some of us we need more. Plymouth, my current home port, to Roscoff on the mainland can take 24 hours. I could go via the Channel Islands, but that would be longer at sea and more risk.

I won't have a policy without single handed even if for short periods, after a discussion a few years ago with insurers. They stated that a skipper moving from berth to fuel berth on his/her own, with the crew having walked around to take lines, would be single handing.

 

[Walusotu]

Pantaenius, or other companies, would not even quote me for 3rd Party insurance for my solo crossing of the Indian Ocean. They offered to provide cover after reaching the Mediterranean.
It is not a question of irresponsibility for being temporarily uninsured in certain situations although I see that others think otherwise.

 

[sarabande]

[...] However, not being insured does impact others. It puts up premiums for others in trying to recover uninsured losses[...]

insurance is a tangled area for me. How does absence of insurance put up premiums for others please ? The gross/total amount of losses is surely the same, whether there is one insurance co involved, or several. And with only one Ins co involved, probably a lot lot less of Chartered Insurer A writing multiple letters to Chartered Insurer Z.

 

[johnalison]

Re the last part of your posting I agree 100% and have said the same thing earlyer , no one should not have some insurance for their boat .

As for the " if it were chartered to someone who was known to be either incompetent or with insufficient experience for the boat or cruising area. "
You not seen what I seen over the years , there some very good sailors who charter boats and there as many bad sailors too who have no idea how to handle a boat , I guess calling them sailors is an insult to us .
Just take a look at another thread that's running that included a video .
In places like Greece you see that kind of thing happen every day , as it happen it's very unusual not to see it happen .

I don't think there is any difference between our opinions. I was musing about what sort of liability might be considered by the courts. A charter company has to more or less accept the certification given to them by charterers, and so I wouldn't expect a court to find against them if the normal procedures had been followed. I don't know if it has ever happened, but if, for example, the firm chartered a boat out to someone who had a known criminal record and no evidence of his sailing ability, then they ought to be found at fault.

I don't think that I made any comment about the abilities of sailors or charteres. Of course, there are good and less good sailors chartering, but I don't sail in Greece, so it doesn't worry me. The morality of who should pay is a different matter, but when did courts ever concern themselves with morality?

 

[Graham376]

insurance is a tangled area for me. How does absence of insurance put up premiums for others please ? The gross/total amount of losses is surely the same, whether there is one insurance co involved, or several. And with only one Ins co involved, probably a lot lot less of Chartered Insurer A writing multiple letters to Chartered Insurer Z.

If people are uninsured it's most likely because they can't afford it, in which case they have no funds to personally pay for damage they cause, leaving the injured to claim on their own insurance.

 

[[178529]]

insurance is a tangled area for me. How does absence of insurance put up premiums for others please ? The gross/total amount of losses is surely the same, whether there is one insurance co involved, or several. And with only one Ins co involved, probably a lot lot less of Chartered Insurer A writing multiple letters to Chartered Insurer Z.

*-

Take a simple UK based situation. I'll make it a little black and white just to help the example. Someone has a scabby uninsured boat that catches fire in an anchorage or mooring and takes out some other high end boats with it.
The cost to the insurance company of getting anything out of the person with the scabby boat will be much higher than if the person was insured. They may be able to get mnothing out of the person. That risk gets factored generally into the premiums.

Boat insurance premiums expected to increase by 30% - Yachting Monthly

It's mentioned a bit here.

It probably isn't as much of an issue as for car insurance where the thinking is that it adds around 30 quid to the cost of a policy.

 

[johnalison]

insurance is a tangled area for me. How does absence of insurance put up premiums for others please ? The gross/total amount of losses is surely the same, whether there is one insurance co involved, or several. And with only one Ins co involved, probably a lot lot less of Chartered Insurer A writing multiple letters to Chartered Insurer Z.

My car insurance is higher than it should be because of the number of uninsured drivers on the roads. Uninsured drivers cause a lot of damage, and since this is covered by the innocent parties and not by the criminals or public purse, we drivers have to pay. It is the same with boats, but to a much smaller extent I would imagine.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

If people are uninsured it's most likely because they can't afford it, in which case they have no funds to personally pay for damage they cause, leaving the injured to claim on their own insurance.

Insurance is, for me, one of the essentials, for two reasons. The first is that my Dad lost his boat because it suffered a no-fault accident while uninsured, and he couldn't afford the repairs; he had to sell her for what she'd fetch (I'm pleased to say that she's still sailing). The other is that I worked for an organization that ran ships, and I know the sort of sum involved in even a trifling accident to a ship, even before you start including loss of time. An accident that caused damage to a ship - even a precautionary docking - would cost enough to wipe out all but a multi-millionaire. For example, imagine that you caused a yacht to sink in the fairway of a port such as Felixstowe. The depth in the channel is around 13m at LAT; the rigging of most yachts would easily extend from the seabed to at least half the water column. Now imagine the damage a ship would suffer if the mast or wire rigging got into the stern-gear. I'd imagine that a yacht sunk in the channel off Landguard Point would block all ship movements until it was removed - and I think that HHA wouldn't be slow to chase anyone responsible for such an incident. How much lost time and consequential damages do you think that might be? Let's say that the usual 3 or 5 million of third party cover might start to look a bit thin.

 

[diver14u]

Claim on your own yacht insurance and leave them to sort out any Third Party Liability. It should be that simple unless you don't have insurance in which case you have a problem but it it is unreasonable to ask this forum to get involved as we don't know both sides of the dispute, for example, who anchored first?

As mentioned, we did not have insurance at the time. Yes, sorry I should have provided more details.

Here is the email from the base manager in Fajardo detailing the incident.

Hey Shelley,

Sorry I’ve been super busy.
So let’s start this thread with laying out the facts.
On Friday oct 18 you were anchored in culebra near the public dock.
Bill Rutherford was chartering the vessel named Island Time and dufour 412 form DYC base at Farjardo.
I received an email from an agent at the DYC base in Florida satiating that Island Time was dragging anchor and has hit your vessel.
That same day I revived a few pictures from Bill Rutherford which were from a far distance.
Days later I came out to culebra to see the damage for myself. When I noticed a few small chips (smaller than a quarter) and one black scuff mark. One chip was already filled with epoxy which was not a new repair.
November 12th per your husband’s request I came back out to try to clean up the damaged area.
I used buffing compound to to get rid of the scuff marks and then cleaned and filled the chips with Pettit Gel coat repair epoxy.
Your husband stated that he would like to see a better fill job performed and agreed to meet me at Puerto Del Rey marina in a few days so the repairs would redone.
No show
December 10 I receive a call from you wanting the repairs completed but state that you have left my area.

Does this sound correct to you?

Now moving on where is the vessel located?

Thanks
Jesse

--
Jesse Campo
Dream Yacht PR Base Manager
Skype: jessecampo86@gmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were in the BVI doing the test sail and survey for the buyers. This is when the impact and water ingress found.

I emailed and phone Jesse Campo to advise him of the damage and as of that point they have denied liability and refused to assist us with the repair.

This is one of the many emails sent to Dan Lockyer.

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 8:40 AM Shelley Thaysen <thaysens101@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Dan,

It is amazing and puzzling to me why Dream Yacht Charters refuse to take responsibility for the repairs to our catamaran, when we received a) a profuse apology and promise to make a good all repairs after the collision occurred and b) an email from Jesse Campo detailing the accident. My thinking is that Dream Yacht Charters, as a worldwide company, has a pack of slick lawyers waiting in the wings to squash people like myself and this is perhaps the reason for your lack of guilt or responsibility.

But, that is just my thinking. I would like to know from you, as an entrepreneur, innovator and brand conscious manager, why you refuse to take responsibility for the repairs to our catamaran after your bareboat charter dragged anchor and rammed into our boat causing considerable damage.

I have managed to reduce the figure for the repair to $5579,25 at Puerto Del Rey and $4950,92 at Nanny Cay Marina. But I would be happy for you to further reduce this figure should you have associates at Puerto Del Rey - Dream Yacht Charter base in Fajardo - who could supply you with a better quote.

Please do not forward this email to Mr. Klaric, I will only deal with Mr. Loïc Bonnet or you as the General Manager responsible for North American activities across Dream Yacht Charter - this collision as sea occurred in your jurisdiction.

Please respond with your reasoning posthaste.

With regards,

Shelley Thaysen

"Our world is in crisis because of the absence of consciousness.” ― Terence McKenna.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the response from Kresimir Klaric

From: Krešimir Klarić <kreso.klaric@dreamyachtcharter.hr>
Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:07 PM
Subject: RE: Repair to our catamaran...
To: Shelley Thaysen <thaysens101@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Lockyer <dan@dreamyachtcharter.com>, Shaun T <diver14u2008@gmail.com>


Dear Ms. Thaysen,

DYC is not liable for the damage to your catamaran. No damage was caused to your catamaran by a DYC boat and certanly not anything near the amount your mention below. This is the end of our emailing. If you wish to go to court be my guest. Our lawyers will have a field day

Best regards
Kresimir Klaric
Dream Yacht Charter
Global Operations Manager

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have pictures one of the extended davit on S/V ISLAND TIME, which is an oblong shape. The clasp on corner of the davit that hit our boat is missing and the is corner damaged. We took measurements of the davit on S/V ISLAND TIME from the water line to the corner and measurements ON OUR BOAT from the waterline to the impact area on our boat and it is exactly the same height.

I tried to add the pictures, but could not find the "insert picture" function.

Lastly, all I'm asking in that you add your voice to our petition, we obviously don't expect anyone to get involved.

Thank you for taking the time to read of our woes!!

 

[Mark-1]

So he's saying chipped gel coat and you're saying the fibre glass was badly structurally cracked to the point where water got in.

I confess his version seems more plausible for a dragging anchor. (I could be wrong of course.)

 

[[178529]]

So he's saying chipped gel coat and you're saying the fibre glass was badly structurally cracked to the point where water got in.

I confess his version seems more plausible for a dragging anchor. (I could be wrong of course.)

This is the problem for any collision or accident. The need to prove the damage was caused by the incident.

So:

1) No insurance.
2) Dispute over the damage.
3) vague photos from a distance by only one party.
4) The offending party inspecting and stating they saw only limited damage and evidence of previous damage.


I think there might be a bit be validity in the charter company expressing a low level of confidence in the OP winning any court dispute.