I recently watched a YT video from The Wandering Hillbilly. Many of you are familiar with him and his grounding incident back in February or March of this year. He was roundly eviscerated here for tying up to an unauthorized ball in a Northerly swell condition. I know there are strong opinions on the whole episode but don't want to re-hash that.
In his most recent video, he explains that due to insurance issues and salvage claims, he's walking away from the boat - giving his boat to the salvor and ending up with nothing.
The primary issue seems to be that his insurance company denied his claim - or maybe even cancelled his policy - it's hard to tell. Therefore, he had to battle the salvor himself and contest their 1) assessed value of the boat and 2) their claim of a payment of 30% of that value.
He has said that a video about the insurance issue is coming so maybe this will all be explained but I'm curious how this could happen.
Could they be denying his claim by saying he was negligent? Would they get down into the details of whether he should have taken that particular ball and/or whether he should have moored there in those conditions? If so, how is that worded in a policy? Is there some kind of "good seamanship" component of the policy that they can say was violated
He also said that while salvors typically charge between 10 and 20% of the value of the salvaged boat, these guys were claiming 30%. Additionally, their own surveyor assessed the boat at $1.9M whereas his surveyor put it at closer to $500k. What little I know about salvage is that everything is tilted massively towards them. I'm sure there are arguments to support this as well as against.
To current boat owners - are you concerned about this kind of risk?
Again, I don't want to have this turn into bashing this particular guy - I'd like to just talk about the circumstances and considerations for a boat owner in general with regard to insurance and salvage. Pretend that this is a hypothetical question if that helps.
I watched this video and thought it was very measured and frank and I believe his motivation in alerting others to the pitfalls of learning about salvage after the fact. I thought his decision to give them the boat was a reasonable one given the situation. Probably would have been even better if he'd done it before shipping to FLA.
I don't know that I'm up on salvage law myself, but I'm sure it is a big risk especially if there is no insurance. I'm willing to bet when the insurance company pays the salvage bill it looks a little different. I've often read that you should throw the other boat your line when towing, not accept their tow line... no doubt there are bad surprises and pitfalls in these aged laws.
He did complain at one point that the insurance company sent someone out and they never looked at his boat but went out to look at the mooring balls.
GeorgeC1 makes a good point. If one wants to view this as a hypothetical the Hillbilly’s video essentially stating “No Steering, No Problem”, is a major component. There is the salvage issue on one side, but negligence and lack of seamanship were also major components of the insurance company’s decision. Many predicted the Hillbilly might be denied. I’m a retired prosecutor and have little in-depth knowledge of Admiralty Law. However, I know salvage law favors the salvager and the law is quite nuanced.
I think the question being asked is where is the language in the insurance policy that spells out why a claim would be denied? Does it state ‘seamanship’? That’s a slippery slope and impossible to define. We see a lot of issues with charter yacht accidents. Are the charter company’s insurance, or the charter boat owner’s insurance denying all those claims? I’d like to know what is happening with those claims.
My guess as to claim being denied would be "failure to maintain the property". He went out without steerage (posting this) and went on an unauthorized mooring ball. I think this is why the insurance company went to see the mooring ball without checking the boat per him. I saw the video and assume if he or his counsel thought he had any case against the insurance company they would have done so since it is a much bigger number. If the insurance company paid the claim they would have dealt with the salvage company instead of him. It will be interesting to see his video about the insurance company....
As a charterer it is important to note and read the terms to include the red lined areas. I only read them first when our trips were cancelled due to Irma and Marie. On another thread we discussed Moorings new language about these areas and if you go there you are on the hook...
Interesting discussion. Another case study right now is the $3 million cat that's been on the reef for over a month at Flamenco Beach in Culebra. The Coast Guard took over since the owner didn't have the resources. USCG tapped into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) to pay for the response. Salvage company is now mobilizing a 400 ton barge crane from Baltimore to lift it off. I read an article that says under the OSLTF, the costs of the federal response can be recouped from the owner.
Hypothetically, if you "squat" a mooring, with no idea what it was designed for or how it has been maintained, then how can you expect your insurance to pay when the mooring fails? That is one benefit of the BoatyBall moorings: they are inspected, maintained and insured. It would be much harder for your insurance to deny the claim.
The more interesting question is if you anchor. How would your insurance determine if you anchored properly. Would you be in a stronger position anchoring poorly than squatting a defective mooring?
I think leaving the vessel in well documented poor conditions on a private uninsured ball and posting videos highlighting his hubris did him in. Dude still cant admit he made a mistake.
For example the Navigare cat that went into the rocks off a mooring at the Baths. I believe there was a red flag warning that day. Is charter boat owner’s insurance denied? That would be a Big Yikes
I assume in the Navigare case the deductible reduction agreement is voided. So the charterer is on the hook for the full insurance deductible, the 1-2% of hull value, but otherwise that's it?
Matt - I could be wrong but I think that boat is a total loss. And this was clearly gross negligence which CAN void claims. Collecting sizable resources from a charterer is unlikely and would happen (if it eventually did), years in the future. Has me questioning my sanity having a boat in charter, especially with all the crap you read on charger chat……..
That is one benefit of the BoatyBall moorings: they are inspected, maintained and insured. It would be much harder for your insurance to deny the claim.
That's a good point. Where do FCFS balls fall in this spectrum? I (the charterer) don't really know who owns them or maintains them or what they are rated for. They have somewhat of a standard marking but what does that convey really?
There is no insurance or guarantee with any mooring. It is always a judgment call.
True. For sure. But Boaty ball advertising that theirs are on a scheduled maintenance program and only outfitted by one company would give a little extra in the “I acted prudently” And less in the “negligence”
-
There’s nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats.
Along the same lines, if your charter company provides a list or map of moorings, and you use one of those, then that would probably work in your favor. Of course if there's a red flag or some other warning, you would be expected to heed that.
Totally agree... the same basic good decisions that should be exercised to keep boat and crew safe will also be easier to defend if bad things do happen.
I just thought it was worth emphasizing that no-one is going to accept liability for your boat if their mooring fails.
The charter companies have agreements with the salvage companies. If they tried to overcharge the charter companies they would not get additional business and charter boats are the bulk of their business. I suspect virtually every charter salvage is at a pre determined cost.
There is no insurance or guarantee with any mooring. It is always a judgment call.
The question isn't whether the mooring owner will insure you, it's whether YOUR insurance will cover you when you are on someone's ball and it breaks. On one end, there's Joe-blow ball in front of some restaurant that you'd apparently be clearly risking your insurance coverage by taking and on the other, Boaty Balls that have at least some expectation of maintenance and safety.
It doesn't sound like anyone knows what their insurance will cover and potentially totally arbitrary. Relying on your charter company listing mooring locations on sample itineraries as some sort of protection against denied insurance or deductible claims seems risky. As we've discussed elsewhere, The Moorings lists Anegada as a wonderful place to visit on your trip but red-lines (says you are not covered in) the anchorage.
@GeorgeC1 - in 30 years you've never heard of a claim denial; can you describe some of the claims that you've heard about that were honored? I'm just curious about the scope of the claims. A broken bow pulpit from hitting the dock is one thing. A hole in the hull from hitting a reef is another.
There was an earlier comment that said BB moorings were "inspected, maintained and insured"... Hopefully two out of three but I wanted to point out that none of the moorings are insured.
There does seem to be some confusion on boatyball. They are no different than any other overnight balls in the BVI with the exception of the BEYC balls. Boatyball and all the other overnight balls are all moor secure balls placed and maintained by them. There is nothing special about boatyball.
Per the hillbilly's video from a few weeks ago, he was insured by ION, which is owned by HUB International. Per a quick google search, as of late 2023 HUB International had a valuation of $23 billion with annual revenues of $3.7 billion, so I don't think cash was an issue. In my opinion I would bet the reason the insurance company walked away was because of the social media post displaying the recklessness that caused the loss.
Those who follow Florida's property insurance market know that insurance companies can and do go belly-up. Warren's point is fair, if likely not in play here.
It is also true that insurance companies expect their policyholders to abide by the terms of the policy. They will deny your fire claim if you have unpermitted work done by an unlicensed electrician.
The video probably didn't help, but I expect any big claim is investigated before payout.
I saw it. The insurance company offered a 10% insured value payout (basically a settlement), which they did not have to do. He didn't take it and they predictably denied the claim. I feel bad for him but it still comes across as not taking full responsibility for (or even fully understanding) the mistakes made.
I feel bad for him but it still comes across as not taking full responsibility for (or even fully understanding) the mistakes made.
I totally agree. There were brief mentions of the improper mooring ball at 21:40 but zero responsibility accepted. And I'd have to believe that his willingness to not sue or litigate is based on legal advice that he was negligent and it'd be hard to argue and win a case to get the claim accepted.
I feel bad for him but it still comes across as not taking full responsibility for (or even fully understanding) the mistakes made.
I totally agree. There were brief mentions of the improper mooring ball at 21:40 but zero responsibility accepted. And I'd have to believe that his willingness to not sue or litigate is based on legal advice that he was negligent and it'd be hard to argue and win a case to get the claim accepted.
Hmm, I thought he DID take responsibility for mooring on the ball in bad weather. And, more interestingly, the expert he had on questioned the difference between a navigational error (hitting a reef) and this mooring error and why this was seemingly different. The expert talked at length about how this policy looked a lot different than others he's seen as well as how strange the communications and behavior of the company was throughout the whole process. He, the expert, did say that he looked at Hillbilly's "No Steering, No Problem" video and felt he was going to have a tough time but then he also said that this particular incident was not due to the steering issue (basically, he was not steering at the time so it shouldn't matter). The expert pointed out that the "seaworthiness" criteria can be used maliciously, using the example of a claim denied for fire extinguishers being out of date for an incident that wasn't about fire.
Hillbilly also said part of the reason for not pursuing legal action was because the jurisdiction would have been in Costa Rica (which was also very odd according to the expert) and would have required even more expense and he'd be playing in "their home field".
The whole thing gave off a vibe of this insurance company being somewhat scammy. Now maybe that's the vibe the Hillbilly wants to have come across to try and absolve him of liability but it seemed like the expert agreed to some extent.
He kind of acknowledged the error, but only mentioned that it was windy, which was surely much less of an issue than the swell that day. I passed right by the area just hours before it happened.
And the $170k olive branch that the insurance company offered was certainly not acknowledged, or possibly not even understood.
I have zero doubt the incident was caused by negligence. I was in that area and the swells were forecast. I don’t however understand why his insurance is not valid. The main reason you have insurance is to protect yourself when you do stupid things which we all do at one time or another. Can your auto insurer deny you coverage if they find you were using your cell phone prior to the accident? The only thing I could see is that he took the boat out when it was not in a sea worthy condition with the failed steering.
His video is interesting. He bid his insurance out and this was his only quote, which he acknowledged seemed low. It's like homeowners forced to go with their state insurance plan because it's the only option. Post Irma, insurance options are limited, and the better companies aren't interested in the risk.
.
![[Linked Image]](https://zanshin-sailing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/zanshin-transparent-black-logo-350x100-1-150x43.png){kind=logo}