GoneDiving
Guru
Are wireless smoke alarms still effective through steel bulkheads and soles?
Are wireless smoke alarms still effective through steel bulkheads and soles?
Surprisingly, "reglaze" was used in a conventional/traditional sense. Often hard to know what meaning is intended, so many words are corrupted in meaning, eg existential,decimate, stakeholder(meaning is actually reversed),even epicenter(used below). After a while, the misuse becomes the meaning.Exactly the context of the term, as I know it.
I agree with what you said! They did not start the fire on purpose, but they own the boat and are the ones responsible.Well, sadly, it is their responsibility. I hope they're well insured through a reliable company although sounds a bit problematic, but often determining cause slows things down. But also hope they have a nice umbrella policy for anything not covered by insurance. Doesn't take a lot to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage and responsibility.
I'm sorry but the public whining episode does nothing to make me feel worse for them. All the "it's not my fault". Well, yes it is. Your boat, your responsibility. Then the shock at salvage and Coast Guard? Do you think you'll be allowed to just let it sit and cause more damage? In Australia, you'd be charged for reef damage. I don't know why they're just talking to an insurance agent and not the claims department of the insurer, through the number on their policy. That's the first call they should have made. Public crying doesn't move me and it is just a boat but led to destruction of another boat and environmental damage. They resent being told it's their responsibility, well who do they expect to be held responsible if not them?
I watched the entire video. While I do understand the sense of loss of a house or boat, no lives lost, no one hurt and I'd be rejoicing in that aspect. If they're underinsured, that's on them. Whatever they get paid, they'll still be wealthy compared to those they profess to want to help. A huge setback, but watching them cry and listening to them whine about not their fault just doesn't impress me. I think they lost me when it started with "In this week's episode." Too much like reality tv and all the drama of it.
Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?I agree with what you said! They did not start the fire on purpose, but they own the boat and are the ones responsible.
Happy cruising Dave!You are not allowed to leave Australia without Government permission, which is mainly granted for business and occasionally family reasons.
Few are allowed into the country - mainly celebrities and business people - and there are still literally tens of thousands of Australians trapped overseas and unable to return.
If you do, it's two weeks of self-paid mandatory hotel quarantine, where you are likely to catch COVID.
My state, Victoria, has been in lock-down for weeks, with a night-time curfew and only a few reasons for being able to leave home, and then only a 5km radius.
So no, they can't just jump on a plane and head to Florida.
Most of you have absolutely no idea what it is like here.
I am just so fortunate to have escaped Victoria before the current lockdown, and am cruising unrestricted around the Queensland coast.
Bruce, locally the word responsible has been legally interpreted to mean you as owner are responsible because you or your designate alone may have access to the property in order to have prevented ...................?Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?
(Note laws may be different in USA to Australia, and consider "Dorset Yacht".)
That would mean it has to be kept under 24 hour guard. But of course,I accept, laws vary place to place. But here, if I contract with a tradesman to do work on my house and he somehow negligently kills one of his workers, unless I was somehow negligent,I`m not liable.Bruce, locally the word responsible has been legally interpreted to mean you as owner are responsible because you or your designate alone may have access to the property in order to have prevented ...................?
That would mean it has to be kept under 24 hour guard. But of course,I accept, laws vary place to place. But here, if I contract with a tradesman to do work on my house and he somehow negligently kills one of his workers, unless I was somehow negligent,I`m not liable.
Even if the marooned expat boat owners are somehow liable, they should have recovery rights against whoever really messed up,assuming of course that party "is worth powder and shot".
Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?
(Note laws may be different in USA to Australia, and consider "Dorset Yacht".)
I just watched these poor folks 2nd video.
Imagine you were them. You are in your own home country thousands of miles from your boat which is in a foreign country.
Based on all that their response seems pretty darn reasonable and timely.
Sorry, but all this criticism of them seems pretty petty.
They are working with their insurance carrier to make a claim, and they have handled this unfortunate situation in a pretty responsible manner.
Rule 1 of liability. mitigate further damage as quickly as possible.
Rule 2 do not admit fault.
As far as the boat owners being responsible, that may or may not be true. I think they would be responsible for the environmental cleanup of their boat regardless, but they may or may not be responsible for damages to others property or injuries to others.
That aspect would come under idea of negligence. If they were found negligent then they could be held responsible and they or their insurer would have to pay.
If they were not found negligent then the opposite would be the case.
First glance is that being thousands of miles away would tend to mitigate negligence unless something they did prior to leaving the boat was in and of itself negligent in nature.
Thanks, though I suspect many US TFers would say "lawyer" and "truth" are but distantly related. The "Dorset Yacht' case gets drummed into you with the law of negligence, Dorset Yacht Co gets pinged for not securing a charter boat stolen by some escapees from a borstal( youth prison) who then cause damage to others. ( I doubt the lecturer used the word "pinged".)Spoken like a true lawyer!
I’m not a lawyer so to me fault and responsibility mean two different things. I understand courts, admiralty law may in effect use those words as a equivalency. We don’t know if they personally did some revision or action before they left that was the direct or indirect cause of the fire but from what they say they personally were in Australia and don’t report such an action. They admit responsibility and even in the prior episode didn’t deny responsibility. Rather to my understanding they use “fault” in the non legal common usage meaning.Perhaps a lawyer may educate us as to the legal meaning of fault and responsibility.
I’ve left my boat from weeks and sometimes months in a foreign country. Work has been done in my absence so only supervised by my yacht management company. In that setting I have only the reputation of the yacht management company and selected vendors to assure me the workers are acting responsibly and safely. I’m told what I’m told by those two entities and what I see on shared videos and pictures.
Hence, understand how they could feel not being at fault but being responsible. Wonder if some here are being too harsh. Don’t subscribe to any channels. Don’t like that ecosystem at all. But that’s another issue. Wonder if other posters here who have had occasion to leave their boat in another country have a similar view of how this couple could feel the way they do.
I just watched these poor folks 2nd video.
Imagine you were them. You are in your own home country thousands of miles from your boat which is in a foreign country.
Based on all that their response seems pretty darn reasonable and timely.
Sorry, but all this criticism of them seems pretty petty.
They are working with their insurance carrier to make a claim, and they have handled this unfortunate situation in a pretty responsible manner.
Rule 1 of liability. mitigate further damage as quickly as possible.
Rule 2 do not admit fault.
As far as the boat owners being responsible, that may or may not be true. I think they would be responsible for the environmental cleanup of their boat regardless, but they may or may not be responsible for damages to others property or injuries to others.
That aspect would come under idea of negligence. If they were found negligent then they could be held responsible and they or their insurer would have to pay.
If they were not found negligent then the opposite would be the case.
First glance is that being thousands of miles away would tend to mitigate negligence unless something they did prior to leaving the boat was in and of itself negligent in nature.
You seem to be saying an insured is not covered when at fault, ie negligent. Not so here, one reason people insure is to protect themselves against their own "errors".Negligence is not necessarily a factor in damage claims of this nature. That's actually fortunate or otherwise your own insurance wouldn't pay for your losses. Typically your insurer is going to take responsibility and then take legal action against others if it feels appropriate .
...
Negligence is not necessarily a factor in damage claims of this nature. That's actually fortunate or otherwise your own insurance wouldn't pay for your losses. Typically your insurer is going to take responsibility and then take legal action against others if it feels appropriate to recover all or part of what they paid. This is also a case in which policy limits could come into play and hopefully the owner has high limits or a good umbrella policy.
The main instructions most lawyers would give is to say nothing. They would allow release of statements they'd approved such as one saying the cause was to be determined but their thoughts were with the injured. Most lawyers would be greatly disturbed by a telecast such as the ones they did.
Let me be clear....it was not their fault....but they own the boat so they are responsible. That is just the way it works! That is why you carry enough insurance to cover all of these things. If your dog bites someone, you did not do the act, but you are responsible for your dog since you own it.Why? A miscreant walks up to your boat, and sets fire to it. You accept responsibility for consequential damage? Really? Why? What did you do?
(Note laws may be different in USA to Australia, and consider "Dorset Yacht".)
You seem to be saying an insured is not covered when at fault, ie negligent. Not so here, one reason people insure is to protect themselves against their own "errors".
As regards 3rd parties making claims, if you are not liable your insurer is not,there is nothing to indemnify. Though a decent insurer would conduct the defence of the 3rd party`s claim I`ve seen one that would not.
. Hire a casual laborer to wash your boat. He slips, falls and ends up with a lifetime injury. Next out of desperation he files a workman comp claim and claims he was an under the table employee. Suddenly everyone is looking at the boat owner to pay and there is no insurance to back you. Moral of the story, be careful who you hire to do work on your boat.