Tanker ship sunk by mega-yacht near Nassau

[Sailor of Fortune]

many professional Capts have license insurance. Some companies pay the premium as a benefit

 

[OldDan1943]

The 2nd video briefly suggests the tanker was attempting to cross the bow of the other boat.
Also, the tanker's AIS had not worked in a year.
Even without an AIS the tanker should have had working Radar.
I would have been surprised if the other boat didn't have 2 Radars on board.
We do not know the staffing experience on either bridge.

 

[psneeld]

Isn't captain license insurance to have legal backup to defend your license for actions brought against it?

 

[mvweebles]

I keep hearing rumors of captains license insurance. Maybe it exists but if it does, likely isn't worth much.

As a management consultant, I carry errors & omissions and professional liability insurance. To be insured, my client contracts are required to have certain provisions, most notably on third party indemnities, data privacy policies, intellectual property rights, limits on liabilities, step-in rights, and defined acceptance criteria for deliverables. Insurance will cover me as long as I operate within certain guardrails.

If "Captains Insurance" exists, the conditions and limitations are likely onerous. Coverage is narrow, exclusions are generous.

But this is speculation. The one delivery skipper (Europe) I've seen who claims he carries such coverage also states he is covered for trans-oceanic deliveries as a single handed sailor, which is total BS. I can't imagine an owner let alone an insurance company signing up for coverage of a single handed captain delivering a boat on a multi-day passage. But that's his claim.

When I was delivering, having insurance would have made me more of a target - deep pockets. I have not met many skippers with enough assets to justify the types of lawsuits and recovery we're talking here.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

License insurance is s different animal.

It pays for lawyers to protect your license from USCG actions...at least that is what I get from the ads.

https://www.mopslicenseins.com/

 

[Jon H]

License insurance, for example MOPS, is indeed to protect an
individual & his/her license against action by the USCG.

Wither MOPS or other firms offer coverage for non USCG license
holders I don't know.


Maritime law treats a vessel like it's own entity -
the tankers P&I Club will go to the yachts P&I Club to
recover damages, etc.

It can take years before all the claims are settled.

 

[AlanT]

I’ve never seen any policy language to this effect, bu I have only ever seen a recreational policy. I expect both boats have crew requirements in their policies, but I’ve never heard of a policy being contingent on performance of the crew.

That said, as a professional mariner, I expect you only get to make a big mistake like this once in your career.

Most commercial Marine Hull standard policies (AIHC '77, ITCH '83) are written such that only the Owner's actual gross negligence is excluded. So however negligent the Capt/Crew may (or may not) have been, there would be no exclusion in regard to their actions. However if the Owner were at the helm it could be a different matter. Policies diverge and it is possible that a grossly negligent Owner in operation of the vessel might have coverage excluded depending on the tailored language of manuscript policies (these are not regulated policies and so the coverage and exclusions are subject to detailed negotiations between the parties.

You really can't draw conclusions without access to the specific policy language. When I was in that business we drew up specific policy language for every client.

~A

 

[AlanT]

The subject of "captain's liability insurance" is not relevant to this accident as far as I can tell. The Captain of the yacht was likely not a free agent. He was presumably the employee of the Owner and assuming that he met the requirements of the Owner's Hull Policy (which also typically covers liability for collision) with regard to the qualifications that are acceptable to the insurer of crew, his actions as a crew member, including the results of his negligence, if any, would have no impact on the recoverability of claims against that policy (for physical damage to the yacht or for the Yacht Owner's liability for collision damage to the tanker). That same policy would be unable to subrogate (recover) against the capt/crew of their Owner.

The Tanker Owner's claim against the Yacht would be defended/settled by the Yacht's P&I policy (third party liability for Shipowner's with respect to their vessel operations). That coverage would defend the Yacht Owner/Crew and settle on their behalf for any liability assessed.

So bottom line there is no liability that would fall on the Captain that is not covered either in the Collision Liability portion of the Hull policy or the P&I policy held by the Yacht Owner.

- And that is as it should be - he is an employee and his employer and his employer's insurance should and presumably will respond.

None of the above has any impact on any criminal proceeding, which would follow completely different rules!

~A

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

Isn't captain license insurance to have legal backup to defend your license for actions brought against it?

yes, it provides legal defense in the event of an action against your license

 

[Simi 60]

All the gear and no idea.

Can think of no actual excuse as to why this would happen.

 

[Benthic2]

what about the Owner that says "I hired a licensensed captain and he broke my boat" ?

 

[BandB]

interesting , thanks Scott


also I hope that Brett aka BandB will chime in with his skills nd thoughts in this field

No idea what causes there were, but suspect some fault on the part of both parties. As to investigation, both US and Belize, but the Bahamas will be quick to establish jurisdiction over the boats and environmental damage. Boats won't leave their water until they're sure their claims will be covered.

Now, the next question is what will be the long term impact to fuel availability in the Bahamas, if any?

 

[sunchaser]

There are some interesting questions posed. The mere fact that a large ship ran into a smaller ship although headline grabbing says nothing about stand on give way considestions. Then maneuvers before the collision, watch protocols, instrument and navigation operability and crew certifications all come into play.

With several large vessel ship Captains and Officers on TF plus Scott's USCG experience this should be an informative topic as facts become known.

 

[Hippocampus]

Although I was the functional captain have used licensed captains as crew. They were unpaid but my insurance told me I had to submit their full resume for approval and Jones Act provisions ( what that means in real terms I never fully understood) might be operable. My insurance at the time was “owner/operator “. Prior to about a decade ago I didn’t have to submit full resumes on crew. Occasionally I was told I needed to have a certain number of crew on board for a particular passage but that was it. I was allowed to vet them myself. Now I’m told the number of crew and the insurance vets and approves each one after my selection. I like to take at least one newbie. Think that’s necessary if the sport is to endure. Now that means they’re a extra beyond requirements.
Would think the mega yacht crew is similarly vetted and approved by the insurance carrier. Having done so they have put their stamp of approval so inherit liability for their actions (or inaction). Having no understanding of insurance at this level I wanted to know if the insurance company has an out if the crew behaves in violation of the international rules. In short are criminally negligent.

 

[mvweebles]

There are some interesting questions posed. The mere fact that a large ship ran into a smaller ship although headline grabbing says nothing about stand on give way considestions. Then maneuvers before the collision, watch protocols, instrument and navigation operability and crew certifications all come into play.

Assuming the following from upthread (Post #2) is correct, not sure there is a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. The rules are pretty clear - in all circumstances, overtaking vessels are burdened. Unless the tanker was operating in reverse, ass-ending another boat is tough to argue as anything other than over-taking. Let's face it, chances are both departed same port bound for Great Stirrup Cay and happened to be on identical courses.

The 160-foot tanker was traveling on its proper watch en route to Great Stirrup Cay when it was rear-ended by the 207-foot super yacht​

There may be a tiny bit of culpability for the tanker for not somehow avoiding the yacht crawling up their exhaust, but not much. Of course, assumes the quoted text is accurate.

 

[twistedtree]

Assuming the following from upthread (Post #2) is correct, and that overtaking vessels are the bottom of the give-way food chain, not sure there is a lot of wiggle room for interpretation - getting ass-ended is sort of cut/dry unless the ship was backing-down or something bizarre.

The 160-foot tanker was traveling on its proper watch en route to Great Stirrup Cay when it was rear-ended by the 207-foot super yacht​

It’s not totally clear that the yacht was overtaking, or that it “rear ended” the tanker. I originally thought that too, but it was based on a statement from the tankers managers (so one sided) and didn’t actually say any of that. I’m
Thinking it may have just been a very carefully worded jump on public opinion and PR.

 

[psneeld]

News articles/press releases are hardly ever considered as evidence in an accident investigation.


Criminally negligent is pretty bad and different from civil liability.


Lots of topics to cover and already I feel the typical TF intertwining of them all at once will cause the thread to become difficult to understand and address unless each topic is separately debated.

 

[OldDan1943]

"rear ended", I thought the yacht ran up the stern of the boat. Apparently the yacht hit the tanker near the stern on either port or starboard.

There was no radio traffic, no whistles between the two ships?
So many we dont know and never will.

The Maritime Court will distribute the blame between the 2 vessels, insurance companies will fight, the lawyers will get rich.
All we know for sure is, the tanker company is looking for another small tanker.

 

[Seevee]

How do airlines work......who issues pilots licenses ? Do they have insurance?

Somewhat similar.... airline pilots are employees of the company that operates the planes and their insurance covers the pilots. However, some pilots have gotten their arses handed to them by willfully doing stupid things. Drinking before a flight, for example.... and lately there's been criminal charges for them. If their just negligent, and not intentionally negligent, they're covered.


As for private pilots/corporate pilots, the insurance on the plane covers them, and they are a named insured, and approved, on the policy.



And, one can buy legal protection on their own, to defend against government (FAA) actions.

 

[mvweebles]

It’s not totally clear that the yacht was overtaking, or that it “rear ended” the tanker. I originally thought that too, but it was based on a statement from the tankers managers (so one sided) and didn’t actually say any of that. I’m
Thinking it may have just been a very carefully worded jump on public opinion and PR.

You are correct. More info is forthcoming. The SuperYachtNews guy released an update

Updated YouTube on Super Yacht News.

1. Tanker was hit broadside towards the sterm (no indication whether stbd or port side)
2. Tanker's AIS had not registered a signal in over a year.
3. Corrects statement the Tanker was a fishing vessel

Peter

PS - "Criminally Negligent" is a much, much different animal. Applies where there is risk to life or injury such as leaving a loaded firearm next to a tray of Twinkies at a child day-care center. Some form of civil negligence is the yardstick in a case like this, with Gross Negligence being a very high bar too.

 

[Solly]

Wonder if the super yacht captain was even on the bridge ??? Happened at 10pm. 15 miles out of port. He may have turned it over to the second or third officer once clear.
I agree the captain is always responsible, but as long as the crew was properly certified and trained, would he have any personable liability ??
Still, somebody will never work on a super yacht again...

 

[AlanT]

Having no understanding of insurance at this level I wanted to know if the insurance company has an out if the crew behaves in violation of the international rules. In short are criminally negligent.

The Standard Hull Clauses (American and British) contain a clause called the Inchmaree Clause (you can google it). This clause in its standard form is shown below it provides additional coverage to the "perils of the sea" in the foregoing provisions of the policy, so when reading it, everything stated should be read as an extension of coverage (subject to the stated exceptions). The pertinent provision is found at the end and I have bolded the relevant portions:

ADDITIONAL PERILS (INCHAMAREE)Subject to the conditions of this Policy, this insurance also covers loss of or damage to the Vessel directly caused by the following:

Accidents in loading, discharging or handling cargo, or in bunkering;
Accidents in going on or off, or while on drydocks, graving docks, ways, gridirons or pontoons;
Explosions on shipboard or elsewhere;
Breakdown of motor generators or other electrical machinery and electrical connections thereto, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or any latent defect in the machinery or hull, (excluding the cost and expense of replacing or repairing the defective part);
Breakdown of or accidents to nuclear installations or reactors not on board the insured Vessel;
Contact with aircraft, rockets or similar missiles, or with any land conveyance;
Negligence of Charterers and/or Repairers, provided such Charterers and/or Repairers are not an Assured hereunder;
Negligence of Masters, Officers, Crew or Pilots; provided such loss or damage has not resulted from want of due diligence by the Assured, the Owners or Managers of the Vessel, or any of them. Masters, Officers, Crew or Pilots are not to be considered Owners within the meaning of this clause should they hold shares in the Vessel.

Anyone wanting a further understanding of the clauses at issue can google "American Institute Hull Clauses" for the full text of the standard Hull policy utilized as the basic coverage form for most commercial vessels (while noting that the British form "Institute Hull Clauses" is also widely used and provides the same coverage with regard to this issue)

Trust this assists ~A

 

[AlanT]

The following from a maritime lawyer should address any questions raised by the foregoing when the Owner is also the Master.

The Clause does not cover negligence committed by the assured himself. However, the Hull Clauses make specific provision for owners who may also be employed in a seafaring role. To this end the provision "Masters Officers Crew or Pilots not to be considered Owners within the meaning of this Clause should they hold shares in the vessel’. Allows an owner or a part owner acting as master (a common occurrence in the coastal trade) to have the protection of the additional perils clause.

So bottom line. The Captain, even if the owner, would have the protection offered by the clause.

~A

 

[Benthic2]

..... chances are both departed same port bound for Great Stirrup Cay and happened to be on identical courses......

They probably both departed from Nassau but I doubt the superyacht was headed for Great Stirrup Cay as that is a private island owned by one of the cruise lines.

 

[Parro]

I am surprised Captains don't have professional liability insurance. Your doctor, accountant, mechanic,even your basic handyman carry liability insurance. I would think if I entrusted my megayacht to a person based on their credentials of being a licensed captain, I would have some recourse if they were negligent.

Its more likely that the yacht owner would be vicariously liable. It would be the owner that needs to insure their risk against a negligent captain.

How would you feel if, next time you make a claim, the insurer said “you crashed the boat and it was your fault so we are not paying”.

If that’s how it works on your policy then your wasting money on the premium.

 

[slowgoesit]

More info here: Not looking good for Utopia . . .

https://www.homedepot.com/p/ProLine...-ft-Clear-Vinyl-Tubing-CP316018400R/315402427

 

[Hippocampus]

Plenty of blame to go around.

 

[SteveK]

Obviously AI has not evolved enough on boats. Cars can park themselves, stop/slow down if something ahead, allow driver to go to sleep.
But a superyacht guy on watch goes to washroom and the only other boat around is hit.

 

[koliver]

Obviously AI has not evolved enough on boats. Cars can park themselves, stop/slow down if something ahead, allow driver to go to sleep.
But a superyacht guy on watch goes to washroom and the only other boat around is hit.

dark out, cruising at 20 knots, poor fwd visibility due to spray from the hull, undimmed interior lighting, Captain gone for 10 minutes, leaving only a deckhand on the bridge, what could go wrong?

 

[Jc180]

Now, the next question is what will be the long term impact to fuel availability in the Bahamas, if any?

Agree that is the question. Actually the short term impact as well. In our many years of cruising the Abacos, Tropic Breeze was the only tanker we saw supplying the cays. Hopefully another shallow draft tanker or tug/barge is available as replacement.