N.J. Bill Would Require Liability Insurance for Boats

March 3, 2008

  • March 5, 2008 at 8:45 am
    Rosie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I support this bill. It is just as important to have boat insurance as it is to have car insurance.

  • March 5, 2008 at 9:00 am
    DM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Regardless if someone dies on your boat or not, you yourself can be injuried and need coverage on your own boat. I just think this is a good idea.

  • March 5, 2008 at 9:42 am
    mw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am surprised it’s not already a law! We have insurance for so many other situations why not have this in place? Most people who have lived through this kind of thing under stand the bills and frustration that come with the grief.

  • March 5, 2008 at 10:17 am
    GB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just because its a good idea or makes sense, doesn’t mean it should be mandated for everyone. Many people with good common sense probably have insurance already, as do many marina members, and probably anyone who financed a boat as a bank would require it. But it doesn’t make sense to require it of everyone, and its going to cause lawyers to go looking for settlements where they aren’t deserved. Right now if you slip, fall and brake your arm on a buddy’s boat you go to the ER, get it fixed and your health insurance covers it. IF this law passes, ambulance chasing lawyers will be calling you up and offering to get you thousands of dollars for your pain and suffering…..we don’t need that.

  • March 5, 2008 at 12:41 pm
    Christine says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is unfortunate that boat owners do not take the reasonability to have insurance. What makes a boat any different from a car? Donald McGloan was a real person, with a real family, and friends that loved him dearly. He went on a “friends” boat one day and never came home. The person who owned the boat did not take the responsibility to have boat owners insurance. Donald’s family was stuck with medical bills and funeral cost. Not to mention the fact that he had two teenaged children that had dreams of going to college. It is pure insanity that we do not have this law already in place!!!

  • March 5, 2008 at 12:52 pm
    GB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    AAAGGHHHHHH !!! The issue here isn’t whether or not this guys death was tragic, a burden on his family or a big expense for everyone. It was all of those things….I am not debating that in the least. My point is that not every boat should be required to have liability insurance. Some boats are so small and cheap that adding an insurance requirement would effectively prohibit boating for many, this bill will have lawyers seeking damages solely because there is an insurance company to pay them, not because they are warranted, and lstly……LIFE INSURANCE should cover a family that can’t be without their loved one..NOT boat insurance.

  • March 5, 2008 at 1:05 am
    Christine says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Listen GB I wasn’t debating with you!!! So you can keep your AAAGGGGGHHHH!!!!! FYI life insurance didn’t even come CLOSE to paying for medical cost…. Donald’s family is not ambulance chasers as you may be suggesting… What if you were in a car accident and the person didn’t have insurance??? You’d be screwed!!! What if you had to be air lifted from the scene?? Do you have any idea what that cost??? And yes he did have health insurance…. And guess what the boat owner pretty much got away with murder!!! Because you can be negligent on your boat and it doesn’t mean a damn thing!! You can just say “oops sorry” to the family and go on your merry way!!! Now what do you think of that??? Sounds to me like there needs to be some serious laws changed!! And believe me I am 100 % for less government and less taxes but what is the difference between a boat and a car???

  • March 5, 2008 at 1:32 am
    sandi says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just in case you don’t get it, this family gains NOTHING from this bill if it is passed. They are not ambulance chasers. It is absured that you can pass judgement on people you don’t even know. I think it is very courageous and wonderful that this family is doing this. I hope to God that this bill is passed and that you never need to use it.

  • March 5, 2008 at 2:30 am
    kevin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here is where GB is wrong.

    1. Regardless of whether this bill is passed or not, there will ALWAYS be lawyers looking to collect damages.

    2. His argument in a previous posting about where to draw the line and what’s next, bicycles, is completely ignorant. We’re talking about a motorized vehicle, just like a car. We’re not talking about bicycles, tricycles, skateboards, canoes, rowboats, paddleboats, etc!!

    3. The purpose of his bill is NOT to create life insurance for those affected by this tragedy. It’s to hold those persons liable who were acting in a negligent manner, hence the word “liability” insurance.

  • March 5, 2008 at 2:32 am
    GB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I never said the family were ambulance chasers. I used the term “ambulance chasers” to describe the lawyers who will aggressively go after boat owners just because there is an insurance policy to pay off.

    A boat is different from a car for a number of reasons. All cars are big and heavy and go fast enough to do damage. Not all boats are. Cars naturally go into high liability situations. They operate in close proximaty to pedestrians, other cars, buildings, etc. Boats primarily operate away from buildings, people, swimmers etc.

    If this was such a no-brainer, why doesn’t this law exist in every coastal state ? The fact that it doesn’t should be taken as an indicator that its not necessary.

    If this families life insurance didn’t cover their bills, they were under-insured. I believe this bill is only going to require $100,000 in coverage which probably would not have covered this guys bills anyway if he was airlifted, in an ICU, and so forth.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*