to me, Rob, Patricia
Unfortunately, any information regarding claims is privileged. All I can tell you is that there were claims other than the Maui incident.
I can confirm that as a result of the recent claims, the insurance premium increased 400%.
Regards,
Sandi Blumit
I think it is important that whenever USMS brings up the increase in insurance premium that it also discloses that it is a result of the number of claims, and involved different activities and circumstances. By discussing the increase of the premium AND discussing the new surcharge and restrictions on open water events, it makes it sound as if the premium increase is solely the result of the liability arising from open water events.
In fact if the insurer is charging $1,800 for each open water event, it is essentially a rider attached to the underlying policy. If that is the case then the entire increase in the premium is a result of non-open water activities. In other words you pay a premium for a policy that does not cover open water events. However, if you want coverage for a specific open water event then there is additional coverage attached to the underlying policy. For each additional event (or day of a multiday event) you pay an additional $1,800 if you want it to be covered. No $1,800 - no coverage. Pay your're $1,800 but a boat is involved in an injury accident but does not have a propeller guard, then no coverage even under the event insurance rider. Pay your $1,800 and the boat involved in the accident did not have it's own $1 million policy, then I suspect the USMS event coverage would only act as excess over $1 million.
Having defended literally hundreds of liability cases, there are many reasons why a party insists on a confidentiality agreement. Some are reasonable and can make sense, but others are for, how do I say it, the purpose of covering up an underlying problem that the demanding party does not want exposed (either plaintiff or defendant). However, if the claims have been resolved and it was not a condition of the settlement, then it is just an administrative policy issue that the board can decide (and change their mind on). If the claims have not been resolved yet, I think it is absolutely correct keeping the details of the claims confidential. I always insisted that my clients did while their claim was pending.
to me, Rob, Patricia
Unfortunately, any information regarding claims is privileged. All I can tell you is that there were claims other than the Maui incident.
I can confirm that as a result of the recent claims, the insurance premium increased 400%.
Regards,
Sandi Blumit
I think it is important that whenever USMS brings up the increase in insurance premium that it also discloses that it is a result of the number of claims, and involved different activities and circumstances. By discussing the increase of the premium AND discussing the new surcharge and restrictions on open water events, it makes it sound as if the premium increase is solely the result of the liability arising from open water events.
In fact if the insurer is charging $1,800 for each open water event, it is essentially a rider attached to the underlying policy. If that is the case then the entire increase in the premium is a result of non-open water activities. In other words you pay a premium for a policy that does not cover open water events. However, if you want coverage for a specific open water event then there is additional coverage attached to the underlying policy. For each additional event (or day of a multiday event) you pay an additional $1,800 if you want it to be covered. No $1,800 - no coverage. Pay your're $1,800 but a boat is involved in an injury accident but does not have a propeller guard, then no coverage even under the event insurance rider. Pay your $1,800 and the boat involved in the accident did not have it's own $1 million policy, then I suspect the USMS event coverage would only act as excess over $1 million.
Having defended literally hundreds of liability cases, there are many reasons why a party insists on a confidentiality agreement. Some are reasonable and can make sense, but others are for, how do I say it, the purpose of covering up an underlying problem that the demanding party does not want exposed (either plaintiff or defendant). However, if the claims have been resolved and it was not a condition of the settlement, then it is just an administrative policy issue that the board can decide (and change their mind on). If the claims have not been resolved yet, I think it is absolutely correct keeping the details of the claims confidential. I always insisted that my clients did while their claim was pending.
