[Sal Paradise]

We just came back from an aborted attempt to charter a day sail. We were only renting a Catalina 22 inshore for the day. Having satisfied the operator that we have experience, they handed us a contract and I was truly annoyed to read " Renter is 100% liable for any damage to the boat during the rental period regardless of cause. In the case of damage $1000 security deposit will be forfeit and if the damage is less than $1000 the balance will be returned. If the damage is greater than deposit as determined by XXXX Charters the (Name) will be responsible for the entire cost up to and including complete replacement of the vessel.

They told us this was non negotiable and no sort of insurance was available to purchase. Question- would you sign such an agreement, especially after forking over $250 for a day sail? Is this normal?

For the record we refused to sign

 

[Minnewaska]

It is fairly normal, at least for bareboat renting in the Caribbean. However, insurance is typically available too.

 

[rnixon]

Where I typically charter, insurance is included, so your liability is limited to the insurance excess. On larger boats, that's still a few thousand dollars.

I, like you, wouldn't sign the contract that you were given, at least not on a boat worth more than a few thousand.

 

[Omatako]

We just came back from an aborted attempt to charter a day sail. We were only renting a Catalina 22 inshore for the day. Having satisfied the operator that we have experience, they handed us a contract and I was truly annoyed to read " Renter is 100% liable for any damage to the boat during the rental period regardless of cause. In the case of damage $1000 security deposit will be forfeit and if the damage is less than $1000 the balance will be returned. If the damage is greater than deposit as determined by XXXX Charters the (Name) will be responsible for the entire cost up to and including complete replacement of the vessel.

They told us this was non negotiable and no sort of insurance was available to purchase. Question- would you sign such an agreement, especially after forking over $250 for a day sail? Is this normal?

For the record we refused to sign

So if a dodgy stay wire parted and the mast broke and ripped the main ("regardless of cause"), you become responsible for a new rig and sail, up to and including a replacement vessel?!?

You have got to be kidding.

IMHO you were right not to sign that. If, as another post mentioned, that is the norm for a bareboat charter, I have another handy excuse for never chartering.

 

[Faster]

I don't think that car rental contracts are any different - though there's obviously a difference in usage and attendant risk - and with cars insurance is offered.

One thing.. My Credit card company covers insurance for car rentals when paid with the card.. Maybe something like that is possible.

 

[Omatako]

I don't think that car rental contracts are any different - though there's obviously a difference in usage and attendant risk - and with cars insurance is offered.

One thing.. My Credit card company covers insurance for car rentals when paid with the card.. Maybe something like that is possible.

Except to say that if you rent a car and the dashboard catches fire (for example) it hopefully won't be billed to you. It's the "regardless of cause" that makes it unpalatable.

 

[Sal Paradise]

How about if a powerboat hits me? I'm responsible now to pay for a new Catalina 22?

I have rented many cars and it is different - few people would rent if they had to promise to buy the rental company a new car. The rental company insures the car for normal collision and comprehensive as well as liability and you buy additional coverage to eliminate the deductible

What I told the charter company was - your insurance will probably cover your boat and then you are going to hand my initialed and signed agreement to your insurance company and they are going to go after me in court. And in their lawyer's hand will be my signature stating I assume 100% responsibility for all damage regardless of cause. BTW it was an almost new boat probably worth $20k.The tip off to this was that they did not offer a damage waiver. Probably because they were already fully insured. Its like saying " I'ms tupid, please sue me" If anything happens.

 

[Zanshin]

How about if a powerboat hits me? I'm responsible now to pay for a new Catalina 22?...

Yes, you are responsible to the rental company. But the powerboater who hit you is responsible to you for the new Catalina 22. This clause is there so that the party with the damage to their source of income has direct redress.
What is odd is that they don't have an insurance company with which they work to mitigate the renter's risk.

 

[RobGallagher]

I would have run, not walked from that. Even in S.E. Asia the yacht I chartered was insured.

 

[Sal Paradise]

Actually the owner is out on Catalina Island right now doing a class and a powerboat rental company in the harbor is handling his charter boats this week.The employees at the dock were really clueless about almost everything. I suspect one of two things-

I was inadvertently handed the wrong contract by the powerboat rental company employees.

or -

They are fully covered for damages ( that's why we couldn't buy a damage waiver) and insurance is already included in the price and some brain child in their office cooked up this language as a catch all.

I wrote to the owner to see if it's the former ( as I suspect) and I will post his reply here.

 

[RobGallagher]

Well, either way, I'm guessing if you signed it you would be on the hook. If there was damage, I'm sure the insurance company would have loved to see that contract.

They may have paid the owners of the boat, but if they got their greedy hands on that paper they could have taken you to court to try and recover funds they paid out.

 

[JimMcGee]

When that little voice is telling you that something is wrong listen.


This is just one of example. I am curious if the owner gets back to you what he has to say.

 

[Rapp]

I don't think that car rental contracts are any different - though there's obviously a difference in usage and attendant risk - and with cars insurance is offered.

One thing.. My Credit card company covers insurance for car rentals when paid with the card.. Maybe something like that is possible.

Its my understanding that your car insurance will cover you if you carry full coverage

 

[Minnewaska]

Unlike my auto policy, I've asked whether my boat insurance policy would provide coverage when I rent and the answer was, no. I also asked if a rider could be added and the answer was, no.

I think I understand what the charter company is trying to deal with. There is a huge obscure area between obvious operator error and a faulty boat. The vast majority of renters aren't going to just own up to having done something to break the boat, they may not even know they did.

However, your liability still needs to be limited or, as Sal rightly decided, you shouldn't take the risk. The owner is probably trying to get away with no one reading the contract.

I don't know if commercial insurance is similar to recreational, where hull liability typically has a 1% deductible. No surprise that my last bareboat, where insurance was available, still had a deductible that was in that range. You gave them $500 in cash and the rest of the deductible on a credit card, before you left. We got both back upon return.

 

[MikeOReilly]

Good decision Sal. It is the unbounded liability that is the offensive nature of this contract. Certainly you should be held responsible for your own negligent behaviour, but it is completely ridiculous to be held responsible for all things beyond your control.

I don't rent boats, so this may in fact be typical (or it may not). I bet if it is typical now, that it wasn't always the case. This is part of trend off off-loading all risk onto someone else -- anyone else. Mostly its the consumer or contractor, sometimes its the public and/or government. Private companies are doing this all over the place and in many different ways, all in an effort to maximize profit and minimize their risk.

Drives me nuts .

 

[Minnewaska]

......Private companies are doing this all over the place and in many different ways, all in an effort to maximize profit and minimize their risk.

Drives me nuts .

I don't agree with the policy, but I'm certain it is a reflection on people that are unwilling to own up to their mistakes too.

 

[capecodda]

Caribbean charters we've taken all included an insurance cost and a $500 deductible which the company held until the boat was returned (same as mini's experience).

 

[MikeOReilly]

I don't agree with the policy, but I'm certain it is a reflection on people that are unwilling to own up to their mistakes too.

People who don't take responsibility for their own negligence are unlikely to accept the responsibility for someone else's mistakes

No ... this trend is completely focused on shifting risk (i.e. costs) onto law-abiding, responsible individuals (and onto the public, which is a broader issue). I see it all the time now with when working with corporate clients. Banks and insurance companies are ripe with it. This rental agreement is just another example of companies offloading risk while keeping all the benefits.

If we keep accepting these crap deals, they become the new industry standard. If we do as Sal did, and just walk away, then businesses will respond accordingly.

As the famous line goes: Just Say No!

 

[Leftbrainstuff]

dodgy contract

You were right to refuse to sign. There is an inherent risk in any business which implies the owner assumes some liability. How much is one for the lawyers to articulate.

It is probably not even legal to have the renter assume full liability.

 

[caberg]

We had similar language when I worked for a marina renting Rhodes 19s for daysails to the general public. In practice, we only kept deposits when it was operator error that caused the damage (i.e., crash landings on the dock were pretty common). Even then it was only when the person was clearly doing something stupid and the damage was fairly significant, and we never went after someone for anything more than the deposit.

I doubt that the term "damage" in that language is intended to cover maintenance and repairs due to normal wear and tear, like when a shroud lets loose and the mast comes down (in that case you're worried about getting sued for negligently maintaining the boat regardless that you undoubtedly have a waiver of liability).

If another boater causes damage it would be easier to make a claim against that person's insurance than to go after the person who rented the sailboat.

Not that you should not question the language, but these types of provisions are often not applied to the full extent that they would seem to allow under a broad reading. You'd have to walk away from a lot of fun stuff to avoid these types of provisions. Try reading the agreement to go skydiving! (Which I have done 4 times.)