Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

I heard rumor of a Canadian ins. co. that will insure them. Anyone else know of this company?

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

I have Allstate, and my good friend is my agent, he told me he could write it also, not sure if there is a footage or value cut off, as long as I have a current boat policy, and I have everything else with him as well...... Houses, cars, boat, life, umbrella, etc..... Not that I can afford one, but I did bring it up in conversation.... doesnt hurt to ask your agent???

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

The Canadian insurance company(INTERNATIONAL WATER SAFETY FOUNDATION) or IWSF is a total fraud and most of the state insurance commissions have cease and desist orders against them.I would advise anyone that is going to use them to go to their website and read how the US constitution gives you the right to get screwed by them.CLICK ON THE INSURANCE BENEFITS SECTION !

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

I have had all of my insurance with Nationwide (2 cars, house and umbrella policy) for 15+ years and they have always told me that they cannot insure a performance boat that exceeds 55 mph - regardless of size. If an agent tells you differently, I would be wary. Insurance policies are VERY specific. Do not ever lie about your boat, its top speed, etc.

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

It is totally dependent upon your agent writing the policy and sending it to the underwriters. I know a nationwide agent who insured a 24' Skater that runs 122MPH on GPS. The policy was written and accepted.

It looks as though your agent just won't write them, which is common.

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

This posting is to clarify any questions on how IWSF legally offers its benefits and services to their members.
Montreal, September 13th 2006
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

RE: Our Client: International Water Safety Foundation (or ‘‘IWSF’’)
__________________________________________________ _______________


To whom it may concern,

Please be informed that we are acting as legal representative for IWSF and the purpose of this letter is, considering you have read the article reported on www.offshoreonly.com, to eliminate any concerns you may have regarding IWSF’s activities, despite the cease and desist orders.

First and foremost, after our review of this article, we wish to inform you that the said article contains many wrong allegations and that your related conclusions are totally groundless in respect of the law, the whole for all the reasons which are more fully described hereinafter.

Furthermore, please acknowledge that IWSF did not participate into any legal procedure relating to the said cease and desist orders and IWSF reckons that they have been wrongfully rendered against them. Moreover, IWSF duly signified to the authorities their contentions related to the allegations supporting the said cease and desist orders and the reasons why it would be meaningless for IWSF to be so involved into such a costly litigation.

For a better understanding of the legal argumentation on which the above conclusions are based, please read the following. As part of its benefits, IWSF makes available only and exclusively to its members a water craft insurance certificate under a Master Policy issued by an independent underwriter, namely North American Marine General & Insurance Company (‘’NAMGIC’’).

It is important to mention that IWSF and NAMGIC do not conduct any business activities whatsoever within the United States of America and do not have any physical presence therein. IWSF and NAMGIC have no employee, no representative and no office or place of business within the United States of America, and no contracts whatsoever are therein made by any of them. All contracts are issued, executed and performed outside the United States of America.

This being said, in light of the legislative history of McCarren Ferguson Act, any state’s requirement of licensing is not applicable to both IWSF and NAMGIC because of their status of out-of-state organizations conducting out-of-state transactions.

The Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precludes any State from regulating or taxing insurance transactions where the arrangements are made outside of its own territorial jurisdiction, regardless to the fact that the insured interest is located within such jurisdiction. To that effect, the Supreme Court of the United States has also ruled that an insurance company which merely uses interstates communications facilities either to receive applications or to transmit an issued policy does not constitute ‘’doing business’’ in any jurisdiction other than the one where it actually conducts its operations (Minnesota Commercial Men’s Association V. Benn, 261 U.S. 140 (1923)). It was also said that it would be beyond the competence of any state to enact a statute which would deny a citizen’s right to enter into any insurance contract with a foreign or a non-admitted insurance company, such right being protected and guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For your convenience, be informed that the above arguments have been strongly defended, notably, within the following Supreme Court decisions: State Board of Insurance et Al. v. Todd Shipyards, 370 U.S. 451 (1962); Minnesota Commercial Men’s Association V. Benn, 261 U.S. 140 (1923); Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897); St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas 260 U.S. 346 ( 1922) ; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson 303 U.S. 77 (1938 ) ;

Following a thorough legal research, it appears that no subsequent Supreme Court decisions have yet overruled the above-mentioned interpretation and application of the McCarren-Ferguson Act and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In light of the above-mentioned U.S. Laws and jurisprudence, IWSF therefore concludes that neither they nor NAMGIC conduct any business activities within the United States of America, it has no physical presence therein, nor has it any substancial nexus. Consequently, IWSF reckons that both IWSF and NAMGIC have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to be licensed in any of the States of America.

For your information, NAMGIC has made available to IWSF members excellent insurance benefit coverage for more than nine years. The claims payable ratio for IWSF members in 2004 and 2005 boasted an impressive 55%. In addition, IWSF further protects their members by providing $500.00 towards any claim which may require arbitration.

Please also acknowledge that IWSF members are protected and benefit from a valuable legal recourse, namely an arbitration procedure, in the event any dispute may oppose them to IWSF in regard to a claim or the policy. The Arbitration panel is subject to the UNCITRAL rules enacted by the United Nations. Any such dispute would be presented before an independent arbitrator appointed by Insurance Arbitration Bureau International, an independent manager of arbitral procedures.

Therefore, considering the good stability of both NAMGIC and IWSF and the fact that they legally operate as out-of-sate organisations, the whole without having to be licensed, IWSF is to the opinion that any discomforts that you may have regarding the security, validity and quality of the insurance coverage provided by NAMGIC should be dissipated.

Trusting the foregoing is to your satisfaction, we remain,

Yours truly,


FREDERIC BERNIER, ATTORNEY AT LAW

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

Glad we cleared that up. :rolleyes:

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

Basically, what you are saying is your client is a good company, but if an insured has a dispute with them, they may take it to arbitration before an arbitrator selected by a bunch of insurance companies (Insurance Arbitration Bureau International - btw, I ran a google search on them and got nothing). Furthermore, if the insured is still not satisfied, they have no legal recourse in the courts of the United States.

In addition, the party injured by one of your insureds would likewise have no legal recourse in the courts of The United States.

Sounds perfectly legitimate, just not a good idea for U.S. residents. :cool:

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

For what its worth, I got my renewal from Markal and went out and got a quote from a lead on this board. Short version the Markal quote was for liability only and the new quote was for the same liability plus $100K in hull and engine coverage. Same cost for either one. I took the one that includes hull and engine coverage. I did not save money, but I sure got a lot more for my money. Oh, yes its an American based company.

Here is the contact information for the agent I used. He has been very good with follow up and i liked dealing with him. He even went back and got a few hundred dollars off the initial quote.

Good Luck.

John McGrath

Farmers Insurance Group

11605 W Dodge Rd Ste. 5

Omaha, Ne 68154

Office (402) 330-2879

Cell (402) 301-8789

Re: Insurance on a Cat
 

DEAR CANADIAN ATTORNEY: Does the IWSF supply KY jelly and a condom with their "policy" ? :evilb: :evilb: