In irons

Think you are getting confused by the basic colregs which supercede the rrs.All boats will avoid Contact? The rrs do not ever state that avoiding action should be taken

Originally posted by fudheid Why the disbelief?

Because if an insurance company is going to apply colregs rather than RRS its
a) in defiance of very well established legal precedent and
b) puts us all in an impossible position, since we'd be under two sets of sometimes contradictory rules and would never know which ones to apply.

This paper covers the legal detail.

http://www.sailing.ca/files/Collisions_Final.pdf

But under RRS stbd was wrong in causing a collision and as it was a collision that caused serious damage then the PC should have DSQd port under Rule 10 and rule 44.1 and stbd under rule 14. Thus sharing the blame is entirely rational under RRS.

Edited by JimC - 17 Mar 15 at 10:23pm

Why the disbelief?
Two yachts collide in open water a claim is made. The RRS have no hold over collision damage in an insurance claim is what we were told; Thankfully as we were the port Yacht. No extra witnesses two boats and damage report. Maybe we had a better understanding of what the insurance company were looking for older and wiser? (Err no, better insured as it turned out)
When two boats sustain damage,then it is colregs and not Rrs. We were found at fault for not having a proper watch and not avoiding a Row yacht. The starboard tacker was found partially guilty for not taking avoiding action.
They were not interested in what mark we rounded or where we were on the race course but why two boats collided and who was at Fault. The protest hearing notes were never asked for by any insurance party, so strike out bishop and skinner of i remember right.

The Row yacht was not happy because he thought he could prove a point and claim full recompense. Unfortunately he made the decision to not take avoiding action. He had clear line of sight and still maintained course.
In insurance terms it is a split cost. In Rrs we were wrong, we did our turns bought beer in the bar and left the insurance companies to deal with the sh*tp fight.
I see no issues with any of that.

Originally posted by sargesail Because they weren't interested in the Protest result.  I don't want to operate to 2 sets of rules.  Nor do I want the additional hassle of witness statements on top of the Protest Hearing.

**If** what was stated is correct, and they attempted to apply Colregs to a racing incident, you've got to wonder what else they are ignorant of and how that ignorance will come and bite you.

Mind you if the original description of the incident is correct it also sounds as if the PC fouled up by not DSQing both parties...

Which BTW makes me think mention of colregs is a misunderstanding,and ports insurance instigated extra witnesses to establish that stb did not take avoiding action as required by RRS, hence split blame.

Edited by JimC - 17 Mar 15 at 9:04pm

Originally posted by sargesail Another reason I shall not be renewing with Towergate then.