Insurance for ship and cargo and rules for salvage

[Sty0pa]

That said, there's no reason why cargo insurance wouldn't be available, but it definitely isn't included in the cost of the goods. That stuff is stupid expensive IRL for ships doing the kinds of trips PCs take (ie going to places where you are likely to run into pirates or flying on antique small traders with ragtag crews).

Typical IRL ocean freight insurance is $4.50 per $1000 cargo value. Maybe $6.50 to rough waters. Convert to 5cr per 1kCr value declared?
Most IRL ocean claims take about 6 mo to clear.

 

[Sty0pa]

I'm allowing the salvage rules, but unless it's a particular circumstance, 'found salvage' (eg Flatlined if the crew (ahem) end up dead) characters had to file a salvage claim, they'll get the broker-amended salvage claim after 1 year of probate in which other interested parties can file competing claims.
OTOH they wasted a 'particularly daring pirate' essentially while observed by local authorities who were rushing to the scene; in this case they were immediately granted salvage rights to the ship and the cargo whose owners were indeterminate. The local authorities offered to pay the official 'discounted immediate value' (kind of like a payday loan) as the characters don't want to hang around the weeks it'll take to dispose of the salvageable parts of the wreck.

 

[swordtart]

The cost of insurance will depend on how dangerous your individual campaign is. If unopposed piracy is (or starport scams) rife premiums will be high. If most cargo carriage is routine then premiums will be low (and probably irrelevant). If your ship is old or its paperwork is out of date (service over due etc.) then your premiums will be higher than a captain in a well maintained ship.

 

[rinku]

Possibly more to the point, exactly WHAT does the insurance cover?

I'm fairly sure most policies cover accidents, theft and acts of god, but not hostile military action unless paid extra for, and VERY sure that if you caused the combat to happen that you're on your own. Any claim would need to investigate the sequence of events to make sure the attack was unprovoked.

If a pirate shows up, demands your insured cargo, and you hand it over, you're probably in a better position to claim on it than if you lost it after choosing to fight. Although they'll still be investigating for fraud and collusion.

 

[boggo2300]

Possibly more to the point, exactly WHAT does the insurance cover?

I'm fairly sure most policies cover accidents, theft and acts of god, but not hostile military action unless paid extra for, and VERY sure that if you caused the combat to happen that you're on your own. Any claim would need to investigate the sequence of events to make sure the attack was unprovoked.

If a pirate shows up, demands your insured cargo, and you hand it over, you're probably in a better position to claim on it than if you lost it after choosing to fight. Although they'll still be investigating for fraud and collusion.

Ship mortgage insurance IRL does include piracy and unexpected military action, though that's for the mortgage holder and has very little benefit for the ship owners and absulutley NO advantage for the crew. (the very little advantage to the ship owners is the mortgage holder wont be chasing them for the outstanding mortgage)

 

[rinku]

Yeah, I guess I'm thinking more cargo insurance in this case. Which would be its own thing.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships tend to be far more valuable than their cargo.

I'd add a deductible, if I were the insurance company.

 

[swordtart]

If a pirate shows up, demands your insured cargo, and you hand it over, you're probably in a better position to claim on it than if you lost it after choosing to fight. Although they'll still be investigating for fraud and collusion.

I would say probably the other way around. If you just handed it over you would be in a worse position wrt. the cargo insurance, but probably a better position wrt. your ship and crew insurance.

Traditional 17-18th century pirates might allow the crew to keep their own goods and leave the ship alone, only stealing the carried cargo. With no personal loss an expectation ship captains would tend to cooperate with pirates to the detriment of the shipper. Cooperation might be simply not resisting but it might extend all the way to collusion.

Shipping insurers will not be keen to encourage that sort of behaviour. They may cover the shipper but seek redress from the captain who just rolled over at the first sign of an "alleged" pirate. That will encourage Captains to put up some sort of resistance even if only to establish that the pirate was a genuine threat.

If the threat can be proven genuine the respective insurance companies will work out between them how to minimise their losses (regardless of whether it is fair to their customers or not). Logic suggests that paying out on cargo loss will be cheaper than paying out on damages to a ship and so the shipper will probably come out best, so engaging in a prolonged ship damaging fight will be counter productive. As a happy side effect at least the captains reputation for delivery will not suffer unduly as the shipper has not lost out.

So you are on a double hook. Don't resist enough and the shippers insurance won't pay out resist too much and the ship insurer won't pay out. Captains will need to tread the delicate line between, which is exactly where the insurance companies want you.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I would say probably the other way around. If you just handed it over you would be in a worse position wrt. the cargo insurance, but probably a better position wrt. your ship and crew insurance.

Traditional 17-18th century pirates might allow the crew to keep their own goods and leave the ship alone, only stealing the carried cargo. With no personal loss an expectation ship captains would tend to cooperate with pirates to the detriment of the shipper. Cooperation might be simply not resisting but it might extend all the way to collusion.

Shipping insurers will not be keen to encourage that sort of behaviour. They may cover the shipper but seek redress from the captain who just rolled over at the first sign of an "alleged" pirate. That will encourage Captains to put up some sort of resistance even if only to establish that the pirate was a genuine threat.

If the threat can be proven genuine the respective insurance companies will work out between them how to minimise their losses (regardless of whether it is fair to their customers or not). Logic suggests that paying out on cargo loss will be cheaper than paying out on damages to a ship and so the shipper will probably come out best, so engaging in a prolonged ship damaging fight will be counter productive. As a happy side effect at least the captains reputation for delivery will not suffer unduly as the shipper has not lost out.

So you are on a double hook. Don't resist enough and the shippers insurance won't pay out resist too much and the ship insurer won't pay out. Captains will need to tread the delicate line between, which is exactly where the insurance companies want you.

Insurance companies will put bounties on pirates that cause them too many losses.

 

[Condottiere]

Bribe pirates to hijack cargoes insured by your rivals.

 

[boggo2300]

Bribe pirates to hijack cargoes insured by your rivals.

that has happened, quite a lot actually

 

[Sigtrygg]

Privateers and gentlemen to one country were bloodthirsty pirate scum to the others...

 

[Condottiere]

Entrepreneurship.

Plymouth upstarts.

Angel investors.

Involuntary lifetime employment conscription.

Trade tariff involuntary collection.

Exchequer windfalls.

 

[MonsterX]

The Crimson Permanent Assurance brings both piracy and insurance under one office. It seems like a conflict of interest, likely to result in barratry.

 

[rinku]

In any case, the relevant insurance company will lawyer up if it can see a profit from doing so.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Anstett]

Extra likes for a library edition.