an owner's attitvide about insurance people as follows: "Does not 

 trust them. Pessimistic. Very distnastful of insurance companies 

 and brokers. Does not care to carry insurance any more." A second 

 New En(3land owner who cancelled his insurance contract because the 

 insurance rate on his vessel was raised remarks: "Too much pressure 

 from insurers. Not enough understanding of fishermen's problem!" A 

 third vessel operator from the same area with no insurance says: 

 "Insurance brokers won't give us a breaJc and insurance companies 

 aren't any good. They give every owner a bad deaJ.'. " According to 

 an interviewer, another New England o^^mer was "very bitter toward 

 his insurance agent because when a claim was filed for damage from 

 a fire, the agent claimed that the property damaged was not covered. 

 The owner was told to find out all the prices of the articles lost. 

 This took two days of contacting stores and warehouses. He couldn't 

 understand why he was asked to do so when the company had no inten- 

 tion of paying off I" A Gulf Area owrer was "convinced that agents 

 and under-vTTiters are getting rich by insuring the boats for more than 

 they are worth." Another o'vmer from California was critical of insur- 

 ance companies rather than of the agents; "Too greedy; insurance 

 companies won't pay claims easily. They should be quick in straighten- 

 ing out problems." 



These comments emanate mainly from the owner's limited experience 

 on hull insurance. Of course, this is natural because he not only is 

 the payer of premiums but also the direct recipient of benefits. On 

 the other hand, quite a few owners understand and are sympathetic to 

 the insurer's position: "Too high rates are due to abuse by certain 

 individuals against both fishermen and insurance companies'." Similar 

 comments are made by others. l-Jhether or not eind to what extent this 

 unfavorable opinion of the owners is justified involves a different 

 aspect of the insurance problem to be examined later. Suffice it to 

 say here that the ovmer's rather unfavorable image of insurance 

 business in general may have contributed to noninsurance for hull. 

 Since the owner is not intended to be the direct recipient of most 

 of the expected benefits from protection and indemnity insurance, 

 he is generally more objective and sympathetic toward insurance 

 companies regarding this kind of insurance. Rather, his criticism 

 is directed against the people who are involved in the adjustment 

 of protection and Indemnity insurance claims, namely, doctors, and 

 lawyers, and also the existing legislation on the subject. 



C. SUMvlARY AND CONCLUSIONS 



The vessel o\mer' s dilemma, whether or not to carlV insurance 

 on his vessel, has been discussed through an examination of the extent 

 of noninsurance and the reasons for insurance or noninsurance . 



1+1 



