2 ms·

Isn't what exactly what who is saying? The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end

Isn't what exactly what who is saying? The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end of the discussion about responsibility. That suggests to me that quoting the rulebook isn't really an adequate response to the original question of why isn't it the pilot's fault. It's the position of the SCA, by definition. I guess we will never know though, what was agreed on, because it was settled in private.

Talanes 5y ago
>The insurer seemed to be acknowledging that the formal rule about the captain exists, while claiming that's not the end of the discussion about responsibility. I don't disagree with your broader point, but an insurance company acting like a claim is disputable doesn't really tell us anything. It's just the default sort of response for any insurance claim, just magnified to scale. I'd expect them to be phrasing it as an open matter even if the captain had drunkenly taken control and stuck the ship himself.