>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.

>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.