Like all good attorneys, I hereby incorporate by reference all valid statements and theories of law previously posted in this insurance thread and disassociate myself from all others.
As commodore of one of the local Hobie Fleets and one that runs the annual Treesmacker Regatta, we, of course, are more than happy to pay a nominal fee to have the Division's insurance company provide an endorsement covering our Fleet. In the words of Dana Carvey "It's just prudent to do so.." As an individual and attorney, arguments against carrying insurance don't sit well with me; as why would you even want to go at it alone if an action was brought against you? Typical litigation costs can exceed $50K per MONTH, why not transfer that risk to the insurance company, who will have a duty to defend, for a small premium amount. Again, in California, two fundamental duties insurance companies have (and these are INDEPENDENT duties): 1) they’ll defend –f even the potential exists of liability (court looks at on your behalf liberally)and, 2) indemnification - they’ll pay liabilities up until your coverage limits. So I go back to why would you want to go it alone given the litigious environment we live in today? Sure, "deep pockets" may keep a plaintiff in the game, but you are on the side, protected.

At last glance, a regatta's race committee is free to have participants sign an express assumption of risk waiver. I believe, though this would need to be verified in each regatta's state, that sailing is still considered an inherently dangerous activity. As such, participants impliedly assume associated risks. At the end of the day, the waivers and assumption arguments are defenses to legal complaints. It is important to realize that the laws are likely to be different in each of the above posted I recognize that the laws are different in each state and our experiences will differ. Just my two cents.
Troy Szabo