I'm reading Empire of Cotton by Sven Beckert. He mentions, in passing, the importance of naval insurance in the expansion of European trade (p. 30, First Vintage Books edition).
This got me thinking, how prevalent was insurance fraud over 'lost' ships? In an era before photos, couldn't you just get a few people to lie, sell the ship elsewhere, then claim it was 'lost'? Particularly if the ship was already getting up there in years and you wanted to purchase a new ship with the funds from both a sale of the old one and the money from your insurance agreement?
It actually became a pretty notorious scandal in the mid 19th c., but not for people selling them and pretending they were lost ( if you think about it, so many people are in and around a ship to make it go, see it in harbor, etc., it's rather hard to make it secretly disappear and reappear under a new name) . British shipowners were taking some very poor-condition vessels, overloading them and collecting the insurance when they broke up. The result was often profits for the owners , and dead seamen. One reformer, Samual Plimsoll, wrote a furious polemic on the subject, Our Seamen: An Appeal , in 1872, and started a call for reform . A bill was introduced in 1875, with very modest regulations: Plimsoll agreed to vote for it but then it was scrapped, supposedly squashed by the ship owners in Parliament. Plimsoll made such an outcry at that, and it created such a scandal, however, that a bill giving inspection power to the Board of Trade was passed a few years later. Since then, ships have a Plimsoll Line saying how much they can be loaded. It's actually several lines, for several different places and times. The lowest one ( for the lightest cargo) is for the North Atlantic in winter, when the weather and seas would be the roughest..