Noticing a few things here, and thought I might try to clarify some.
First off, SelkieDVM, the insurance would probably cover you, even on vacation. The reasoning is circular, but it could be used:
You are a DM on vacation and there is an accident. You assist, and things go badly. Because you are a DM, you used those learned skills to choose to help someone. Therefore you are acting in a professional, supervisory role. Like I said, its circular, and no, I don't think it has to make more sense than that.
Second, in response to Ron.
The lawyers would find out your actual cert level if you were sued following a dive incident. I think the truck driver analogy is the wrong one, and here's why.
The type of situation you are talking about would likely involve the voluntary (on the DM's part) aid to someone else. At least in the US. We're talking good samaritan laws where there is no requirement to render aid. If you voluntarily help, but do so in a why that is or might be negligent, then you can be held responsible later. The level of care you would be expected to provide would be that of someone with your level of training (among other factors, but this isn't an in depth legal discussion). In this case a DM. It wouldn't matter whether that DM was actually working.
To provide a different analogy, and one I think fits a bit better:
A retired doctor is walking down the street and witnesses a car accident. He chooses to help, and something goes wrong. His training as a doctor would certainly be taken into account if he messed up. This is despite the voluntary nature of his aid, and the fact that he is retired. He cannot unbecome a doctor. A DM cannot unbecome a DM to avoid liability. SelkieDVM and The Kraken made related points above.
The problem with the truck driver analogy, is that would be decided by motor vehicle codes, and some jurisdictions may well hold a professional driver to a higher standard. But a vehicle code is likely to hold a similar level of responsibility to all drivers on the road. The same is not true of people rendering aid to others. Someone with zero CPR or first aid experience is not going to be held to the same standard as someone who teaches CPR and first aid classes.
All that being said, whether you are sued, what standard is used, or the likelihood of a particular outcome is dependent on the law in your jurisdiction. I haven't done any research on this, so I wouldn't be willing to say, definitively, what the rule would be, in either the jurisdiction I'm licensed in, or the one I currently live in.
Ultimately, being a professional will carry greater responsibility, whether you are being paid or not. You're going to have to make a personal choice whether liability insurance is worth it. Speaking to DMs, I know many more who went without insurance than with. If I was a DM that didn't work as a DM, I'm not sure I would want to pay for something, which quite honestly, would probably never help me. Of course, that's how insurance companies make (or at least made) money.
Sorry for the rambling. Hope this helped.
First off, SelkieDVM, the insurance would probably cover you, even on vacation. The reasoning is circular, but it could be used:
You are a DM on vacation and there is an accident. You assist, and things go badly. Because you are a DM, you used those learned skills to choose to help someone. Therefore you are acting in a professional, supervisory role. Like I said, its circular, and no, I don't think it has to make more sense than that.
Second, in response to Ron.
The lawyers would find out your actual cert level if you were sued following a dive incident. I think the truck driver analogy is the wrong one, and here's why.
The type of situation you are talking about would likely involve the voluntary (on the DM's part) aid to someone else. At least in the US. We're talking good samaritan laws where there is no requirement to render aid. If you voluntarily help, but do so in a why that is or might be negligent, then you can be held responsible later. The level of care you would be expected to provide would be that of someone with your level of training (among other factors, but this isn't an in depth legal discussion). In this case a DM. It wouldn't matter whether that DM was actually working.
To provide a different analogy, and one I think fits a bit better:
A retired doctor is walking down the street and witnesses a car accident. He chooses to help, and something goes wrong. His training as a doctor would certainly be taken into account if he messed up. This is despite the voluntary nature of his aid, and the fact that he is retired. He cannot unbecome a doctor. A DM cannot unbecome a DM to avoid liability. SelkieDVM and The Kraken made related points above.
The problem with the truck driver analogy, is that would be decided by motor vehicle codes, and some jurisdictions may well hold a professional driver to a higher standard. But a vehicle code is likely to hold a similar level of responsibility to all drivers on the road. The same is not true of people rendering aid to others. Someone with zero CPR or first aid experience is not going to be held to the same standard as someone who teaches CPR and first aid classes.
All that being said, whether you are sued, what standard is used, or the likelihood of a particular outcome is dependent on the law in your jurisdiction. I haven't done any research on this, so I wouldn't be willing to say, definitively, what the rule would be, in either the jurisdiction I'm licensed in, or the one I currently live in.
Ultimately, being a professional will carry greater responsibility, whether you are being paid or not. You're going to have to make a personal choice whether liability insurance is worth it. Speaking to DMs, I know many more who went without insurance than with. If I was a DM that didn't work as a DM, I'm not sure I would want to pay for something, which quite honestly, would probably never help me. Of course, that's how insurance companies make (or at least made) money.
Sorry for the rambling. Hope this helped.
