An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[scagrotto]

If Willis thought more than two was indefensible, why on earth are they trying to defend an instructor who not only exceeded common sense for the lake, but also broke standards at the same time. It's either indefensible or it's not.

Aside from the timeline, as Wookie mentions, I think there are two other issues. One is that, as near as I can tell, Willis hasn't said that 4:1 is indefensible; they've only said that as a matter of business policy they've decided that only 2:1 is an acceptable insurance risk. The other is that (again as near as I can tell) Willis seems to maintain that the instructor followed the PADI standards. The consensus here may be that he didn't, but that's a matter for the real jury. I think that one of the few things everybody agrees on is that the defense is going to put the 4:1 standard on trial, and probably everything else that isn't spelled out in thorough detail.

Interesting that you didn't see it as PADI watching out for its members, ensuring they don't get caught short insurance-wise.

Given PADI's expertise they should have been well aware that the new ratios would apply only as policies are renewed, so it shouldn't have been difficult for them to get the details right. That leads me to the conclusion that the best possible characterization is that the notice was careless. Beyond that, my perception is that PADI may be a bit too happy to uninsure their own members after the fact by claiming that standards were violated. The report by Horsnby specifically states that standards for direct supervision were violated when the adult separated from the group. Despite what some have said, I find it difficult to believe that it's a 100% certainty that it's possible to guarantee that none of the 4 people being supervised can get out of your control without you screwing up first. Dealing with any problem makes it impossible to devote the same level of attention to your remaining charges, but if one of them gets a bit too far away that's all the evidence required to establish that you've violated standards.

On a related note, I don't recall any specifics being mentioned about the point at which 4:1 needs to be reduced to maintain standards, but given the consensus that it should have been reduced at Bear Lake I'm sure there will be broad agreement on those specifics. If 4:1 is acceptable in warm, calm Caribbean water with 100' viz, at what point must the ratio be reduced to 3:1 or 2:1?

 

[Omisson]

I had forgotten this thread. http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/scuba-related-court-cases/453725-who-has-our-backs.html It's interesting to see how our perceptions change over time. It's also interesting to remember that PADI fired the first salvo in this whole event, not SDI/Carney.

PADI made a barebones factual disclosure about a conflict in the insurance carrier requirements and PADI standards ratios.

The response by Willis was not.

The fact that the plaintiffs counsel was a PADI instructor is hardly surprising- only a scuba familiar lawyer should really handle such a case- and PADI has 75% or so of the scuba market- odds were if an attorney was scuba certified it would be with PADI.

The real issue that exists is that both major insurance carriers are WAY too close to their respective agencies/revenue sources - and the pool is cross contaminated with conflicts of interest.

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

The real issue that exists is that both major insurance carriers are WAY too close to their respective agencies/revenue sources - and the pool is cross contaminated with conflicts of interest.

Are you suggesting that Willis does all the underwriting for the private equity firm that recently bought PADI?


hmmmm, I'm just wildly speculating here....

Wouldn't it be funny that after the smoke settles from this case, PADI of Americas new suggested insurance program would be Willis insurance?


Now THAT! would be hilarious...lol

 

[Wookie]

Are you suggesting that Willis does all the underwriting for the private equity firm that recently bought PADI?


hmmmm, I'm just wildly speculating here....

Wouldn't it be funny that after the smoke settles from this case, PADI of Americas new suggested insurance program would be Willis insurance?


Now THAT! would be hilarious...lol

Ummm. Willis DOES all of the underwriting for the private equity firm that bought PADI. However, The Willis Dive Program was underwritten by the Catlin Syndicate at Lloyd's. They are not interested in underwriting any more dive programs. They are shifting focus to underwriting acquisitions and mergers.

is this not common knowledge? Willis was told they could have a dive program or they could have a private equity firm as clients. The private equity firm is worth millions in revenue, the dive program is a drop in the bucket and a pain in the ass. Talk about an easy decision...

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

Ummm. Willis DOES all of the underwriting for the private equity firm that bought PADI. However, The Willis Dive Program was underwritten by the Catlin Syndicate at Lloyd's. They are not interested in underwriting any more dive programs. They are shifting focus to underwriting acquisitions and mergers.

is this not common knowledge? Willis was told they could have a dive program or they could have a private equity firm as clients. The private equity firm is worth millions in revenue, the dive program is a drop in the bucket and a pain in the ass. Talk about an easy decision...

Sorry, I didn't know that V-Insurance (Willis) had dropped all the PADI Asia / Australia business as well


I was just wildly speculating... as previously stated

 

[Wookie]

Sorry, I didn't know that V-Insurance (Willis) had dropped all the PADI Asia / Australia business as well


I was just wildly speculating... as previously stated

That's Willis Australia. Different program and company than Willis North America. I don't know who underwrites them.

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

That's Willis Australia. Different program and company than Willis North America. I don't know who underwrites them.

yup.....

 

[Hawkwood]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

A number of Posts have been moved to a new Thread entitled “Instructor’s Liability Insurance/Insurance Industry” in the Instructor to Instructor Forum. You can find it here: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/in...s-liability-insurance-insurance-industry.html .

---

 

[Omisson]

Found Douglas' expulsion letter, and a court case in Hawaii which I think says that the DSD program as offered by PADI is basically unsafe. If we can get Omission or another legal eagle to read it and summarize it, because by the time I get to the partially granted and partially denied, I get lost in the legalese.View attachment 200852View attachment 200853. This is part of the back story.

This was a procedural motion, it made no findings of fact in regards to the safety of the program, per se. Any information related to that is merely anecdotal to the issue of procedure at issue in the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Federal Court doesn't reach that the DSD is unsafe as a conclusion. It merely restates a factual history on the genesis of the DSD program- noting the safety concerns raised by some (presumably of witnesses and records that were culled in the case) with:
1) more than 4 to 1 ratio (though 2:1 is also raised)- at the time it was 6:1
2) deeper than 30 feet - at the time it was 40 feet
3) the viability of DSD in non-pool-like conditions found in some open water uses
4) the unsuitability in the Hawaii market for pool DSDs rather that they used "off the back of the boat" DSD's

The court basically is deciding a "summary judgment motion" which takes the evidence in a light most favorable to the opposing party (so the safety issues are presumed to be as the plaintiff outlines them) but all this decision actually does is grant and deny some procedural issues about the theories of recovery the plaintiff may and may not use (some were permitted and some were denied). There is not a factual finding of the court with regards to the safety issues, they are merely the court's lens through which to rule on the procedural matter of the pleadings' sufficiency.

As for the letter in response to the PADI expulsion- its an isolated letter- doesn't include the expulsion letter, incident report, police report, or what -if anything came after it- so its hard to say anything other than- *if* that was all the discussion- I would not think PADI could defend itself for expulsion - HOWEVER without knowing more about the underlying death of the diver and the incident report that documented it this is mere speculation.


Not every scuba death is somebody's fault but it certainly isnt something you want on your watch as an instructor either- because the burden will be on you.

 

[Scubagolf]

Found Douglas' expulsion letter, and a court case in Hawaii which I think says that the DSD program as offered by PADI is basically unsafe. If we can get Omission or another legal eagle to read it and summarize it, because by the time I get to the partially granted and partially denied, I get lost in the legalese.View attachment 200852View attachment 200853. This is part of the back story.

Don't waste your time with this opinion. Other than providing some history on the program, it makes no findings of any significance regarding the DSD program.