Lake Rawlings Death (May 27, 2012) Lawsuit

[tursiops]

That's all very logical, but it doesn't account for an angry plaintiff who's really not concerned about money.

We'll have to see how it plays out, but I tend to think a settlement relies on an insurance policy sufficient to cover the settlement demand. My guess is the insurance amount is not sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff at this juncture. So the lawyers let it play out, and if the plaintiff is angry enough, she could take it to trial just to hear the gavel fall.

Nor does it account for a defendant who is unlikely to ever agree or appear to agree that he did anything wrong, so I'm guessing is perfectly willing to gamble on a jury that agrees with him.

 

[Colliam7]

but it doesn't account for an angry plaintiff who's really not concerned about money.

Hmm. I am not sure I have ever encountered that species. Is that one something like 'Bigfoot'?

 

[BDSC]

So for some of you instructors, how much liability insurance do you typically carry and how much might a shop carry?

 

[bankyf]

Is insurance even an option? It was stressed in my IDC that if an incident occurred while clearly violating padi standards, you would be in your own as far as typical padi liability insurance was concerned. Because the shop had been sold, I wonder if there is anything protecting the new owner from being dragged into this.

---------- Post added February 27th, 2015 at 07:45 PM ----------

So for some of you instructors, how much liability insurance do you typically carry and how much might a shop carry?

My (I assume typical) instructor policy is a 1 million/2 million aggregate liability policy.

 

[ams511]

Because the shop had been sold, I wonder if there is anything protecting the new owner from being dragged into this.

It would depend on how the business was sold. If the new owner purchased shares of stock or assets. If he purchased stock then any liabilities carry over. If he purchased assets they don't. The moral of the story is always purchase assets.

---------- Post added February 27th, 2015 at 05:21 PM ----------

Link to the details of the suit?

http://www.rpb-law.com/EDVAUpdate/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Manchanda-v-Hays-Worldwide.pdf

 

[howswedeofme]

I don't know what is in this specific policy but often times the insurance company will pay for the defense under a reservation of rights and sometimes pay all or part of a settlement even if the type of conduct alleged is an exclusion under the policy. If it's determined by a fact-finder in the lawsuit that the specific alleged conduct occurred, then they wouldn't pay out. Also some policies are based on when the occurrence at issue happened as opposed to when suit is filed, so even if someone no longer has an active policy they could still be covered under an older policy. No clue if any of this applies in this case or not. Just some general information.