PuMpUi:
1. I am not going to take the time to look at the whole thread to see what your stake in this case may or may not be. Please remind me. I get the impression you have a stake in the fight. If I'm wrong let me know.
2. As far as the drunk driver example, you are entitled to your opinion; wrong though it is. Whether a particular defendant owes a particular plaintiff a duty of care is a central focus in tort law. In California, the initial determination as to whether there is a duty of care is made by the judge, not the jury. The determination is based on a number of factors, including the foreseeability of the particular harm. If there is no duty of care, that's the end of the case. For example, the California Supreme Court has said that someone on a beach has no duty to help a drowning swimmer unless he (1) caused the swimmer to go swimming, (2) told the swimmer he would call for help in the event of a problem, or (3) prevented someone else from rendering aid. Other than those three, the person on the beach can take photos of the drowning swimmer. There are lots of other instances in which the courts have told us there simply is no duty of care owed.
I am very confident that a drunk who causes an accident which results in the street being blocked, which results in an ambulance being unable to reach someone with an unrelated problem won't be found liable to the victim of the unrelated problem because the court will say there is no duty. I would never take the case against the drunk driver on a contingency fee basis. And, if I took it on an hourly basis, I'd make sure I had a signed writing acknowledging that I had advised my client it was a poor case.
If you think you could win it, ... whatever.
3. I cannot make sense out of your remarks about the AG or about "pesky details." For better or worse, it is the details that determine the outcome of a lawsuit. There is a pretty significant California case where the victim of a horrific motorcycle crash that resulted from a kickstand that did not fold out of the way when it hit the ground during a sharp turn lost because she could not establish that the kickstand was manufactured by the defendant as compared to being a knockoff manufactured by someone else. Just a "pesky detail" I suppose.
Certain activities that are considered to be "in the business of insurance" do not require one to be licensed as an insurance company. Sorry, but that is how it is. I did not make the rules.
4. As far as failing to pay or an unreasonable delay in payment, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am surprised that Kauai Scuba has not alleged a cause of action based on bad claims handling. Do not ask me why it hasn't as I have no clue. All I know for sure is that it is not in the original complaint, the first amended complaint or the second amended complaint.
5. You say: "Ah, come on .... like you have NEVER read a PADI policy from either a dive shop, a dive center, a dive resort, or an individual dive instructor! Yet, you state that you have been involved in dive law insurance law suits for decades?"
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
I have never suggested that I've been involved in dive insurance law for decades. I've been involved in insurance law since 1984. Most of it is homeowners insurance and automobile insurance. Much of it is commercial general insurance. Some of it is inland marine insurance. Some of it is yacht insurance. Some of it is life and disability insurance. I've handled some scuba cases, but always under either homeowners or yacht policies. I provided information to Jay Stone of Blue Cheer, may he rest in peace. However, I have never had the need or opportunity to read the PADI policy. I was only interested in it so I might be able to address issues on this topic, and then only for the benefit of those reading it.
Believe me about what I have or haven't read, or not. I don't really care about you in particular.
6. You say: "You seem to have nearly instant online access to the case at hand and yet pretend that you have never seen a PADI policy?"
Of course I have nearly instant online access. Go to
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl. It is pretty simple. All anyone needs to do is sign up for an account with the federal court system. I would expect that every lawyer who practices in the federal courts has a "PACER" account. I do not mind spending a few dollars to check the docket sheet and download documents. I get useful information from Sciubaboard and the least I can do is provide input on topics where I have a degree of expertise.
Why do you say that I am pretending I have never seen a PADI policy? If you have a stake in the fight, then consider whether perhaps you are imagining things in order to make yourself feel better about it. It won't be the first time someone has fallen into that trap. Incidentally, you do not need to convince me you or anyone else has a good case. I don't really care. I am not the judge on this case and am not the clerk for the judge on this case.
7. You say: "And some people thought that you didn't understand .... you are SUCH a tease !!!"
Anyone who thought I didn't understand the basis of the lawsuit must be an idiot. I've had a good handle on it from the moment I first read the complaint, which I found out about on this thread. I simply question whether the law provides recourse.
8. Playing a lawyer without being licensed as one is a felony.
9. Some lawyers subscribe to the spaghetti theory. In my experience, that is usually either to intimidate an opponent, to impress a client or because there isn't a real good legal theory. When I represent a plaintiff, I go with one or two solid causes of action. (If I can't come up with one or two solid causes of action and need to go with the spaghetti approach, I don't take the case.) when I represent a defendant, I prefer a plaintiff who uses the spaghetti approach. They are easier to beat. I'm far more fearful of one solid cause of action.
10. Quote me as you wish. What I post does not count for much. If you want to send me a royalty for quoting me, I won't turn it down. I will not, however, render expert opinions on claims handling or coverage matters without a retainer agreement and a retainer in my trust account.
Incidentally, just because the shops may be overpaying for what they are getting, that does not mean that there is a remedy. Just think, even with the high price of gasoline, bottled water is still more expensive per gallon. Yet, no one can sue bottled water vendors for overpricing water.
