Professional Diver Insurance - Inactive DM question...

[scuba-punk]

After DM'ing for a couple of years, I've decided to not DM anymore. I'm no longer comfortable putting my family's financial future into jeopardy by every yahoo that comes along wanting to buy a c-card. I know that even as an inactive DM, I still need professional insurance coverage because it's claims based. So, my question is this - for how long do I need to have this insurance? What kind of statute of limitations am I dealing with? Heck, does one even exist? I live in the US and the DM'ing I did was in the US, Canada and the Bahamas (all through the same shop).

I can see it now...
A: Until the day you and all of your heirs are dead and there is no one to bring a suit against...

-Frank

 

[Diver0001]

as a DM, even with teaching status, you are only responsible for divers who are are actively supervising at that moment. I can't see any circumstances under which you could be sued for something when you weren't there. I know of one instructor who was sued by teh family of an ex student but it didn't hold up in court.

I suppose a dive buddy could sue you if you had an accident while you were diving together and I know that some DM's get everyone they dive with to sign a waiver. If you feel you need liability insurance for these situations then you're better off maintaining your insurance.

R..

 

[Lawman]

1. The statute of limitations depends on where you are. For negligence in Michigan it would be 3 years.
2. Nobodys interested in anything more than insurance coverage. That's because:
a. You don't have enough to make it worthwhile going after you
b. You'd go bankrupt the minute they got a judgment against you. And,
3. Diving lawsuits are so rare that you're exposure is minimal. In Michigan, a state
with it's share of water (The Great Lake State) there isn't one reported lawsuit arising from a diving accident.

Go ahead and DM. The less you've got the safer your are. Doctors without malpractice insurance call it "going bare." You just arn't worth suing.''

How do I know? 35 years of suing people and defending them.

 

[Diver0001]

1. The statute of limitations depends on where you are. For negligence in Michigan it would be 3 years.
2. Nobodys interested in anything more than insurance coverage. That's because:
a. You don't have enough to make it worthwhile going after you
b. You'd go bankrupt the minute they got a judgment against you. And,
3. Diving lawsuits are so rare that you're exposure is minimal. In Michigan, a state
with it's share of water (The Great Lake State) there isn't one reported lawsuit arising from a diving accident.

Go ahead and DM. The less you've got the safer your are. Doctors without malpractice insurance call it "going bare." You just arn't worth suing.''

How do I know? 35 years of suing people and defending them.

How could anybody possibly sue a DM for negligence if he wasn't present at the scene...or am I missing something?

.....unless.....

Frank, you have doubts about something that happened while you were DM-ing?

R..

 

[scuba-punk]

Lawman, thanks for the help. I'll have to check into P'Tucky's laws then... I guess Willis might be able to help me too, huh? I guess I should call them. And trust me, I don't have much, but I'm not taking any chances.

Diver0001, no doubts of anything I did - I have a clean record. But, I know that since it's CLAIMS based insurance, I need to be covered when someone brings suit, NOT at the time of training. Say I helped instructor "A" with a class. 5 years from now, one of the students in that class dies and their family brings suit against the people involved in the decedents training. I need to be covered by insurance 5 years from now, regardless of what insurance I had when I helped with the classs. I know that I need to have the insurance even if I quit diving altogether. My question is "for how long do I need to have the insurance." Darn me for looking behind the curtain...

-Frank

 

[Diver0001]

Lawman, thanks for the help. I'll have to check into P'Tucky's laws then... I guess Willis might be able to help me too, huh? I guess I should call them. And trust me, I don't have much, but I'm not taking any chances.

Diver0001, no doubts of anything I did - I have a clean record. But, I know that since it's CLAIMS based insurance, I need to be covered when someone brings suit, NOT at the time of training. Say I helped instructor "A" with a class. 5 years from now, one of the students in that class dies and their family brings suit against the people involved in the decedents training. I need to be covered by insurance 5 years from now, regardless of what insurance I had when I helped with the classs. I know that I need to have the insurance even if I quit diving altogether. My question is "for how long do I need to have the insurance." Darn me for looking behind the curtain...

-Frank

OK, I understand what you're saying but it's the first time I can remember someone with a DM card asking about this. I could see it being an issue for an instructor but as a DM you're not responsible for the quality of the training, the instructor is. You're only really responsible for supervision "then and there". I just can't see any way that someone could make a claim that you have duty of care that extends for any length of time after the dive ends.

R..

 

[pete340]

I just can't see any way that someone could make a claim that you have duty of care that extends for any length of time after the dive ends.

That's not the issue. Most people's experience is with auto insurance; that's one way of handling insurance coverage, but there are others.

Let's say a DM screws up and causes a diver to be injured. The injured diver can sue at any time before the statute of limitations runs out. An incident-based insurance policy covers the DM if the policy was in force at the time of the dive, even if it lapses later (like an auto insurance policy). A claims-based insurance policy covers that liability if the insurance was in effect at the time the claim was made, even if it wasn't in effect at the time of the incident.

 

[Diver0001]

That's not the issue. Most people's experience is with auto insurance; that's one way of handling insurance coverage, but there are others.

Let's say a DM screws up and causes a diver to be injured. The injured diver can sue at any time before the statute of limitations runs out. An incident-based insurance policy covers the DM if the policy was in force at the time of the dive, even if it lapses later (like an auto insurance policy). A claims-based insurance policy covers that liability if the insurance was in effect at the time the claim was made, even if it wasn't in effect at the time of the incident.

I understand that but I asked him if that was the case and he said no. He says he has a "clean record" (his words).

What he seems to be worried about is getting sued by the family of a deceased diver for an unrelated (non-training related) accident that occurs a long time (years) after the training was completed where the dive-pros who trained the diver were not even present. Right, Frank?

In my mind this worry is unwarranted because the DM's only formal responsibility is for supervision and that ends as soon as the training session ends .... It seems impossible to me to sue a DM for quality of training if there is no formal responsibility related to the quality of training. It also seems impossible to me for the family of a dead diver to sue the dive-pros on the argument "if you didn't teach him to dive then he wouldn't have died diving" because an adult makes his/her own choice to follow a scuba course and a child's parents have to sign for the child, making it their choice and not the choice of the instructor or the DM. as an aside: if this argument *could* fly then every driving (driving, not diving) instructor on the planet would have been sued from here to Jupiter several times over seeing as how driving is much more dangerous than diving.

So, a bit long winded, but what are we talking about...... in order to sue for liability in the scenario Frank is talking about you would need to establish

1) a duty of care for non training related incidents occurring years after the training was completed
2) a direct violation of the duty of care
3) damages directly caused by the act of negligence.

and unless I'm horribly mistaken about the duty of care a DM has then in Frank's case you can't even get past #1, let alone the other bits.

I sure hope lawman checks back on this thread because I'm very curious about his take on this. Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I am a DM so what he has to say is bound to be interesting.

R..

 

[ScubaFreak]

Interesting thread.

I teach, so lets just say (knock on wood) theres an incident in one of my classes. I file the incident report to PADI, they accept, the student seems fine and thats it done and dusted.
Fast forward 2 years, im not actively teaching for whatever reasons and I have no insurance etc. What happens if this student comes back to sue for reasons x,y and z? Will DAN still support me since the incident happened while I was insured?

SF

 

[Dive-aholic]

...and unless I'm horribly mistaken about the duty of care a DM has then in Frank's case you can't even get past #1, let alone the other bits.

I sure hope lawman checks back on this thread because I'm very curious about his take on this. Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I am a DM so what he has to say is bound to be interesting.

R..

First, I'm with you on this. I would think that a DM would only need to carry insurance while actively leading divers/assisting with trainings...BUT...

That's assuming the DM stuck to the standards. Did he do what DMs are expected to do? What if the diver states in his lawsuit he was taught a particular way by the instructor but reinforcement/review training by the DM was done a different way? It becomes one's word against the other's. But in the meantime, the DM is stuck having to pay an attorney to represent him in a case he'll probably win. Okay, the judge can order the plaintiff to pay all legal fees, but that if they can't afford it. Claims based insurance won't cover it if it's not current. This is just a what if scenario and highly unlikely...but what if...?

Will DAN still support me since the incident happened while I was insured?

They may provide moral support, but claims based insurance only COVERS you if it is active. In your scenario, you end up paying legal fees out of your own pocket and fine yourself in the same situation as the DM from my scenario above. It would all depend on what the outcome was. Does PADI come to the conclusion that you (the instructor) were not at fault for the incident? If so, then the lawsuit would probably be against PADI not you...until the student wins that lawsuit and then goes after you because greed just keeps on growing. One thing you have going for you is you don't live in the U.S.

This is turning out to be a very interesting thread.

Lawman?