Professional Liability, U.S. vs non-U.S.

[darrenlowjq]

I just signed up for V&B professional liability insurance as a divemaster and I noticed that there was 2 options which potentially applied to me. "Divemaster" or "International Divemaster".

From the V&B website:

"An international instructor is a non-U.S. citizen who teaches exclusively non-U.S. citizens outside the U.S."

I reside in Singapore and help to conduct open water courses as a hobby in Malaysian and Indonesian waters, so I signed up for the "International Divemaster" policy, because the non-international option costs 65% more than the international option. I'll probably never help out with a class within the United States so that exclusion is a non-issue to me. However, I was a bit concerned about the part about teaching only non-US citizens. Does that mean that on the off chance something should go wrong while I'm teaching a U.S. citizen outside of the United States that V&B will be able to hang me out to dry?

 

[RJP]

Does that mean that on the off chance something should go wrong while I'm teaching a U.S. citizen outside of the United States that V&B will be able to hang me out to dry?

They wouldn't have to "hang you out to dry" because your policy clearly wouldn't cover such an occurrence.

The bigger issue for you might be the fact that if you teach even a single US citizen outside the US - even if nothing ever goes wrong - you don't meet the definition of "International Divemaster" and your policy could probably be voided overall.

 

[darrenlowjq]

Right, that's what I thought. Good to know. I have no plans to intentionally do a class with U.S. citizens so I'm probably good there.

I understand the premium is higher for teaching in the U.S. due to the litigation happy culture, but I'm wondering if there is a higher litigation risk associated with teaching U.S. citizens outside of the U.S.?

 

[RJP]

Sure - litigation-happy US citizens are more likely to sue.

 

[Wookie]

So the deal is, you aren't protecting yourself, you're protecting your training agency, as they want you to share int heir misery. The deal is, you teach or guide or otherwise interact with a US citizen while doing your Malaysan/Singapore gig. You give them cause to sue you. Maybe they sue you where you are, but most likely not, they will sue you in the good ol' USA. Since in the USA lawyers like to sue whomever they can to recover their 30%, they go after you, the dive shop who sold the regulator, the regulator manufacturer, and your training agency. Don't laugh, it happens all the time.

Anyway, you have no assets in the USA, you don't even show up to court, so you get a summary judgement that no one can collect on, leaving the regulator manufacturer and the dive shop and the training agency. The regulator manufacturer is in Tiawan, not likely to collect there, now it's the shop and the agency. They split the judgement in accordance with what the judge says, and off you go, everyone happy. Except the agency. Cause they really didn't have anything to do with anything, but they have the deepest pockets, and in the USA, someone must be at fault, right, because we can't possibly be responsible for ourselves.

So your agency will require you to carry insurance if there is any possibility that you have contact with an American as a diving professional. Try running a liveaboard catering to American clients.

 

[darrenlowjq]

So your agency will require you to carry insurance if there is any possibility that you have contact with an American as a diving professional. Try running a liveaboard catering to American clients.

Not sure this is right, I think there is no requirement from PADI to carry pro liability insurance at all here in Singapore but I may be mistaken. Still, its financially prudent to carry insurance to ward off the possibility of getting my pants sued off me for something that I don't even make a living off.

 

[Wookie]

Not sure this is right, I think there is no requirement from PADI to carry pro liability insurance at all here in Singapore but I may be mistaken. Still, its financially prudent to carry insurance to ward off the possibility of getting my pants sued off me for something that I don't even make a living off.

As anyone who buys insurance knows, you buy insurance to protect your other assets as well as someone else's assets. Get in a car wreck, the suer doesn't take your checking account and garnish your wages for the rest of your life. Insurance is required by the legislators (for wind, storm, fire, car, etc.) not to protect you, but to protect their lobbyist's assets. House burn down? With no insurance you walk away from it. With insurance, the mortgage holders assets are protected, so the mortgage holders lobby the state insurance board to require you to carry insurance of a certain amount. Maybe fire is a bad example, let's say windstorm in Florida instead.