Sotis vs. IANTD

[Cert1967]

Wow. So, without a signed liability waiver, they won't be a part of the defense. Good lesson for instructors everywhere, even when they are acting as a DM.

The liability release - what issues may arise in the sure-to-be dogfight here.

"Part of the defense" - Lloyds? Their issue is contractual with the insured - not a part of the defense or a party to the action(s). Just the pocket-book, up to contractual policy limits for certain litigation costs and potential judgments.

Sotis, AH v. IANTD - would/is the Lloyds' policy in question pay for plaintiff's costs in this case? Speculating - what are the costs for each party to date, trial costs, post summary judgment costs?​

As I speculated upstream - the contractual issue of the liability release(s) may well be contentious.

The Release

• How long is a LR good for?
• How many - if any - LRs does Sotis have from the decedent?
• Do you need a new LR for each individual activity, location, each day, each boat?
• Is the release related only to training? See the example LR attached, which references "Course Title".
• What case law will govern the LR issue?
• How does the role of safety diver relate to the contract?
• Or was their instruction at hand?
• Does the boat have a LR from the decedent? How broad might such a release be construed?
• FL law? What types of negligence can be waived in FL? Case law?
• And what else might bear on this issue?

As a defendant in a civil action, you may well expect to prevail. But you may not have the resources or the desire to expend the time/cash necessary to put on the best possible case. Or even a credible case. How about the time element related to business and personal time lost - both of which may have a high cost.

Threshold issue - where will the money for the D's defense come from? Civil litigation is expensive, time-consuming and has the potential for uncertain outcomes.

Keep in mind that you are reading the P's complaint in isolation. Everything in the complaint is recited in a manner most favorable to P. The defendants will have the opportunity to similarly plead their case in a manner most favorable to their endeavor. Hold your horses, there's plenty more to come. Maybe ...

How might bankruptcy intervene in this and the underlying proceeding? See the opioid BK filings as a method of managing liability risks, rumors of such, and the tactic of threatening BK - Purdue Pharmacy, Insys, asbestos, as examples.

 

[chillyinCanada]

They are pursuing Sandra Stewart (estate of Rob)? How does that work?

My gawd, how horrible that must be .

 

[The Chairman]

There's some sort of bankruptcy proceeding from 2015. Don't know if it's him or his bankruptcy.

Rivera, II v. Sotis et al (9:15-ap-00590), Florida Middle Bankruptcy Court

 

[Wookie]

Sotis and IANTD and I share an insurance company. If you are interested, I will share the documents with you, but simply, the coverage includes a million for defense and a million to pay the settlement/finding. You must obtain a new liability release for every voyage or class, but Sotis (IIRC) was providing neither in this instance. Sotis may have been acting as a safety diver, but was not on the studio call sheet as safety diver for that day. Another diver was, but he was not on the boat.

 

[cerich]

They are pursuing Sandra Stewart (estate of Rob)? How does that work?

My gawd, how horrible that must be .

They want to make sure that if sotis and iantd lose to Stewart to there is a previous judgement that the they are not on the hook.

More interesting is that they also are not defending the iantd product(standards), only the instructor that follows them..which they further say NO as he didn't.

That leaves iantd in a position to have to defend their standards, trading of trainers and instructor, enforcement and qa and pretty much whatever else pops up in court. That if held up is a very interesting precedent that will have industry wide reach.

 

[cerich]

Sotis and IANTD and I share an insurance company. If you are interested, I will share the documents with you, but simply, the coverage includes a million for defense and a million to pay the settlement/finding. You must obtain a new liability release for every voyage or class, but Sotis (IIRC) was providing neither in this instance. Sotis may have been acting as a safety diver, but was not on the studio call sheet as safety diver for that day. Jeff pack was, but he was not on the boat.

I am surprised they didn't address the fact that sotis was working in a commercial diver capacity that day, not as a recreational nor technical dive professional.

 

[Wookie]

I am surprised they didn't address the fact that sotis was working in a commercial diver capacity that day, not as a recreational nor technical dive professional.

Sotis wasn’t on the studio call sheet as a safety diver or in any professional capacity....

 

[The Chairman]

I am surprised they didn't address the fact that sotis was working in a commercial diver capacity that day, not as a recreational nor technical dive professional.

That's exactly what they are moving towards, but that will come out in the trial. He's not "X"... cuz he's "Y".

As for the waiver, a waiver for a student/instructor relationship would not cover being a guide. It's set for a specific class, not a blanket waiver for a set period of time. Playing fast and loose with the rules and then covering it up will always hurt you in the end. I bet that what they are going to portray this as.

 

[cerich]

Sotis wasn’t on the studio call sheet as a safety diver or in any professional capacity....

by his own statement(s) he was there in a capacity that falls under commercial diving.

 

[Wookie]

All I have is the studio call sheet, the written instructions for the day. If Sotis said he was something aside from what that call sheet says, that’s on him.