Sotis vs. IANTD

[cerich]

With this one Mr Sotis now has 4 active suits in Broward County.

that doesn't mean he is in the wrong..

I believe in a civil case that is settled, prejudice can be attached, meaning the matter cannot be refiled. I was in an accident a few years ago. I sued, and the other party's insurance offered a settlement. I accepted, but in accepting I had to sign a statement saying I would not file again. Similarly, I know of a scuba death case that was settled "with prejudice," meaning that the plaintiff could not file again in that matter.

I am not remotely an attorney.

this wouldn't be settled, it would be dismissed because what Sotis is asking a judge to order done would be already done.

 

[boulderjohn]

this wouldn't be settled, it would be dismissed because what Sotis is asking a judge to order done would be already done.

Got it.

 

[cerich]

If IANTD is unsure in their own minds that a properly done QA following their policy will NOT end up in the suspension/expulsion of Sotis from IANTD then they may be best served to let this play out. Because if they bring him back and do a proper QA process and Sotis is cleared that opens the door to their earlier "improper" actions as establishing damages that are further actionable.

I would think if the proper QA process leads to expulsion there may still be an argument for damages but would be much weaker.

I also think that IANTD if they do redo the QA process they would be best served to impanel the QA with people that haven't been involved in teh earlier QA that didn't follow process as much as is possible under the proper process as per policy

 

[Wookie]

So, Tom and Mark (who answer to a board) agree to reinstate Sotis. Regardless of what happens in this civil suit, which is really not important, this does considerable damage to IANTD, who are not presently named in the Stewart family suit, in case they are named. Sotis' insurance company has thrown Sotis to the wind. Sotis' insurance company also insures IANTD. Sotis may be trying to add in some deep pockets here for the big lawsuit.

Note: Sotis' insurance company also insures me.

 

[cerich]

So, Tom and Mark (who answer to a board) agree to reinstate Sotis. Regardless of what happens in this civil suit, which is really not important, this does considerable damage to IANTD, who are not presently named in the Stewart family suit, in case they are named. Sotis' insurance company has thrown Sotis to the wind. Sotis' insurance company also insures IANTD. Sotis may be trying to add in some deep pockets here for the big lawsuit.

Note: Sotis' insurance company also insures me.

If I were on the IANTD board and made aware that proper QA process per policy was not followed, I would vote for reinstatement of the instructor.

After reinstatement the call to start (or not) the QA process again is an administrative one.

In fact while I was on the NAUI board we did in fact do that in two cases if I recall.

To your damages issue and having IANTD pulled in to the Stewart, seems that is more likely if he was thrown to the wind improperly than properly. I would think that IANTD becomes a witness for the Stewart family to establish if Sotius was negligent or not.

 

[cerich]

Note: Sotis' insurance company also insures me.

I share the same underwriter as well

 

[cerich]

Just to be clear in my position, Mr Sotis is entitled to due process, at all levels, from his agency affiliations to the legal system.

 

[Wookie]

Just to be clear in my position, Mr Sotis is entitled to due process, at all levels, from his agency affiliations to the legal system.

Agreed, which is why my opening statement. I don't blame him a bit.

 

[luscioman]

that doesn't mean he is in the wrong..

I only have the facts that have available to the public and I am not saying he is in the wrong. His insurance is most likely defending him in 1 case maybe more. My point is more that IF he is footing the bill for attorney fee's on the other cases it will add up very quickly and become very expensive.

I also think this specific case could either aid him or hurt his other suit depending on the outcome.

 

[mderrick]

Mr Sotis is entitled to due process, at all levels, from his agency affiliations to the legal system.

From an ethical standpoint I agree too, but is he legally entitled? By this I mean is due process for a private club (aka training agency) an entitlement in the legal sense? It's Tom's sandbox, can't he do whatever he likes as long as the instructor is not discriminated against on the basis of one of the lawful protected classes? I'm not arguing a position, I'm just wondering if someone knows if this is true. If COSTCO decides not to renew my membership because I have brown eyes, am I entitled due process under the law?