Whatever happened with "Drifting Dan?"

[Splash-X]

I am under the assumption DM's do not normally carry insurance thus the plantiff's thrust toward the boatowner and his watercraft insurance policy. It certainly seems as though most captains and/or crew would do their own count in simliar situations for obvious reasons.

That really depends on the DMs agency.

As a DiveCon (SSI) I can not purchase professional insurance because my status as a DM would be void if I were not leading a trip associated with the LDS I am associated with. I pay my insurance fees to my shop and am covered under their policy as an employee.

As a PADI DM, they are independent and each would/should have their own insurance. There may be casese where a PADI DM ONLY works with a LDS/Charter and is insured under the LDS/Charter policy.

Because the PADI DM is essentialy an "independent contractor" they should have their own liability policy. The policy would cover them no matter what chater or LDS they were working with at the time.

I can't comment on how any other agency works in regards to the DM

 

[Scott L]

That really depends on the DMs agency.

As a DiveCon (SSI) I can not purchase professional insurance because my status as a DM would be void if I were not leading a trip associated with the LDS I am associated with. I pay my insurance fees to my shop and am covered under their policy as an employee.

As a PADI DM, they are independent and each would/should have their own insurance. There may be casese where a PADI DM ONLY works with a LDS/Charter and is insured under the LDS/Charter policy.

Because the PADI DM is essentialy an "independent contractor" they should have their own liability policy. The policy would cover them no matter what chater or LDS they were working with at the time.

I can't comment on how any other agency works in regards to the DM

Interesting. So PADI does offer professional liabilty insurance through their program to DM's? A PADI DM however would most likely be properly covered by a PADI shop under their policy and not retain their own if they do not also free-lance elsewhere? The layers of commercial insurance can be complicated. I know, as I work in the industry...

 

[Splash-X]

PADI itself does not offer the insurance. If memory serves me correct, you need to either get your own personal professional liability policy or be covered under a shops policy. Insurance is a requirement to be "active".

PADI requires that DM's carry thier own insurance. If they are teaching/assisting, the insurance of the instructor they are assisting DOES NOT extend to the DM/AI.

 

[Peter Guy]

It's been a while since this case was discussed, but as I recall, there is a significant dispute as to whether anyone in charge was, in fact, negligent. Again, IIRC, the DM is saying someone answered appropriately when the plaintiff's name was called (or otherwise marked the plaintiff had returned to the boat). IF the crew took reasonable measures to determine that everyone was back on board, why would it be negligence, let alone gross negligence, to have left "Dan" drifting?

The other part of this case is how much was Dan damaged? Again, IIRC, he suffered no long term physical injuries, but, to the contrary, long term "mental anguish" that is now worth significant sums in order to be satisfied.

I found this case to be interesting when I first heard about it and the fact that it is still alive just makes it more intriguing.

- - - - -
PADI and insurance. PADI does not (directly) sell insurance (although there is a very close working relationship between PADI and one particular broker) and does require an "active" DM/AI/Instructor to be appropriately insured. One can have insurance personally (as I do for example) or be insured through a shop policy -- personal choice.

I don't think it is, or ever has been, a "slam dunk" case. In fact, from what I recall, I'd vote in favor of the defense.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

One small note, then I'll leave this discussion. It's been discussed to death for a few years. Dan has never admitted any fault of his own. He asked Andy if he could tag along with his team, but once in the water he had trouble clearing and stayed behind. Rather than surface, he dropped to around 70 feet IIRC and lost sight of the rigs, a huge no-no. All divers are told in the pre dive briefing to remain within the legs of the rig and to surface at a designated spot. When Dan finally surfaced, he was down current from the boat but could still see it. In his own words, he said he thought the boat would come for him so he made no effort to swim to it.
When he filed his case twelve months later he claimed he got skin cancer from the three hours he spent drifting in the fog.

 

[Scott L]

Three hours. That's all? I did not read the facts. A stalemate the insurance company is only too pleased to continue...

 

[Epinephelus]

... A stalemate ...

I am reminded of "Lurch's Law of Lawsuits"
"A Lawsuit is lawyers fighting over a pile of money, steadily depleting the pile. When the pile is gone the lawsuit is over.
Who wins is irrelevant."
E

 

[DwayneJ]

... he claimed he got skin cancer from the three hours he spent drifting in the fog.

Gotta watch that fog!

Completely unrelated but since you mentioned skin cancer, I'm fair skinned and have lots of sun spots (frickles?) and a few moles.

My wife Kim had a mole she was concerned about so we went to a skin doctor to have it checked out. I went with her - Doctor said her mole was fine but Kim had it removed anyway.

Doctor then checked me out and found 5 suspicious moles which he removed. Two came back "dysplastic" which is pre cancerous.

Since then I get checked yearly and every year the doctor removes 1-2 moles some of which have appeared in places where the sun does't shine - all have been tested and the results have come back fine.

If you have fair skin and moles, get checked out yearly. More to do with genetics than sun or fog.

Dwayne

 

[DwayneJ]

I am reminded of "Lurch's Law of Lawsuits"
"A Lawsuit is lawyers fighting over a pile of money, steadily depleting the pile. When the pile is gone the lawsuit is over.
Who wins is irrelevant."
E

Neighbors have been going through a nasty divorce. Two years later, the lawyers are $250,000 richer.

 

[Scott L]

I am reminded of "Lurch's Law of Lawsuits"
"A Lawsuit is lawyers fighting over a pile of money, steadily depleting the pile. When the pile is gone the lawsuit is over.
Who wins is irrelevant."
E

True in alot of instances but most such plantiff cases are continency fee based...