Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 100,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard you must register for a free account.
As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 3,000,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from 80,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
Hmm, it is a hard decision if I would even want to get my DM card at all, and simply be a perpetual DM intern?
Is there any kind of time limitation to that? I'm wondering if a good lawyer could pierce that veil by showing that you were acting fully as a DM but deliberately using the "incomplete" status as protection?
Is there any kind of time limitation to that? I'm wondering if a good lawyer could pierce that veil by showing that you were acting fully as a DM but deliberately using the "incomplete" status as protection?
Well, considering a DM in training is just as capable of being sued, it seems rather a moot point. In fact, I know at least some recommend that DMs in training carry their own insurance. (I know NAUI-sponsored insurance has a checkbox for DMs-to-be... although I didn't see that until *after* I'd completed DM, go figure.)
Seems to me it's a perfectly normal case of "Decide what you want to be, then be." Trying to work the system may feel nice for the moment, but systems have a tendency to blow up in the faces of the people trying to work them.
The thing here for me is, the more you know, the more you're protected. Simply accepting that the diveshop said "don't worry, you'll be covered by your instructor's insurance", doesn't suffice if you have any networth. If you don't have any networth, no malpractice lawyer's will go after you.
But if you are Tiger Wood doing DM's on the weekends for fun.... Guess who the lawyers are going to sue? Nope, not the diveshop. Nope, not the dive instructor. The guy who has the deepest pocket will be named in the suit.
And sometime that might be the pool, the equipment manufacturer, or PADI. I think this issue should have been covered more in the PADI's divemaster manual.
And sometime that might be the pool, the equipment manufacturer, or PADI. I think this issue should have been covered more in the PADI's divemaster manual.
Amen! This topic is of significant concern to me and I feel it is very poorly covered in the PADI DM program.
Guess who the lawyers are going to sue? Nope, not the diveshop. Nope, not the dive instructor. The guy who has the deepest pocket will be named in the suit.
I've never seen a lawsuit that progressed like that. Lawyers do not simply choose the deepest pockets to sue (except, perhaps, for the blight of attorneys everywhere, the phone book personal injury lawyers). Lawyers include in their suit *everyone* who could possibly have anything at all to do with the incident.
If an incident happened on one of our checkout trips, the suit would name the shop, the boat owner, the boat captain and crew, the staff from the shop, any instructors or divemasters on the boat, and anyone else who may be connected by even the slightest threads of responsibility. Standard practice is to include *everything* and then drop parts of the action as you go. (Real law is not much like TV law. For example, in real law, if you don't contest a point at the first opportunity, you are assumed to have conceded the point and may not be allowed to bring it up later.)
Anyway, if you were acting as a DM on a boat (or for a class or wherever) when an incident occurred, you *would* be named in any suit, whether or not you appear to have money. To do otherwise would be a failure of the plaintiff's lawyer. You will need legal defense, and you may be found liable in part. (Perhaps you were not with the group of the person who had the incident, but there was a problem with their gear of such magnitude that you are found to have contributed toward the incident by not being as observant as a reasonably prudent DM is required to be.) If you're willing to risk that because you think they probably won't bother with you, you're basically running through the living room with your hands over your eyes so the parents won't see you.
From what I understand, litigation is very long and difficult. It takes like 2 to 4 years (unless settled out of court), and cost an average of $100,000 to complete.
An attorney doesn't take on a case unless they know that either the person they are suing is rich, or is carrying a malpractice policy that has a high cap. Isn't it odd, carry good insurance actually make you MORE attractive to sharks.
It is almost nonsensicle to sue a struggling dive shop already in the red (who wants to run a diveshop)? So they'll go after who ever has the deepest pocket, and not necessary the ones most responsible.
Kinda like when a high speeding driver flips a car not wearing seatbelts is 90% at fault for the injury of his occupants, but the lawyers went after Ford for not designing an SUV that doesn't flip.
I've never seen a lawsuit that progressed like that. Lawyers do not simply choose the deepest pockets to sue (except, perhaps, for the blight of attorneys everywhere, the phone book personal injury lawyers). Lawyers include in their suit *everyone* who could possibly have anything at all to do with the incident.
If an incident happened on one of our checkout trips, the suit would name the shop, the boat owner, the boat captain and crew, the staff from the shop, any instructors or divemasters on the boat, and anyone else who may be connected by even the slightest threads of responsibility. Standard practice is to include *everything* and then drop parts of the action as you go. (Real law is not much like TV law. For example, in real law, if you don't contest a point at the first opportunity, you are assumed to have conceded the point and may not be allowed to bring it up later.)
True. But chances are the one with the deep pockets is going to step up and provide the defense if you don't because it is in their vested interest that none of the defendants are found liable and that the plaintiff is found liable. In some states, joint and severable liability still exists. Under joint and severable liability, a party found in any way responsible (even if only 1%) could be liable for the entire judgment. And in some cases, a plaintiff found 51% or more liable means the defendants do not pay anything.
Trying to work the system may feel nice for the moment, but systems have a tendency to blow up in the faces of the people trying to work them.
That's my point. When it comes to a large lawsuit involving a DM intern working under an instructor, the instructor's insurer may assert that a DM "intern" who has met all the requirements and has been an "intern" for 3 or 4 or x years is not really an intern at all but a qualified DM that is gaming the system, and declare coverage void.
Witherspoon charges about the same for DM, but it significantly less for instructors. Click the link for this years rates.
And yes, we do have to carry insurance after we've stopped teaching. The insurance is a claims filed insurance, so if you're not carrying it when a claim is filed, you're SOL.
Witherspoon just announced a new program not only freezing rates for 3 years but changing the policy from 'claims made' to 'occurrence'.
------ This new policy is an “occurrence form” policy and provides coverage for losses occurring during the policy period AND “prior acts coverage” for the previous two years at NO ADDITIONAL COST. This policy is a great benefit to the dive professional because, unlike the old “claims made” form that required coverage at the time of the incident AND at the time the claim was made with no “gap” in coverage, this program covers you if you have it in place from when it starts (plus the previous two years) till when it ends, plus for ever for what happened during that time. This offers protection for the client because it eliminates the previous risk of losing the “prior acts coverage” due to any possible “gap” in the policy coverage. In the past, the old claims-made form made it difficult for the dive professional to move coverage from one insurance program to another, or to retire without continuing to carry coverage, because they might loose their prior acts coverage, but no more!
Linear Mode
