PADI getting sued over Insurance Program
- Thread starter cerich
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
ItsBruce
Contributor
I don't think I would buy insurance under the PADI program either. Especially if, as I'm told, competing programs have better coverages and are less expensive. OTOH, given what I've seen of insurance companies over the course of both defending them and, now, suing them, no matter how inept you think they are, they will still surprise you.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
What's to wonder? We live in an incredibly litigious society where punitive damages are so outrageous that people often hurt themselves or pretend to be injured in order to generate a windfall decision in their favor. We could come up with a myriad of reasons why this is so, but let's keep this thread on its original topic.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
Why there is a requirement to buy liability insurance is on topic.
djcheburashka
Contributor
In most states you can't insure for punitive damages. Professional liability insurance is required because otherwise fly-by-night players would cause harms (ie, kill people) they can't afford to cover.
I understand you're upset about the defamation suit you're defending but, honestly, having practiced in that area, this has gone on longer than just about any defamation suit I'm aware of. I cannot understand for the life of me why this is.
Anyway, lashing out at "the system" or "our society" doesn't make a lot of sense.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
We are very caveat emptor about everything else, quality, safety, content, competence, yet someone (e.g., the agency) demands that we buy insurance. I just don't get it? There must be a reason and, somehow, protecting the public just doesn't ring true.
ItsBruce
Contributor
I've been without internet access, but my comments are as follows:
1.The most important aspect of liability insurance is that it covers the cost of the defense of a lawsuit. This is often as much as or more than the liability itself. It is particularly important if there ultimately is no liability. Who wants to pay a lawyer tens of thousands of dollars for proving they did nothing wrong?
2. Liability insurance does not indemnify one for punitive damages. However, the threat of punitive damages may drive a settlement.
3. Everyone up the "food chain" wants to protect themselves, so they require insurance for those below them. General contractors require subs to have insurance. There are many other examples. PADI, which will get sued whenever a DM or instructor gets sued, wants to protect itself, to the extent possible, so it requires DMs and instructors, etc. to have insurance. It puts a layer of protection between the professional and the organization.
Please recall, there is no law (in the US) that requires some magic certification to enable someone to teach someone else how to dive. However, to get air fills, one must show the shop a c-card. To get a c-card, one needs to use the services of a pro who can tell the agency to issue a c-card. The agency, which may be responsible for issuing the c-card has the right to know that the pro is qualified to say to issue a c-card and to know that if the pro erred in doing so, he or she can answer for the liability.
... Which all goes to show that PADI had very little incentive to sell pros bad liability insurance.
1.The most important aspect of liability insurance is that it covers the cost of the defense of a lawsuit. This is often as much as or more than the liability itself. It is particularly important if there ultimately is no liability. Who wants to pay a lawyer tens of thousands of dollars for proving they did nothing wrong?
2. Liability insurance does not indemnify one for punitive damages. However, the threat of punitive damages may drive a settlement.
3. Everyone up the "food chain" wants to protect themselves, so they require insurance for those below them. General contractors require subs to have insurance. There are many other examples. PADI, which will get sued whenever a DM or instructor gets sued, wants to protect itself, to the extent possible, so it requires DMs and instructors, etc. to have insurance. It puts a layer of protection between the professional and the organization.
Please recall, there is no law (in the US) that requires some magic certification to enable someone to teach someone else how to dive. However, to get air fills, one must show the shop a c-card. To get a c-card, one needs to use the services of a pro who can tell the agency to issue a c-card. The agency, which may be responsible for issuing the c-card has the right to know that the pro is qualified to say to issue a c-card and to know that if the pro erred in doing so, he or she can answer for the liability.
... Which all goes to show that PADI had very little incentive to sell pros bad liability insurance.
Similar threads
