Posted by Ken Kurtis on April 14, 2004 at 17:11:52:
In Reply to: Re: That's not exactly true posted by Captain Tim on April 14, 2004 at 16:31:59:
Captain Tim wrote: "Look through the past posts where we were included in the lawsuit. The judge did not honor the waiver."
From what I recall of what you told me, the waiver was not thrown out. In fact, my recollection is that it protected the shop and owner who had chartered the boat.
I seem to recall that it was claimed (either by the insurance company or the plantiff's attorney) that you did not meet the defintion of "Additional Insured" as defined in the master policy and based on the way the lawsuit was worded and therefore (they claimed) you were not covered by the waiver.
Assuming I've got that correct, not being eligible to be covered by a waiver is a very different thing than the waiver itself simply being ruled invalid &/or unenforceable.
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, CA
Post a Followup