Aegean lawsuit

Team Subterfuge

Anarchist
717
17
San Diego
I always insure my boat so if my crew is hurt or injured - or God forbid killed, that there is insurance for the injury or loss. I would want my crew compensated by the insurance company.

Litigation becomes so personal which I guess is the point of conflict here. I am aware of a case where a guy was in a car accident and his girlfriend was injured. The girlfriend sued to recover for her injuries and the attorney hired by the insurance company to represent the boyfriend/driver kept referring to the boyfriend at trial as "my so called client" because the boyfriend was doing what he could do to make sure his girlfriend won.

Regarding the Aegean, the owner's family members should insist the insurance company pay the survivors - partly to compensate the loss, end litigation, and terminate any liability for the estate.

There are no winners here.

 
Regarding the Aegean, the owner's family members should insist the insurance company pay the survivors - partly to compensate the loss, end litigation, and terminate any liability for the estate.

There are no winners here.
But the job of the attorneys of the insurance company for Mavromatis is to try as hard as they can to assign blame elsewhere: Rudolph, the boat mfgr, the tracking device, even MEX for not having a light on the island. I don't think Mrs. Mavromatis has any choice in the matter.

It may even be that Mrs. Rudolph tried to collect on a life insurance policy for her husband and the life insurance company says "Hold on there, not so fast. We'll pay you but we need you to file against the Mavromatis so we can collect from thier insurers. Your obligation to do so is right there in paragraph X on page Y of revised endorsement Z"

In this case it is likely that all parties are being driven by forces outside thier own control.

 

Team Subterfuge

Anarchist
717
17
San Diego
Regarding the Aegean, the owner's family members should insist the insurance company pay the survivors - partly to compensate the loss, end litigation, and terminate any liability for the estate.

There are no winners here.
But the job of the attorneys of the insurance company for Mavromatis is to try as hard as they can to assign blame elsewhere: Rudolph, the boat mfgr, the tracking device, even MEX for not having a light on the island. I don't think Mrs. Mavromatis has any choice in the matter.

It may even be that Mrs. Rudolph tried to collect on a life insurance policy for her husband and the life insurance company says "Hold on there, not so fast. We'll pay you but we need you to file against the Mavromatis so we can collect from thier insurers. Your obligation to do so is right there in paragraph X on page Y of revised endorsement Z"

In this case it is likely that all parties are being driven by forces outside thier own control.
Actually, Mrs. Mavromatis - assuming she is the administrator of the estate of her husband - has influence in this matter. If Rudolpf and/or other survivors make a policy limits settlement demand or a demand for less than policy limits and the insurance company rejects the demand, the insurance company potentially exposes the Mavromatis estate to liability for any judgment in excess of the insurance policy limits. Consequently, the administrator of the estate will want to be jumping up and down demanding that the insurance company settle. If the insurance company wants to seek contribution from other people/manufacturers, then the insurance company can settle and file its own lawsuit for contribution.

It appears that you are correct that the Rudolphs are being compelled by state law procedure to take the steps they are taking so that they can ultimately collect money from Mr. Mavromatis' insurer -- apparently, the insurance company must have already denied the Rudolph claim.

Hopefully the Mavromatis and Rudolph families do not get so wrapped up in litigation that it affects their friendship and support for one another in such a terrible time.

 

PeterHuston

Super Anarchist
5,903
81
Regarding the Aegean, the owner's family members should insist the insurance company pay the survivors - partly to compensate the loss, end litigation, and terminate any liability for the estate.

There are no winners here.
But the job of the attorneys of the insurance company for Mavromatis is to try as hard as they can to assign blame elsewhere: Rudolph, the boat mfgr, the tracking device, even MEX for not having a light on the island. I don't think Mrs. Mavromatis has any choice in the matter.

It may even be that Mrs. Rudolph tried to collect on a life insurance policy for her husband and the life insurance company says "Hold on there, not so fast. We'll pay you but we need you to file against the Mavromatis so we can collect from thier insurers. Your obligation to do so is right there in paragraph X on page Y of revised endorsement Z"

In this case it is likely that all parties are being driven by forces outside thier own control.
Actually, the job of the attorneys is to stay employed as long as they can.

 

jerseyguy

Super Anarchist
The implications of this last paragraph are especially worrisome:

"All we know conclusively is that there was a horrible tragedy. It was their boat," the attorney said. "We're all trying to piece together how that happened. Something went wrong, clearly. The information we have leads us to believe there may be several sources of negligence that caused this horrible tragedy - not just limited to the owners of the boat. There may be other negligent parties."

Boat manufacturer, manufacturer/distributor/retailer of any navigational gear on board, yacht club sponsoring the race, RC, whoever wrote the NOR & Sis, etc.

 

[email protected]

Super Anarchist
2,260
192
USA
the lawsuit is totally understandable. these guys had kids, i imagine they were breadwinners for their families to some extent, and now theres hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in expected income missing...

the truly appalling thing is that these people think its ok to take this dispute to facebook, just disgusting!

i dont see any possible way the YC, sponsors, or NOR author could be held liable for anything. would love to hear a legal theory as to how someone could possible craft this argument.

 

[email protected]

Super Anarchist
2,260
192
USA
Regarding the Aegean, the owner's family members should insist the insurance company pay the survivors - partly to compensate the loss, end litigation, and terminate any liability for the estate.

There are no winners here.
But the job of the attorneys of the insurance company for Mavromatis is to try as hard as they can to assign blame elsewhere: Rudolph, the boat mfgr, the tracking device, even MEX for not having a light on the island. I don't think Mrs. Mavromatis has any choice in the matter.

It may even be that Mrs. Rudolph tried to collect on a life insurance policy for her husband and the life insurance company says "Hold on there, not so fast. We'll pay you but we need you to file against the Mavromatis so we can collect from thier insurers. Your obligation to do so is right there in paragraph X on page Y of revised endorsement Z"

In this case it is likely that all parties are being driven by forces outside thier own control.
Actually, the job of the attorneys is to stay employed as long as they can.
right, and the best way to do that is to do the best possible job representing your client's interests within the bounds of the law and ethics

 
I can see how lawyers could manipulate this.

How could a yacht club put on a race in the dangerous ocean where islands can jump out of nowhere?

How can B&Garaytheon allow a boat to run into an island?

How can Hunter build a boat that can sink?

How can the earth put rocks in the ocean that a boat can hit?

I see no good end to this

 

MKennedy

New member
Actually, Mrs. Mavromatis - assuming she is the administrator of the estate of her husband - has influence in this matter. If Rudolpf and/or other survivors make a policy limits settlement demand or a demand for less than policy limits and the insurance company rejects the demand, the insurance company potentially exposes the Mavromatis estate to liability for any judgment in excess of the insurance policy limits. Consequently, the administrator of the estate will want to be jumping up and down demanding that the insurance company settle. If the insurance company wants to seek contribution from other people/manufacturers, then the insurance company can settle and file its own lawsuit for contribution.
Actually, a policy limits demand that is rejected by the defendant's insurer has the effect of waiving the policy limits, and any judgment in excess of the policy limits has to be paid by the carrier (excluding other coverage issues). That way, the carrier is gambling with its own money in betting that it can do better at trial.

But, yes, if the defendant (or carrier calling the shots in the defense) thinks someone else should be on the hook, it will either file a Cross-Complaint or a separate contribution/subrogation action later. Probably not against Mexico, though.

 

jerseyguy

Super Anarchist
the lawsuit is totally understandable. these guys had kids, i imagine they were breadwinners for their families to some extent, and now theres hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in expected income missing...

the truly appalling thing is that these people think its ok to take this dispute to facebook, just disgusting!

i dont see any possible way the YC, sponsors, or NOR author could be held liable for anything. would love to hear a legal theory as to how someone could possible craft this argument.
This is America. Anyone can sue anybody for any reason at any time. Product liability, negligence on the part of the owner/skipper and the beat goes on.

 

DoRag

Super Anarchist
It is not surprising that the incident will be subjected to litigation. As the lawyers begin to cast their nets, NOSA (the offficers and diectors), no doubt, will be added as parties contributing to the deaths through their negligence.

 

DoRag

Super Anarchist
the lawsuit is totally understandable. these guys had kids, i imagine they were breadwinners for their families to some extent, and now theres hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in expected income missing...

the truly appalling thing is that these people think its ok to take this dispute to facebook, just disgusting!

i dont see any possible way the YC, sponsors, or NOR author could be held liable for anything. would love to hear a legal theory as to how someone could possible craft this argument.
NOSA promoted a race, at night, in crowded shipping lanes, to cruisers and novices without adequetly informing folks of the risks and offering training to mitigate the hazards. Easy.

 

PeterHuston

Super Anarchist
5,903
81
the lawsuit is totally understandable. these guys had kids, i imagine they were breadwinners for their families to some extent, and now theres hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in expected income missing...

the truly appalling thing is that these people think its ok to take this dispute to facebook, just disgusting!

i dont see any possible way the YC, sponsors, or NOR author could be held liable for anything. would love to hear a legal theory as to how someone could possible craft this argument.
NOSA promoted a race, at night, in crowded shipping lanes, to cruisers and novices without adequetly informing folks of the risks and offering training to mitigate the hazards. Easy.
Did the NOR/SI's require paper charts and a log be kept? Or did they allow the competitors to rely only on GPS for navigation?

 
Nope. Dorag is right - if you go to a baseball game and get beaned by a line drive foul ball you can sue whomever sold you the ticket to the game.

In this case the Mavromatis & Rudolph families got beaned by the boat hitting the rocks.

Not saying that's a winning argument (proportional responsibility and all that) but the argument could be made.

I especially do like the idea of suing MEX.

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top