BOP Eruption?



  • @Stargazer yeah I was wondering the same thing, and what it could do here, for ACC and other legal liability situations if they somehow win against the NZ Company.

    I'd have thought as it happened in NZ it is subject to NZ Laws, granted the Cruiseliner may be subject to different laws given they operate in multiple jurisdictions, I would also expect the NZ Tour Operator (assuming they only operate inbound stuff) would likely have only had liability coverage for NZ and it's territories, that I believe means if it is tried in the US to US laws, there may be no cover for them or limited cover, plus given the numbers in the US, even if they did have coverage, it probably wouldnt be sufficient for what these people are looking at claiming

    “I think there is an opportunity to be able to avoid the really draconian or restrictive laws of New Zealand, in an effort in bringing those cases in the United States.”

    so people in NZ cant sue for every little thing means our laws are draconian and restrictive?



  • "Gee whizz it was our lucky day. Not only did we escape being steamed like a lobster in a pot of boiling sulphuric acid, now we get to sue those stupid schleps for millions".

    Zero chance of going after the tour company. No point anyway as they'll have no money. The cruise ship is another matter entirely.

    You would have thought the term "active volcano", especially when coupled with the steaming white clouds, was a pretty big clue but … fucking Yank legal system.



  • @taniwharugby said in BOP Eruption?:

    granted the Cruiseliner may be subject to different laws given they operate in multiple jurisdictions,

    With airliners it was the country of registration of the aircraft, so probably Panama or somewhere dodgy for a ship. I was advised by an international lawyer to put all of my assets in a trust in case an American had an accident on board when I was captain and decided to sue, (although even the lawyers didn't really know).
    Some pilots used to leave the seat belt sign on permanently for any flight to or from the US. Unexpected turbulence and a passenger hit the roof could leave you at risk. Bloody stupid tort laws.

    As @dogmeat says the Kiwi company won't have any money, and the owners will have protected themselves anyway.



  • @Snowy although the Cruiseliner will have Worldwide Liability cover (although probably end up with an out of court settlement partly funded by thier insurers anyway) whereas a NZ Tour Operator is unlikely to have Worldwide cover, anything that includes exposure to the North American market into Liability ratchets up the price



  • Some of the Aussies are looking to sue as well. Their lawyer was saying that was contingent on purchasing the tour tickets in Australia, but had yet to be confirmed.



  • @Stargazer said in BOP Eruption?:

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/american-survivors-white-island-eruption-seek-damages-cruise-line-and-tour-operators

    .

    The Urey family’s lawyer, Michael Winkleman, will be filing the lawsuit within the next two weeks against White Island Tours and Royal Caribbean cruise line.

    He believes the couple have a compelling case, which he says both operators need to answer to for their actions.

    “It would have been so easy for Royal Caribbean to note: for those of you going on the excursion to White Island Tours there's a heightened risk in going with that because there's a heightened level of this volcanic activity,” Mr Winkleman said.

    “Had they done that, my guess is that most people would have cancelled that tour, so I think there was a profit motive.”

    Furthermore, he believes the operators need to front up in the United States legal jurisdiction - where the couple could potentially be awarded millions of dollars in compensation.

    “I think there is an opportunity to be able to avoid the really draconian or restrictive laws of New Zealand, in an effort in bringing those cases in the United States.”

    .
    Do US courts have jurisdiction in a case against a NZ tour operator about something that happened in NZ?

    No and yes. A US court can make a finding against the NZ company but it's unenforceable.



  • ACC makes suing difficult, but not impossible. However, because injury is covered, the plaintiff has to sue for negligence, which is a higher bar than just losses due to being unable to work (for example) and medical expenses.



  • @Godder said in BOP Eruption?:

    ACC makes suing difficult, but not impossible. However, because injury is covered, the plaintiff has to sue for negligence, which is a higher bar than just losses due to being unable to work (for example) and medical expenses.

    They might have better luck when they sue the cruise company then



  • and this shit is why insurers are pulling Liability policies from adventure tour operators.

    So the future is, take the risk yourself, and lose everything when an American breaks a nail, or shut up shop.

    Thanks lawyers, you utter fluffybunnies.

    Actually, do we have a thread for whinging about shit like that, because i would like to tee off on banks and the insurance industry.



  • @mariner4life said in BOP Eruption?:

    and this shit is why insurers are pulling Liability policies from adventure tour operators.

    So the future is, take the risk yourself, and lose everything when an American breaks a nail, or shut up shop.

    Thanks lawyers, you utter fluffybunnies.

    Actually, do we have a thread for whinging about shit like that, because i would like to tee off on banks and the insurance industry.

    Yep I wonder how many visitors White Island would get every year if it was a dead dormant lifeless volcano with no activity what so ever?



  • Interesting listening to the US lawyer acting on behalf of the American couple, saying he hasnt even looked at the contract agreement between the Cruise Company and White Island tours yet.

    He is very much on the whole NZ's draconian laws too.



  • @taniwharugby said in BOP Eruption?:

    NZ's draconian laws too

    I'm not sure that he knows what that means.



  • @Snowy said in BOP Eruption?:

    @taniwharugby said in BOP Eruption?:

    NZ's draconian laws too

    I'm not sure that he knows what that means.

    It's almost like we aren't an extra state of the US of A! I can imagine the horror from a lawyers point of view of a country protected against an avalance of frivilous lawsuits.



  • @Kirwan Yeah. I would have thought that our laws are actually quite leniant, tolerant and protective, rather than harsh and severe as per the Greek Draco. US tort laws are far more Draconian and punitive.

    Maybe he thinks it means old fashioned or something. I don't get it.



  • @Snowy said in BOP Eruption?:

    @Kirwan Yeah. I would have thought that our laws are actually quite leniant, tolerant and protective, rather than harsh and severe as per the Greek Draco. US tort laws are far more Draconian and punitive.

    Maybe he thinks it means old fashioned or something. I don't get it.

    Or he's just another ignorant yank



  • @canefan We can go with that, and add in ambulance chasing lawyer.



  • @Snowy yeah. One of those no win no fee guys







  • @canefan said in BOP Eruption?:

    He does know we have a thing called ACC right?

    I'm gonna take a stab that he knows about it, but doesnt know what it is, given he has done little leg work in terms of looking at the contract between the Cruise company and White Island tours (if there is one)


Log in to reply