[QUOTE=PowerplayDave;3592522][QUOTE=F1-00
. Total award to the 79 yr old grandmother 640k.

Everybody hates lawyers until they need one , just sayin.[/QUOTE]

Urban legend or not why did this woman deserve 640K? Just sayn

NK

:bsflag:

I totally disagree. Many attorneys will pursue the victims or families and "sell" the lawsuit!!!!

You are wrong/incorrect. If that type of laywer exists, they will get sanctioned or disbarred.

You are correct.

You can hate me
 

I think allot of you are way out of line, if it was your son or spouse many would do the same thing if you thought it could have been prevented. If he drown it could be alot of reasons but certainly he did not want to leave this life that way!

I think that a positive will come out of all this. The reason safety has been compromised over the years from every aspect - boat designs, crew, organizations is that there are too many organizations and to few racers.

I can say this, I jumped at the chance to join OPT when it formed and took our 2 boats there. One boat raced APBA and then both race OPT - looking back that was the begining of where the sport is today - splintered and disfunctional. Not intentionally done but when that happened it set the stage so anyone who didn't like the rules could go do there own thing - the sport began it's slide downward.

When people complain about $500-$1000 more or less about the cost to enter Charlie's around Long Island race how does anyone think all the safety you want to have is going to be paid for?

Offshore was never NASCAR, the teams have allways had to pay themselves if they wanted better rescue, safety research etc - how many people still have their own chopper and dive teams following them? There is no governing body with money unless the racers all chip in.

The best thing that could emerge from all this is a unification of offshore under one governing body, the fees go up to support proper rescue operations and R&D for safety, you stop having a run anything mentality and narrow down the classes, some people will have to spend more money to race other might throw in the towel. But, a degree of professionalism will be brought into this sport by a select few that want to keep it alive - if that happens then this was for the best, if not the sport will return to two guys on the ocean trying to out run each other!

Insurance will be tough yes, but brought back under a APBA/UIM type umbrella you should be able to get it because it's like any other insurance where it's pooled together for various events.

HabanaJoe - I couldn't agree more. Very sensible and logical post, free of drama. Thanks.

Chuck - you ran with the best of the best, Roger Penske so you can probably answer this question for me - who owns NASCAR, CART or the other big race organizations? Is it the teams like NFL or a private company?

Also, who owns the organizations that race offshore today, how are they structured?

Comment:

I don't know really were to start but will try this from the top.

I do not know John Carbonell but SBI is the best racing organization in the Western Hemisphere that I know of and hope this litigation is not it's demise/downfall.

SBI no doubt has a policy for this event and this claim probably will reach policy limits for sure. US1 hit the nail on the head when he said this attempt at going after sponsors is an effort to bring into the fray as many carriers as possible. Like it or not Mr. Alweiss has a duty to his clients to do so and it would be malpractice if he did not pursue all possible theories of recovery.

Insurance is purchased for racing events and things sometimes happen which is why we procure insurance.

Now having said all of the above it seems to me that boat racing is an inherently dangerous activity and everytime someone gets into a boat to go race certain risks are voluntarily undertaken [aka Assumption of the Risk]. Namely, it is implied that they may lose their life...for example Bob Morgan and Jeff Tillman. However, in Joey's case if he drowned due to negligence or contributing factors of the rescue teams then this litigation...like it or not has substantial merit. To what degree if at all is for the trier of fact to determine i.e...lay terms they will figure it out.

I still cannot understand how a third party advertiser sponsor has any liability on this claim. The word sponsor in my opinion is incorrect it should be advertiser. As most who advertise in the event do not have any control over the operations and are simply advertisers [excluding any controlling or managing sponsors] and would have zero liability. Note: I am not a Florida attorney and have not researched the applicable case law or the statute[s] in that state.

Usually if an attorney sends out a letter requesting insurance information the response from most should be to pound sand. In California filing a claim against a party you know has no merit can result in costs of defense, sanctions and other claims againts you. Do not know how if the same applies in Florida but I'm sure they have a same or similar cause of action or statute.

Lastly, I hope SBI continues as an organization and one claim should not be the golden bullet that kills offshore racing. I do not know their loss run history but one claim should not prevent SBI from obtaining future converage....might be more costly but coverage should be available.

KAP

P.S. Also all the organizations need to change their contracts regarding procurement of advertising. The terms need to change from sponsorship [which it is not] to advertising because that is really what it is unless you have some management or controlling interest in the operation of the event. I won't even get into the procedures for waivers and the like it would go on for pages.

I agree with what you say assuming the lawyers intent was the same. I'm not convinced that's the case here. Who contacted who first? Does the lawyer have a history of representing the family? Did the lawyer contact the family after the accident or did the family contact the lawyer for advice? NO ONE actually knows the answer to these questions other than the family members and the family has not posted here, nor should they so the debate will continue.

Until true motive is proven to me, I stand by what I've suggested. :party-smiley-004:

Frank, you want to hang the lawyer here it's just that simple.

Everytime anyone is on the wrong side of a lawsuit it's the lawyers that are evil. The family could have said no, it doesn't matter what motives Mike A has, the family could have said "No, let it be" but they did not.

If you don't like Howard Stern you don't listen, if you don't want your young children watching the cable channels with nudity or bad language as a parent you block them.

Same goes here, they could have said no.

Mike A is one of the lawyers I would want to help handle this case, because he has knowledge about boat racing.

When any of you go to court do you want to win or loose? You want to win!

God forbid something happens to anyone here's wife and child in Ford car do you want a lawyer that knows about Hugos - no you find a lawyer that knows Fords, has a track record of winning against Ford and you retain them.

These letters to the sponsors are what happens in these cases, the ones that were involved with any planning or organizing will get dragged in, the ones that simply wrote a check will not but it is discovery, it is the process we have.

I think what many of you forget is that if Mike A does not do his job 110% he is liable for malpractice as well.

How many of you have sued your lawyers, it's pretty common today.