I may be reading too much into it but it appears Charlotte was registered owner of the boat and the Satphone service was in Eric's name.
I am guessing that is the "joint property" twist that needs to be worked out.
Technically she suffered the loss because of his phone - That may be why he is a defendant.
Why wouldn't they have been registered co-owners and why isn't the phone service held jointly? Weird...
I suppose cruising couples should make sure that their boat ownership
paperwork and systems (phone service) contracts are all clean.
Item 8 says they departed with Eris as "captain" - 11 says the phone company should have "known" Eric would use the phone for sea voyages. How would the phone company know that?
Hmmm. Was Eric acting as a "professional captain
If they weren't married in a joint property state we would have a boat owner (Charlotte) losing a boat operated by a captain
(Eric) due to a Satphone (allegedly) - interesting.
As savior says - Whenever has 30 days to file a response. I'll keep my eyes open and maybe spend another $7 to see what they say.