Rebel Heart Lawsuit

[Kenomac]

With a case management meeting scheduled for next March, it's going to be 2-3 years before this case is thrown out and dismissed for ridiculousness.

RH and their lawyer are just trying to make money with media interviews and by extorting the sat company with negative media into a payday.

[sailorboy1]

is there a boating discussion in this thread

[SV Siren]

I guess after reading all of the threads, and endless posts, my only comment(s) would be "what would have happened if the phone had continued working, RH was in some state of distress already".

Low on fuel, leaking, electronics and other communications on the fritz, and who knows what else. I can empathize for the kids and family as a family, but for me it ends there.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Well I spent 7 bucks and downloaded the complaint.

Short and sweet.

The schedule shows only a case management hearing scheduled for march next year!

The wheels of justice grind slowly.

Win or lose there isn't gonna be much action for a while methinks...

Defenses will be filed. It looks like two phone companies will defend. I'm guessing that Whenever has one month to file and the other guys one month after service of some form of 3rd party notice by Whenever.

After both defenses are in then not much will go public before March.

[Steve W]

I guess after reading all of the threads, and endless posts, my only comment(s) would be "what would have happened if the phone had continued working, RH was in some state of distress already".

Very interesting question from Land Cruiser above. Reversing a situation can often shed a new light regarding actions taken.

[TeddyDiver]

IMO the point here is can you count your satphone working some predetermined time, or not. In that regard this lawsuit is important.

[soverel]

. Herron said hundreds of customers successfully switched and the Kaufman family was among about 15 who hadn’t confirmed they received the new card. In a move Whenever Communications had no control over, Herron said, the second company they were working with abruptly ended service for the few remaining customers, including the Kaufmans.

From the link provided above. I wonder how these other customers fared when they all lost their communications. Also if anyone bothered to verify the whereabouts of these 15 people.

Sent from my HUAWEI-M931 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Question:

Originally Posted by smj

What info could be useful? What can we as cruisers learn from the actions of Rebel Heart? I'll stop there as this subject disgusts me.

Answer:

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think elevating a sat phone to an mission critical " or life critical" equipment status, is simply not appropriate.

BINGO...
There we have the take away from this entire incident.
Far too many cruisers are lulled into a false sense of security with their sat phones.
They need to understand the risks.

[Andrew B.]

"I think elevating a sat phone to an mission critical " or life critical" equipment status, is simply not appropriate." Quoting goboatingnow

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

BINGO...
There we have the take away from this entire incident.

Amen !

[smj]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Question:


Answer:


BINGO...
There we have the take away from this entire incident.
Far too many cruisers are lulled into a false sense of security with their sat phones.
They need to understand the risks.

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ex-Calif]

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.

[laika]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

BINGO...
There we have the take away from this entire incident.
Far too many cruisers are lulled into a false sense of security with their sat phones.
They need to understand the risks.

I like the takeaway.

I also believe the Kaufman's were prudent with the undertaking as both did their best as parents and Eric as a sailor to mitigate the risks and undertake as safe a passage as possible for themselves. Yes, there were outstanding risks (when are there not for any of us?).

The alternative is to not go, and I would like to think I'd have done the same thing as Eric in a similar situation, and furthermore would feel the same grievances for a bit of safety gear that ultimately failed apparently due to a company's mismanagement.

Life is short and there are no guarantees.

[savoir]

I do hope that once the defenses and maybe some depositions are filed that we can make sense of the SIM card issue. Something there is very wrong and I don't know what.

Stuff like that drives me nuts.

[h20man]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

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.

After having a thread closed I did not feel keen on starting another that would be shut down.... Sorry you had to spend the $7. Their lawyer posted the complaint.

He also explained that Eric is actually a nominal defendant ( a defendant or a plaintiff included in a lawsuit because of a technical connection with the matter in dispute, and necessary for the court to decide all issues and make a proper judgment, but with no responsibility, no fault and no right to recovery. )

due to the fact that HE was the sole signer on the sat phone contract, and the contract specifically said all disputes were to be resolved in Florida.

This way Charlotte is not bound by the contract Eric signed.

Their lawyer is actively trying the case in the media, using twitter et al.

Another interesting aspect is that someone set up a web site (Who is attorney Daniel Gilleon that points out court sanctions and other behavior of their attorney.

[beneteau-500]

its getting laughable only in the USA can these things happen