Rebel Heart Crew Suing.....

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Captain Bligh

Certainly the case has bigger implications than just paying for Rebel Heart II. If Iridium caves to Rebel Heart, wouldn't that make them liable for the costs related to their rescue as well? and other rescues (or deaths)?

This is what I was thinking. The government had higher expenses for the rescue than the value of Rebel Heart's boat.

Also, if phone coverage is liable for any issue that could have been solved with better connectivity, anyone with a cell phone who dies when their service is interrupted would be getting in line.

Having a satellite phone isn't insurance for a Pacific crossing.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by JadeDragon

Do you really believe that it was the SAT phone companies fault? Did you realize that they were blogging along just fine for the first 13 days of their journey. Is it possible that they were using their SAT air time for that?

If so, that's concrete evidence that the phone was working for the forst 13 days, and did not work when they needed it for an emergency situation.

If I were a juror, that would seal the verdict for me, right there.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

It has nothing to do with minutes used. Their sim card was deactivated by the provider because they had mailed them a new one to replace their old one with but never informed them this would be happening.

and that is the crux of the issue. The policy for a device whose almost sole purpose for existing is for emergencies for a large % of users should have a better policy in place. For example, only deactivate an old card when the new card has been inserted into the phone and a successful handshake to the back office network has been made.

Companies get sued all the time for bad policies. For example - the most famous one - the McDonalds hot coffee incident.

In the end, the liability to the loss of RH will be spread around, 10% to Iridium, 20% to the card company, 70% to the RH crew, etc.

That is just the way business is done in America - something like 90% of lawsuits have no merit and are just there to cut and bleed slowly. Make no mistake, the contract between RH and the cell provider was a business transaction so why not use the tools available to you to make yourself whole.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I didn't agree with them taking a 3yr old on a long off shore voyage but tried to keep my mouth shut as others might think we live a dangerous lifestyle. At first they were taking the risk and accepting it. I could at least respect that they took responsiblity for thier mistakes. Now they want someone else to pay for thier mistakes and I've lost respect for them.

This has nothing to do with a viable court case. This is purely trying to intimidate the phone company into handing out cash in the hopes of making it all go away because the bad publicity would cost them more than the blackmail payment.

Would it make a difference to you if you found out that they were not asking for any money for themselves? According to the video, they are asking for the federal gov't to be reimbursed for the cost of the rescue. I discovered that while, surprise, watching the video.

[Pelagic]

I believe Eric is right to investigate if this legal claim has merits?

If nothing else... it will bring closure to that frustrating aspect of the event .

I wish them all the best.

[Scottuk]

Would it make a difference to you if you found out that they were not asking for any money for themselves? According to the video, they are asking for the federal gov't to be reimbursed for the cost of the rescue.

I would say good on them.

[sailvayu]

Charlotte mentions in one of the videos that they want the money to pay back the government AND get a new boat.

[letsgetsailing3]

The impression I had was that the service provider mailed their sim card.

So one issue that's going to come up is whether their mailing address was up to date. Were they using their Mexican address as their primary service address?

If not, they might have an issue proving the service provider was negligent for not getting their new Sim card to them.

[tookish1]

I would like to see the letter that came from the phone company with the new SIM card. I expect it said something to the effect of "please make sure you install the new card before xx/xx/xxxx because service for the existing chip will be discontinued at 00:00 GMT on that date......"

It's not the phone company's responsibility to make sure everyone gets their mail. They left before they got the mail. It happens.

Unfortunate - yes
Gross Negligence - no IMO
Gray area for out of court settlement - probably
Chance of RH staying in front of the cameras - sadly, 100%

[maytrix]

Originally Posted by zboss

Companies get sued all the time for bad policies. For example - the most famous one - the McDonalds hot coffee incident.

There still has to be a solid reason behind it. While putting coffee in your lap isn't smart, it shouldn't give you 3rd degree burns. That's why that woman won. Have you ever seen pictures of the burns?

In this case, its more questionable and probably comes down to what is reasonable. I think its unreasonable to rely 100% on a satellite phone, whether the provider shut it off improperly or not. Had they had two sat phones even if with the same provider and the provider shut off both, I'd say they'd have a much better argument.

I do think it opens up a big can of worms. If I'm hiking in the woods and the cell company shuts of my service for some reason and someone I'm with gets hurt and dies since I wasn't able to call, is this now a reason to sue? Maybe they would have died anyway.

In the end though who knows what a Jury might decide if it gets to that. Frankly if I was on it, I wouldn't side with Rebel Heart - you make a choice to go out in a boat and away from services..etc you take all the risk that goes with it. It sucks that had the sat phone worked that things might have been fine, but that's the way it goes. Gotta live with the choices you make and results that come from them.

[JPA Cate]

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

It's sort of like "current business practice" vs. "how can the concept of reliability of sat phone comms be had?"

People in the US understand that suing others is sort of like a lottery--you might win--but it is a major hassle and the lawyers are the ones who get the most of the $$. Not something one does for fun.

Ann

Good comments, Dockhead.

[Captain Bligh]

Originally Posted by maytrix

There still has to be a solid reason behind it. While putting coffee in your lap isn't smart, it shouldn't give you 3rd degree burns. That's why that woman won. Have you ever seen pictures of the burns?

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed.

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by maytrix

There still has to be a solid reason behind it. While putting coffee in your lap isn't smart, it shouldn't give you 3rd degree burns. That's why that woman won. Have you ever seen pictures of the burns?

In this case, its more questionable and probably comes down to what is reasonable. I think its unreasonable to rely 100% on a satellite phone, whether the provider shut it off improperly or not. Had they had two sat phones even if with the same provider and the provider shut off both, I'd say they'd have a much better argument.

I do think it opens up a big can of worms. If I'm hiking in the woods and the cell company shuts of my service for some reason and someone I'm with gets hurt and dies since I wasn't able to call, is this now a reason to sue? Maybe they would have died anyway.

In the end though who knows what a Jury might decide if it gets to that. Frankly if I was on it, I wouldn't side with Rebel Heart - you make a choice to go out in a boat and away from services..etc you take all the risk that goes with it. It sucks that had the sat phone worked that things might have been fine, but that's the way it goes. Gotta live with the choices you make and results that come from them.

Overall I understand your premise but, this isn't about being on a boat at sea. It is about violation / negligence of a contract that endangered a life / lives. And again the sat phone wasn't what they were relying 100% on. If it had then their daughter may have died. They also had an epirb (which means they weren't relying on any one system 100%) and those other systems are what provided help. I think if people stop worrying about where they were and start looking at if there was a negligent violation of a contract this would be much less of a hot topic.

[goboatingnow]

Just to clarify - the phone just stopped working and when my wife called to complain they said "oh - we changed providers and we need to send u a new SIM card

what I don't understand in all this is what "change of service provider". If you have an Iridium phone , there is only one provider, Iridium. All the SIM cards are iridiums. Maybe these cheap sat phones stores are resellers of resellers. if so run away in my view.


dave

[Captain Bligh]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Also, I haven't seen anyone else post this as of page 4, but according to the talking head with a rack, at the end of the first video she says the Kaufmans are requesting that the federal gov't be reimbursed for the cost of the rescue. There was no mention of money for the Kaufmans.
.

Also according to the"talking head with the rack", the satellite company said it was a billing issue , not a Sim card issue.