Rebel Heart Lawsuit

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Both RH threads have been closed. I am posting this in the Red Tape forum because I think the implications of the lawsuit are pertinent to us as sailors.

The suit has been filed (apparently) and Sail magazine interviewed the lawyer.

Read carefully who is named and how they are getting at the rescue money.

Let's try to avoid making this an RH bashing thread.

REBEL HEART: Lawsuit Against Sat-Phone Provider | Sailfeed

Looks like some replier's just don't read the OP at all.. again..

[smj]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Looks like some replier's just don't read the OP at all.. again..

Guess that's what happens when you get a bunch of people that actually have minds of their own.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pelagic]

Whatever happened to those day's when a sailor went to Sea to get away from phones? (and lawyers... and Kim Kardashian.....) Sigh.....!


The Expectations of this new world become greater and smaller at the same time.

[TugTubPaul]

I would like to send some information to rebel hart or their lawyers about my experience with the satellite phone store. Please contact me.....

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

The Expectations of this new world become greater and smaller at the same time.

Those expectations in this regard are made by companies marketing gadget's to able communication when you away from other services. Then they cut the service without warning. I don't intend to get a satphone myself but it's the same irresponsible business model coming way too common. I don't care if their case brings RB any money or not. I wan't the company to call to the customer before they disconnect you, it's a phone company dammit

[valhalla360]

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.

You are probably reading a bit too much into it. We have items that are only in one of our names. Most of the time it was convienence. For example, I didn't make it to the DMV when we bought our last truck so it was easier for my wife to just put it in her name.

Of course, since she (charlotte) didn't have a contract with the sat phone company, the company has no obligation to her. If a sat phone was that important, she should have gotten one.

In the end:
- It's all thier stuff and she should have gone over the contract with him when he signed it or...
- The boat is hers and she didn't have a sat phone and the phone company has no obligation to her.

This is still pure intimidation hoping the company will pay them to go away.

[deckofficer]

I do see the validity of this thread for cruisers. It wasn't that long ago (10 to 20 years) that sat TV providers were constantly sending out new cards. They did this to bounce the pirates from receiving the signals without paying.

Now I don't know if the sat phone providers are doing the same thing, but wouldn't it irk you if your sat phone wasn't reliable just because the provider wants to fatten their bottom line?

I think this suit will shed light on this and just maybe all that depend on sat phones will benefit from the outcome of this suit.

[zboss]

Come on folks... there is only one way that business gets done anymore... lawsuits. Nobody actually makes money anymore without being sued or suing someone. There is a reason that businesses have armies of lawyers at hand. And I don;t want to hear anyone say "but that isn't like it is in MY country" because you would be wrong. Just go and take a look at the laundry list of lawsuits filed between large international corporations by every country.

If it were not for lawsuits like this one (not saying its right or wrong per se) then you all would still be using plain old dial up connections right now.

Only the poor guys (meaning us) argue about suing someone... the really rich folks just do it and expect it.

[Bill Lee]

These type of claims are solely about specified amounts of money which the Claimant(s) are seeking (they have quantified their losses) or about how much money the Claimant(s) can get (not quantified and/or seeking punitive or general damages). A result may be a change in how a Respondent carried on business - but this does not alter the nature of the claim: money. This will become fascinating only if it's not settled and goes to trial. If there's a trial, much of the "what ifs" and decisions made by RH will get explored. If it's settled, we won't learn much.
Cheers,
Bill

[Khagan1227]

Let's look at this a bit differently:

Eric subscribes to sat phone service.
Eric pays for sat phone service.
Eric is trying to download a weather fax because his barometer is dropping.
Sat phone company shuts off service without proper notification. (In Eric's case, the sat phone company has already publicly admitted they shouldn't have shut his phone off). Talk about a nice lob to a power hitter (lawyer).
Eric doesn't get the fax that show a hurricane just changed course and is now headed toward him.
Eric's boat is lost because of the lack of information that the sat phone company MIGHT have allowed him to prevent the boat from sinking.

In the case at hand, Eric based his actions on the lack of information because the sat phone company denied him service though no fault of his own. He also has four very credible witnesses that will most likely testify their services wouldn't have been needed if Eric had access to the medical information denied him by the sat phone provider.

Eric will be found at least partially at fault for the sinking of RH, but the sat phone company will also be found partially at fault as well. Charlotte might get $1, or she might get a new boat, but she is going to get something from Eric and the phone company.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Khagan1227

Let's look at this a bit differently:



Eric subscribes to sat phone service.

Eric pays for sat phone service.

Eric is trying to download a weather fax because his barometer is dropping.

Sat phone company shuts off service without proper notification. (In Eric's case, the sat phone company has already publicly admitted they shouldn't have shut his phone off). Talk about a nice lob to a power hitter (lawyer).

Eric doesn't get the fax that show a hurricane just changed course and is now headed toward him.

Eric's boat is lost because of the lack of information that the sat phone company MIGHT have allowed him to prevent the boat from sinking.



In the case at hand, Eric based his actions on the lack of information because the sat phone company denied him service though no fault of his own. He also has four very credible witnesses that will most likely testify their services wouldn't have been needed if Eric had access to the medical information denied him by the sat phone provider.



Eric will be found at least partially at fault for the sinking of RH, but the sat phone company will also be found partially at fault as well. Charlotte might get $1, or she might get a new boat, but she is going to get something from Eric and the phone company.

I'm guessing the sat phone company bills once a month. In one year Eric's credit card was denied 10 times, can we be sure that his payment went through? The sat phone company also sent notice to his California address stating this would occur, should the sat phone company go beyond notification to a subscribers address? And if so, how far should they go? Eric talked a big game but obviously wasn't able to back the talk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by laika

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.

It's very clear that they were NOT prudent , far from it , they were Clearly very inexperienced , the boat was ill prepared and they seriously underestimated the effort needed.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[psneeld]

I'm still having a hard time that anyone believes that lower tier satcomms over the last 15 years have been reliable enough to bet your life, your kids life or your floating home on one.

While a tool..even sometimes the space for a normal hammer doesn't allow enough swing....so no one tool or info stream is foolproof.

I would be embarrassed to blame a lower tier sat phone company after their recent record and telling the world I actually thought I would get 100 percent service with all the reasons people have posted...if not actual service....freaking billing issues, etc....

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Khagan1227

Let's look at this a bit differently:



Eric subscribes to sat phone service.

Eric pays for sat phone service.

Eric is trying to download a weather fax because his barometer is dropping.

Sat phone company shuts off service without proper notification. (In Eric's case, the sat phone company has already publicly admitted they shouldn't have shut his phone off). Talk about a nice lob to a power hitter (lawyer).

Eric doesn't get the fax that show a hurricane just changed course and is now headed toward him.

Eric's boat is lost because of the lack of information that the sat phone company MIGHT have allowed him to prevent the boat from sinking.



In the case at hand, Eric based his actions on the lack of information because the sat phone company denied him service though no fault of his own. He also has four very credible witnesses that will most likely testify their services wouldn't have been needed if Eric had access to the medical information denied him by the sat phone provider.



Eric will be found at least partially at fault for the sinking of RH, but the sat phone company will also be found partially at fault as well. Charlotte might get $1, or she might get a new boat, but she is going to get something from Eric and the phone company.

There's going to be 1000s if lawsuits so against , sextants, GPS, chart plotters , autopilots , Diesel engine manufacturer. Etc etc.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Khagan1227

Let's look at this a bit differently:

Eric subscribes to sat phone service.
Eric pays for sat phone service.
Eric is trying to download a weather fax because his barometer is dropping.
Sat phone company shuts off service without proper notification. (In Eric's case, the sat phone company has already publicly admitted they shouldn't have shut his phone off). Talk about a nice lob to a power hitter (lawyer).
Eric doesn't get the fax that show a hurricane just changed course and is now headed toward him.
Eric's boat is lost because of the lack of information that the sat phone company MIGHT have allowed him to prevent the boat from sinking.

That's a pretty clean example. Let's modify it slightly.

You have a boat with VHF, HF and EPIRB installed.
You (normally ) get weather & communicate from your HF radio
You invite me as crew to sail from Mexico to French Polynesia
I bring my satphone.
You HF goes down and we decide to continue because we can get weather from my satphone.
My satphone is cut off
We lose the boat in the hurricane
Who gets sued?

Other than being married, this is pretty much the relationship between Charlotte (boat owner) and Eric (Satphone owner).

And why you would have to sue me (satphone owner) and I would have to try and get mine from the satphone provider. Oh, and this is why I have a $1M smooth liability cover on my personal actions.

Originally Posted by smj

I'm guessing the sat phone company bills once a month. In one year Eric's credit card was denied 10 times, can we be sure that his payment went through?

I think it's been stated that the service was never suspended for non-payment.

Eric did have "billing issues" - He stated there were differences of opinion about data usage and data plans.

I am guessing with their blogging, email and all that their usage was a lot more than "planned" and they were getting some big bills.