A federal district court in Massachusetts upholds indemnification clause in a release.

All prior decisions have found that indemnification clauses in releases are not effective because it creates a conflict of interest within a family.

Angelo, v. USA Triathlon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131759

State: Massachusetts, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Plaintiff: Cheryl Angelo, Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Angelo,

Defendant: USA Triathlon

Plaintiff Claims: wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering, and negligent infliction of emotional distress

Defendant Defenses: Release and indemnification

Holding: not a final ruling

Year: 2014

I cannot determine if this case is over, however, the ruling is quite interesting and worth the risk in having to reverse this post.

The deceased joined the USA Triathlon (USAT) and in doing so signed a Waiver and Release of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement. The deceased signed the document electronically. The deceased registered online for the National Age Group Championship in Vermont and again signed an “indemnity agreement” electronically. The two releases were identical.

The deceased died during the triathlon during the swim portion of the event. The deceased wife and personal representative of his estate brought this lawsuit in Federal District Court of Massachusetts.

The defendant USAT filed a motion for summary judgment, and this review is of the court’s ruling on that motion.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The motion for Summary Judgment was a partial motion on the counterclaim of the defendant based on the indemnity provisions in the two releases.

The court refers to the releases as “the indemnity agreements” which create a lot of confusion when reading the decision. The court first examined Massachusetts law relating to releases.

Under Massachusetts law, “[c]ontracts of indemnity are to be fairly and reasonably construed in order to ascertain the intention of the parties and to effectuate the purpose sought to be accomplished.”

And then Massachusetts law on indemnity agreements.

Indemnity contracts that exempt a party from liability arising from their own ordinary negligence are not illegal. Further, contracts of indemnity can survive a decedent’s death and become an obligation of a decedent’s estate.

The language in the indemnification agreement was deemed by the court to be broad. The plaintiff argued the release was ambiguous as to who the release applied to. However, the court disagreed finding the release:

…clearly states that “I . . . agree to Indemnify, Defend and Hold Harmless” the released parties from liability “of any kind or nature . . . which may arise out of, result from, or relate to my participation in the Event.” Both the scope of the indemnity and the party bound by the agreement are clear and unambiguous.

The court then looked at how the release affected the specific claims of the plaintiff. The first count in the complaint was based on wrongful death, and the third was for wrongful death because of gross negligence of the defendant and included a claim for punitive damages.

The court looked at the damages that might be recoverable under these two theories because how the money was identified would determine if the money could be recovered on the indemnification claim.

That means the indemnification claim is against the person who signed the release or in this case their estate. The deceased could not pledge his wife’s assets to the indemnification because he could not sign for her, only his assets. “The decedent, while having authority to bind his estate, lacked authority to bind his surviving family members who did not sign the indemnity agreements and are not bound thereby.” The wrongful-death claim money is not an asset of the state; it is held by the personal representative on behalf of the heirs to the estate. So any money recovered under the wrongful-death statute or claim would not be subject to indemnification.

That is because “w]rongful death is not, in any traditional sense, a claim of the decedent.”

Accordingly, to satisfy the indemnity obligation, USAT may look to the assets of the decedent’s estate. (noting that a contract of indemnity agreed to by a decedent became an obligation of the decedent’s estate). USAT may not, however, look to any recovery on the wrongful death claim for satisfaction, as that recovery would be held in trust for the statutory beneficiaries and would not become an asset of the estate.

Then the court looked to see if the release would stop gross negligence claims. The court found no “controlling authority” on this issue, but held that it would not stop a claim for gross negligence based on the law of appellate decisions in the state.

In the closely analogous context of releases, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has held that, for reasons of public policy, a release would not be enforced to exempt a party from liability for grossly negligent conduct, though otherwise effective against ordinary negligence.

So the court found the release would stop the negligence claims and dismissed count one of the complaints and found that the release would not stop a claim for gross negligence and allowed count three to proceed.

However, the court also stated the motion was denied if the indemnification provision in the release attempted to be satisfied from the wrongful-death proceeds. Alternatively, the indemnification clause would apply to any money’s received for any successful claim other than wrongful death.

The second claim was for conscious pain and suffering of the decedent. Under Massachusetts law, conscious pain and suffering is a claim of the decedent, brought on behalf of the decedent by his estate. The release barred this claim and would allow the defendant to be indemnified by it. “By executing the two agreements, the decedent both released his claim of conscious pain and suffering caused by USAT’s negligence and indemnified USAT for any losses occasioned by such a claim.”

Putting aside the release for a moment, if the personal representative of the decedent received any recovery for his conscious suffering, USAT would be able to reach that recovery to satisfy the decedent’s indemnity obligation. Thus, USAT’s Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED insofar as the claim for conscious suffering caused by USAT’s negligence was both released and indemnified.

The fourth count was for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, which was inflicted on the wife of the decedent who was present at the race. The original complaint was only brought in the name of the personal representative, not her name individually. Consequently, the court agreed to allow the plaintiff to amend her complaint to bring this claim.

However, the court also found that any money received by the plaintiff on her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress would also be subject to the indemnification claims of the defendant.

The indemnity language in those agreements is broad enough to reach a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a claim “aris[ing] out of” the decedent’s participation in the triathlon. Thus, USAT is entitled to indemnification on any losses resulting from such a claim.

However, the indemnification claim was only applicable to any money paid on this claim to the decedent, not the decedent’s wife. Again, the decedent could not pledge his wife’s assets by his signature.

The court looked at the defendants claim that the defense costs of the action should be paid based on the indemnification clause. The court agreed with the defendant’s argument for the costs to.

The language of the indemnity agreements does clearly obligate the decedent’s estate to make USAT whole on these losses. As with the claims discussed above, USAT may seek indemnity from the decedent’s estate for their defense costs, which predate this Motion as well as prospective costs to the extent that the plaintiff chooses to proceed on at least one claim, which is subject to indemnification.

So any money the lawsuit received that was payable to the estate was subject to the indemnification clause in the release, and that money could be received based on money paid or the cost of defending the lawsuit and recovering the money. Money held in trust, based on a wrongful-death claim was not subject to indemnification.

The release blocked all claims of the decedent and any claims of the wife that were derivative of the decedent’s claims.

Effectively, the case is over because there is no way to get any money, that would not be subject to indemnification. Then any other asset of the estate would be subject to the indemnification due to the cost of defending the lawsuit.

So Now What?

The reasoning for the motion for summary judgment is simple. If the defendant is able to act on the indemnification, any money received by the plaintiff will just turn around and go back to the defendant. Consequently, the damages are reduced to about zero and the chances of settling sky rocket.

However, the importance of the motion is the court upheld the indemnification clause! Normally courts through these out as being a violation of the doctrine or parental immunity, or because they create a conflict of interest between members of a family.

I have never seen an indemnification clause upheld in a recreational release.

See Indemnification agreements? What are you signing?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2015 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law       Rec-law@recreation-law.com              James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Release, Indemnification. Triathlon, Swimming, Race, Estate, Wrongful Death, Personal Representative,

 


Golden Bike Shop: Bike Junkies Fest Sunday May 3 & Beer

 


River Runner’s Hall of Fame May 15th, Green River Utah


Trek Recalls Bicycles Equipped with Front Disc Brakes to Replace Quick Release Lever Due to Crash Hazard

This is going to be the first of many from bicycle and wheel manufacturers.

Name of Product: Trek bicycles equipped with front disc brakes

Hazard: An open quick release lever on the bicycle’s front wheel hub can come into contact with the front disc brake assembly, causing the front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle, posing a risk of injury to the rider.

Remedy: Replace

Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact an authorized Trek retailer for free installation of a new quick release on the front wheel. Trek will provide each owner who participates in the recall with a $20 coupon that is redeemable by December 31, 2015 toward any Bontrager merchandise.  (The coupon has no cash value.)

Consumer Contact: Trek at (800) 373-4594 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.trekbikes.com and click on Safety & Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information.

Recall Details

Units: About 900,000 in the U.S. and 98,000 in Canada

Description: This recall involves all models of Trek bicycles from model years 2000 through 2015 equipped with front disc brakes and a black or silver quick release lever on the front wheel hub that opens far enough to contact the disc brake (see Figures 1 and 2).  Bicycles with front quick release levers that do not open a full 180 degrees from the closed position, are not included in this recall.

Incidents/Injuries: Trek reports three incidents, all including injuries. One incident resulted in quadriplegia.  One incident resulted in facial injuries.  One incident resulted in a fractured wrist. 

Sold at: Bicycle stores nationwide from about September 1999 through April 2015 for between $480 and $1,650.

Importer: Trek Bicycle Corporation, of Waterloo, Wis.

Manufactured in:   Taiwan and China  (bicycles)

Manufactured in: Taiwan (quick release)

Retailers: If you are a retailer of a recalled product you have a duty to notify your customers of a recall. If you can, email your clients or include the recall information in your next marketing communication to your clients. Post any Recall Poster at your stores and contact the manufacturer to determine how you will handle any recalls.

For more information on this see:

For Retailers

Recalls Call for Retailer Action

A recall leads to lawsuits because injuries are connected to the product being recalled thus a lawsuit. Plaintiff’s hope the three can be connected

Combination of a Products Liability statute, an Expert Witness Report that was just not direct enough and odd facts holds a retailer liable as manufacture for product defect.

Product Liability takes a different turn. You must pay attention, just not rely on the CPSC.

Retailer has no duty to fit or instruct on fitting bicycle helmet

Summary Judgment granted for bicycle manufacturer and retailer on a breach of warranty and product liability claim.

For Manufacturers

The legal relationship created between manufactures and US consumers

A recall leads to lawsuits because injuries are connected to the product being recalled thus a lawsuit. Plaintiff’s hope the three can be connected

Combination of a Products Liability statute, an Expert Witness Report that was just not direct enough and odd facts holds a retailer liable as manufacture for product defect.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2015 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Recall, Recall, CPSC, Consumer Product Safety Council, Trek, Skewer, Disc Brake,

 


Gorsuch Recalls ERTLRENZ Ski Boot Heat Liners Due to Fire Hazard Recall Summary

Name of Product: Ertlrenz Trim Heat and Foam Heat ski boot liners

Hazard: Liner can overheat when charging, posing a fire hazard.

Remedy: Repair or replace

Consumers should immediately stop using the heat liners and return the product with accessories (charger/remote control) to Gorsuch LTD or a Gorsuch store for repair or replacement.

Consumer Contact: Call Gorsuch Ltd toll free at (844) 451-8650 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.gorsuch.com and click on Recall Heat Liners for more information.

Units: About 300

Description: The ERTLRENZ Trim Heat and Foam Heat are handmade, customized, black inner heat liners for ski boots. Every product is accompanied by a charger and a remote control for the heating system. There also is an accompanying ERTLRENZ instruction manual supplied with the heat liners at the time of purchase.

Sold at: Gorsuch Ltd. stores in Aspen, Vail and Beaver Creek from November 2011 through March 2015 for about $690.

Incidents/Injuries: Gorsuch received three reports of the heat liners smoldering during the charging process. No injuries have been reported.

Importer: Gorsuch Ltd., of Avon, Colo.

Manufactured in: Germany and Austria

Retailers: If you are a retailer of a recalled product you have a duty to notify your customers of a recall. If you can, email your clients or include the recall information in your next marketing communication to your clients. Post any Recall Poster at your stores and contact the manufacturer to determine how you will handle any recalls.

For more information on this see:

For Retailers

Recalls Call for Retailer Action

A recall leads to lawsuits because injuries are connected to the product being recalled thus a lawsuit. Plaintiff’s hope the three can be connected

Combination of a Products Liability statute, an Expert Witness Report that was just not direct enough and odd facts holds a retailer liable as manufacture for product defect.

Product Liability takes a different turn. You must pay attention, just not rely on the CPSC.

Retailer has no duty to fit or instruct on fitting bicycle helmet

Summary Judgment granted for bicycle manufacturer and retailer on a breach of warranty and product liability claim.

For Manufacturers

The legal relationship created between manufactures and US consumers

A recall leads to lawsuits because injuries are connected to the product being recalled thus a lawsuit. Plaintiff’s hope the three can be connected

Combination of a Products Liability statute, an Expert Witness Report that was just not direct enough and odd facts holds a retailer liable as manufacture for product defect.

 

 

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2015 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, Recall, Recall, CPSC, Consumer Product Safety Council, Ski Boot, Warmers, Liners, Heaters, Gorsuch, Gorsuch Boot Heaters, Gorsuch Ski Boot Heaters, Ertlrenz Trim Heat. Foam Heat ski boot liners,

 


Call for Papers: Tourist studies: Tourism Moralities and Mobilities

Call for Papers – Tourist Studies

Special Issue: TOURISM MORALITIES AND MOBILITIES

Guest Editors: Dr. Bryan Grimwood and Dr. Kellee Caton

Several recent epistemological ‘turns’ within tourism studies have enriched and complicated the landscapes of knowledge produced and used within the field. The ‘moral’ (Caton, 2012) and ‘mobility’ (Hannam, 2009) turns are two examples that, when taken together, produce fertile terrain for generating important questions and new meanings about tourism (e.g., Grimwood, 2014). The purpose of this special issue of Tourist Studies is to examine and critique the intersections of tourism moralities and mobilities. More specifically, we seek papers that contribute to fleshing out, and teasing apart, the conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and empirical nature of tourism moralities and mobilities. That tourism mobilities give shape to diverse spaces and places, including the ‘embodied’, ‘mundane’, and ‘exotic’ (Edensor, 2007; Reis, 2013), is justification enough for thinking through moral questions and perspectives. That moralities are likely to shift or become entrenched as we move through tourism spaces adds additional degrees of relevance to the special issue theme (Mostafanezhad & Hannam, 2014).

The guest editors invite submissions that speak to the intersections of tourism moralities and mobilities. We especially encourage papers that shift consideration away from what morality is to what morality does or can do in relation to tourism mobilities (and vice versa). Potential questions underpinning contributions may include:

  • How do we carry morality with us (in tourism and in tourism research) and to what effect? How does morality become anchored/moored in touristic places, or performed across tourism spaces? To what extent is morality mobile?
  • How are tourism mobilities disciplined/controlled by moralities? What spaces of resistance can be/are being mobilized through the practice and being of tourism moralities?
  • How (or to what extent?) do tourist, community, researcher, and non-human subjectivities move/shift in relation to moralities encountered through tourism?
  • How (or to what extent?) are multiple moralities consumed/performed through tourism mobilities, including those associated with tourism research?
  • In a world increasingly (re)made in relation to various (im)mobilities, what moral positionalities are most productive/destructive?
  • What anchors morality when ontological and epistemological foundations are multiple, hybrid, and/or fluid? As scholars? As researchers? As an epistemic community?
  • What is (or should be) the role of morality in tourism epistemology? What meanings or insights does morality provide in relation to how knowledge moves and changes (or doesn’t) in our field, and how certain knowledge is (or fails to be) legitimized?
  • What can tourism studies learn from inter-/multi-/trans-/post-disciplinary approaches to moralities and mobilities? What contributions do such perspective make to the field of tourism studies?

In addition to those with interests in the intersections of tourism morality and mobility, we anticipate the special issue to resonate with scholars situated within ‘critical’ and ‘hopeful’ tourism studies (Pritchard et al., 2011) and build on recent literatures that have helped contextualize tourism ethics from multi-disciplinary perspectives (e.g., Fennell, 2006; Mostafanezhad & Hannam, 2014; Weeden & Boluk, 2014).

Important Dates:

· Abstracts of 250 words must be submitted no later than May 01, 2015. Please submit your abstract to the guest editors, Dr. Bryan Grimwood (bgrimwood) and Dr. Kellee Caton (Kcaton).

· Authors of selected papers will be notified by May 15, 2015.

· Full manuscripts are due to the guest editors by September 15, 2015. The target length of papers is 8000 words and all style guidelines of Tourist Studies must be followed (see http://www.sagepub.com/journals/Journal201263/manuscriptSubmission). A preliminary review of all submissions will help authors shape and revise papers prior to the usual blind review process commencing.

· We are targeting December 2016 as the final publication date. Tourist Studies has allocated Volume 16, Issue 3 for this special issue.

References:

Caton, K. (2012). Taking the moral turn in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4),

1906–1928.

Edensor, T. (2007). Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social and

Cultural Geography, 8(2), 199–215.

Fennell, D. A. (2006). Tourism ethics. New York: Routledge.

Hannam, K. (2009). The end of tourism? Nomadology and the mobilities paradigm. In J. Tribe

(ed.) Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 101-113). Toronto, ON: Channel View Publications.

Grimwood, B. S. R. (2014). Advancing tourism’s moral morphology: Relational metaphors for

just and sustainable arctic tourism. Tourist Studies, 1–24, DOI: 10.1177/1468797614550960.

Mostafanezhad, M., & Hannam, K. (Eds.) (2014). Moral encounters in tourism. Burlington, VT:

Ashgate.

Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Hopeful tourism: A transformative approach.

Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 941-963.

Reis, A. C. (2012). Experiences of commodified nature: Performances and narratives of

nature-based tourists on Stewart Island, New Zealand. Tourist Studies, 12(3), 305–324.

Weeden, C., & Boluk, K. (Eds.). (2014). Managing ethical consumption in tourism. New York:

Routledge.

CFP _ Tourism Moralities & Mobilities.pdf


Why do you need an attorney for your Outdoor Recreation business?

The value exceeds a well-written release and getting you out of a jam and cannot be affected by their personal interests. The value is in the interest an attorney is sworn to protect…….Yours.

An attorney cannot have a conflict of interest. When you need advice, you want it to be free of personal or business attachments that may not be in your best interest. That person who can give you that advice is called your attorney. It is solely in your best interest and for you and you alone.

Your other advisors may have conflicts you should understand.

Insurance Company & Insurance Agent

Your insurance agent has different interests than your insurance company. Your agent wants to keep you as a client so you keep paying your insurance premium. His advice, although valuable, is going to be keeping you paying and the insurance company insuring you happy.

Your insurance company has two separate minds. One is focused on marketing, to get you to buy insurance. The other is focused on reducing the amount of money it pays out in claims. They are in two separate divisions, many times two separate buildings, or even states. They do not communicate once you have an issue that shows up in the claim’s division. That division’s advice to you will not be to protect you, but to protect their money.

That does not mean that your insurance agent and insurance company are bad. Most are able to separate their interests from your interests; however, you should know there is a slight conflict there. One that an attorney cannot have.

CPA

Your CPA like your attorney must be independent and will provide great advice when dealing with financial institutions, employee benefits and wages, taxes and valuation. Always keep your CPA happy and close. However, once you leave the financial day to day numbers of your business your CPA can provide little advice.

Other Business people in your community.

Here again, these people are great for general business advice. However few are so dependent on converting someone from non-movement to movement that is done in OR. Convincing someone to buy an ice cream cone is different from convincing them to ride across the sky on a zip line. A slip and fall is the rare claim they must deal with where yours may involve several people and major injuries.

Your Interest and Advice for you Alone

An attorney is used to balancing the various interests you have, to provide you with the advice you need. An Attorney can help you prioritize your issues to assist you in making decisions. After keeping your home safe your first priority, then they can assist in keeping your priorities in order. Keeping your business, keeping your insurance, keeping your clientele, keeping your insurance company from dropping you, keeping your clientele from suing you. Attorneys are there to help you juggle all those responsibilities and issues.

An attorney who specializes in outdoor recreation will know other insurance providers who can provide assistance. An attorney can provide you with solid advice balancing the needs of the insurance company.

The best advice you can get, is from an attorney because your attorney can never be for anyone or protect anyone but you.

 

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2015 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law    Rec-law@recreation-law.com         James H. Moss

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer,  Attorney, Insurance, Insurance Agent, Insurance Company, Insurance Broker, CPA, Advice, Loyalty, Conflict of Interest,

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,888 other followers

%d bloggers like this: