Uninsured? You might reconsider...

[Megapixle]

NYC bride sues florist over flower color (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12784368/)

$400,000. :shock:


~mp

[stathunter]

“My father used to tell me, ‘Don’t deal with the lawyers,” Arakas said. “Maybe he was right, God bless his soul.”

That is a bit of info she didn't listen to. Yipes!

[sblais]

Wow, $27,435.14 for flowers! Suing for $400,000 may not be that outrageous when compared to the price paid!

[restech]

I didn't know flower thing can cost up to $27,435.14.

Sebastien, you typed faster than me

[sblais]

I'm faster than a speeding keyboard!

[Bailly Photography]

Wow, $27,435.14 for flowers! Suing for $400,000 may not be that outrageous when compared to the price paid!


that was my thought.

[jessiper]

I saw that...it made me rethink my pricing if a florist can get that much!

EDIT- not that it doesn't take knowledge, skill and a creative eye to arrange flowers, but I'm sure we work just as hard for less!

[LeesaB]

I saw that on the NY morning show...bride is an attorney...

total unreal wedding costs...trying to recoup her $$ on wedding

The florist says there was so much confusion over the flowers over 250 emails sent about them...called the bride bridezilla

[restech]

I bet their wedding photographer started to get nervous too. :D

[jessiper]

I bet their wedding photographer started to get nervous too. :D

I got nervous once when I pointed out to a bride that the bridal shop had left the security tag on the BM's dress, and they had to cut a hole in it, and then when the cake showed up very late to the reception and had a huge crack in it...she was NOT happy, to say the least...fortunately, it seemed I was the only vendor she was really pleased with...phew!

[Big Mike]

I'm curious as to how much actual protection our contracts are. I know that a lot of photographers have something in their contract, to the effect of 'Photographer is not liable for more than the fee paid'...or something like that.

Would that actually protect a photographer if the client wanted to sue?

[Rick Rosen]

I didn't know flower thing can cost up to $27,435.14.


I've seen wedding events where the florals were in excess of $100,000. Add to that the cost for the linens, lighting and other experience enhancers and the tab can exceed $300K and much more.

Rick

[Rick Rosen]

I'm curious as to how much actual protection our contracts are. I know that a lot of photographers have something in their contract, to the effect of 'Photographer is not liable for more than the fee paid'...or something like that.

Would that actually protect a photographer if the client wanted to sue?

Probably not.

There was a case in No. CA where the photographer lost all the wedding pictures. The photographer brought his exposed film back to his studio and placed it in a paper bag to be delivered to the lab on Monday. The building cleaning crew came in and thinking the wrinkled bag on the desk by the trash was somebody's old lunch they tossed it. The photographer did everything he could to recover the film including actually going to the city landfill and rummaging though the garbage.

Client sued claiming that without the pictures the entire wedding was ruined. She won a judgement of over $450,000 for the expense of the wedding.

This is the kind of reason that you need an "E & O" (errors and omissions) clause in your business liability insurance. That won't stop a potential lawsuit but the defendant will then be your insurance company, not you personally.

Rick

[mmahoney]

My contract has the "photographers liability is limited to the fee paid" clause and my contract has been reviewed by a lawyer. I'm told I'm OK even if I choose to stay home the day of the wedding :rolleyes:

If both parties sign you should not find a judge to award anything more than the fee paid if you have the above clause in your contract.

If judges start overturning contracts there won't be enough money to go around. But it's a wacky world once you enter a courtroom so carrying insurance is also a good idea .. but insurance companies are not widely known for cutting settlement cheques without a brisk fight so I'd put more faith in a well-worded contract. But get a lawyer in your locale to review it.

I think some celebrity weddings go well into some pretty big numbers for flowers.
Mike

[strmrdr]

My contract has the "photographers liability is limited to the fee paid" clause and my contract has been reviewed by a lawyer. I'm told I'm OK even if I choose to stay home the day of the wedding :rolleyes:

If both parties sign you should not find a judge to award anything more than the fee paid if you have the above clause in your contract.

If judges start overturning contracts there won't be enough money to go around. But it's a wacky world once you enter a courtroom so carrying insurance is also a good idea .. but insurance companies are not widely known for cutting settlement cheques without a brisk fight so I'd put more faith in a well-worded contract. But get a lawyer in your locale to review it.

I think some celebrity weddings go well into some pretty big numbers for flowers.
Mike
Depends, did something happen beyond your control?
It will likely cover it.
Did you create an intentional tort?
Then nope it wont protect.
You get hit by a car it will protect you, just stay home because you felt like it and it wont.

I'm not a lawyer blah blah blah but have been around a few lawsuits as a expert witness and stuff.
I think you need a different attorney.

[mmahoney]

I think you need a different attorney.
Why?
Mike

[strmrdr]

Why?
Mike
If you were told by the attorney that you could just stay home for no reason and be covered by the clause you need a new attorney.
That could very well be considered an intentional tort and you could be in a world of hurt.

[mmahoney]

If you were told by the attorney that you could just stay home for no reason and be covered by the clause you need a new attorney.
That could very well be considered an intentional tort and you could be in a world of hurt.

You're being too literal here .. my lawyer did not say I could say home, I said I was told that as a joke.

But if there is some vaild reason for concern about a photographers protection based on the liability limited to contract price clause (perhaps the most widely used liability limit clause) I'd be interested to know about it.

[PixelChick78]

I was going to google 'lawsuit, wedding photographer" but I am scared. I bet there are more lawsuits out there then we care to know about and just because you have a 'contract' doesn't mean you are immune to a lawsuit!

I am in insurance, I don't do anything without liability coverage of minimum 2million and I live in Canada!

[tim]

Only in America. And $27K for flowers? I'd rather have a brand new car.

[John Mireles]

Here's the deal on how much a client can collect from a photographer who screws up. If the photographer has a poorly worded contract or none at all, then all bets are off. If someone uses a lawyer prepared contract (including of www.PhotographersToolkit.com contract - sorry, have to throw in the plug), then damages should be limited to the amount paid. Period. Here's why:

The relationship between the client and studio is a contractual one. Any damages that result from failure to provide services would result from the contract that existed between the two parties. For example, a stranger can't sue you for failing to provide photos. That seems obvious, but it points out the fact that a contract (whether written or not) must exist for damages to exist.

Contrast that to a situation where you rear-end a stranger with your car. In that case, you'd owe damages under what is called tort law. A tort is a violation of another person's rights or a civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. Negligence can be a tort however negligence in the performance of a contract is not in and of itself a tort.

Now, back to our wedding photography. If a studio fails to perform up to the terms of the contract, there was no property damage or personal injury independent of the breach of contract. The law is very clear that a claimant cannot claim property damage nor personal injury from a breach of contract case. This is one of those "you can't get there from here" situations.

It doesn't matter how much "emotional distress" the bride suffered from your lousy images, if that emotional distress resulted from your breach of contract, then courts will not allow it.

The bride could claim that you dropped something on her foot and broke it or that you shouted at her and made her cry. Those acts may result in personal injury apart from your contract and thus would be considered torts. To the extent that those acts were not intentional, your regular insurance should cover that.

Bottom line: If all you do is breach your contract, the client can't claim personal injuries or property damage beyond the value of your contract (so long as you had a properly worded contract).

By the way, this is one area where "common sense" does not apply. The law has it's own language and way of working.

John

[tim]

John, I was looking for your website a while back to recommend it to someone, the link seems to have disappeared from DWF. Bookmarked :)