The Dylan Harrison Law Suit

Dive instructors, their training agencies, and dive schools might soon discover they are not insured if they are not more careful during training.

A lawsuit involving Divers Alert Network (more specifically, its insurance affiliate, DAN Risk Retention Group) was filed on June 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case is DAN Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. PADI Americas, Inc., et al., regarding the lawsuit filed by the family of 12 year old Dylan Harrison, who died during a scuba certification course in Texas in August 2025. (see Undercurrent January 2026). It's a wrongful-death lawsuit against multiple parties, including: PADI, NAUI, the dive businesses Scuba Toys and Scuba Ranch, and individual dive professionals involved in the training.

What the DAN Lawsuit Contends

The DAN federal suit alleges failures of supervision, training, safety procedures, and emergency response and is focused on the insurance obligations arising from those allegations.

It is not a claim that PADI, NAUI, or the dive professionals committed wrongdoing. Instead, it is an insurance coverage lawsuit (a "declaratory judgment" action). DAN is asking the federal court to decide:

• Which insurance policies apply to the underlying case
• Which defendants qualify as insureds under those policies
• Whether DAN must continue providing a legal defense
• Whether DAN would be required to pay any future judgment or settlement if liability is found

Why Are Dive Educators Paying Attention?

The case could affect how, in the future, liability insurance works for: dive instructors, divemasters, dive shops, training agencies, and dive businesses.

The court's ruling could clarify when DAN's professional liability policies do -- or do not -- provide coverage in serious accident cases.

DAN Risk Retention Group (DAN RRG) is the insurance company affiliated with DAN. An RRG is a liability insurance company authorized under the federal Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986. It is owned by its insured members, who share similar or related liability exposures arising from similar or related businesses or activities. The RRG exists to provide liability insurance to those members.

For divers and dive professionals, DAN RRG provides liability insurance for scuba instructors and divemasters, liability coverage for dive businesses and training facilities, and coverage related to scuba instruction and diving operations Many dive instructors, divemasters, and dive shops purchase their professional liability coverage through DAN RRG because it specializes in diving-related risks.

(The professional insurance policy is separate from DAN's diver accident insurance, travel assistance, emergency medical consultation, and hyperbaric and evacuation support.)

In the lawsuit, DAN RRG is asking the court to determine what insurance obligations it has regarding claims arising from the Dylan Harrison drowning case. The lawsuit is about insurance coverage and defense obligations, not about whether anyone is legally responsible for the accident.

Details of the Suit Filed:

The suit states: "The CGL Policies provide that DAN will have the right and duty to defend the Insured against any Suit seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the Insured against any Suit seeking damages for Bodily Injury or Property Damage to which this insurance does not apply.

"This insurance does not apply to Bodily Injury or Property Damage or Personal and Advertising Injury that arises out of the rendering of or failure to render any professional services. Professional services include but are not limited to advice, instruction, supervision or direction in connection with a training program for either recreational or certification purposes, including but not limited to instruction or supervision in the activity of . . . scuba diving, skin diving, swimming or any other recreational activity."

"Arising out of any event involving training or supervisory dive or swim activity conducted by the insured that fails to meet the standards of the applicable certification training agency or agencies through which the training or supervision was offered, provided that the failure to meet the standard was a contributing cause of the event, and specifically including but not limited to the following: any event involving an introductory/discover scuba experience (any program designed to introduce uncertified divers to scuba diving via a supervised, controlled open water experience) that was not within the standards of either the Recreational Scuba Training Council (RSTC) or the certification agency under which the introductory experience was offered."

The filing alleges that Dylan Harrison was provided with only six hours of confined water training when NAUI standards required 10 hours. [According to David Concannon, a diving lawyer, Dylan's parents insist she received only three hours of such training in the water.]

It also alleges that on the fatal dive, she was not provided with a timing device, a depth gauge, or dive computer, and her open-water training began after only three hours' instruction in a pool.

The plaintiffs also protested the alleged size of the group undergoing open-water instruction on the day. Dylan was placed with a group of seven despite her parents signing her up for private instruction.

"Neither of the instructors involved checked the temperature of the water and the visibility underwater" or briefed the students about these factors prior to the dives. [Visibility was said to be 'arm's length.']

PADI standards for training facilities require both confined water and open water training for inexperienced divers be conducted in "pool-like" conditions.

The lawsuit alleges that "PADI did not adhere to its own Standards and applicable industry standards and that PADI failed to apply good judgment in assessing the safety of The Scuba Ranch as a suitable dive training facility."

The lawsuit states, "The plaintiffs' injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligent acts and omissions of Scuba Ranch, acting through its employees and agents, which are generally described herein." The suit alleges that "The Scuba Ranch failed to make the premises reasonably safe by modifying, or prohibiting entry-level and minor training dives under conditions of poor visibility or in numbers that were unsafe to entry-level students under the age of 16."

In its claim against NAUI, the filing alleges "the agency failed to adequately vet, monitor, discipline, or decertify unfit instructors such as Joseph Johnson [of Scuba Toys], even after NAUI had direct and irrefutable knowledge that Johnson exhibited a callous disregard for diver safety."

"All of the claims against NAUI and PADI are based on alleged deficiencies in establishing training standards or failures in certifying or credentialing instructors."

The suit contends, "DAN has no duty to defend or indemnify named insured, Scuba Toys Enterprises, LLC, or potential named insureds, Joseph Johnson, Greg Knauer, William Armstrong, or Jonathan Roussel, in the Underlying Lawsuit under the terms of the Policy issued to ScubaToys Enterprises, LLC.

"DAN has no duty to defend or indemnify additional insureds, NAUI Services Group, Inc., National Association of Underwater Instructors, Inc., or Scuba Ranch and Recreation Parks LLC, in the Underlying Lawsuit under the terms of the Policy issued to Scuba Toys Enterprises, LLC."

"DAN has no duty to defend or indemnify certain Defendants [diving instructors and divemasters] for the Underlying Lawsuit."

What a Judgement Favorable to DAN Might Mean to Divers Like Us

You might think this is only about divers in training and it is of no interest to you. You'd be mistaken. Instructor insurance, dive shop liability, charter boat coverage, and facility insurance all exist in the background, and make our pastime possible. You might not ever think of this until something goes wrong.

First, it will not create a new nationwide legal standard for all dive insurance, as it is only interpreting the specific DAN policies before the court. Other insurers may use different policy wording, and even DAN could revise its policy language for future policies.

Even so, the effect of the decision could be widespread. If the federal court agrees with DAN's interpretation of its policies, the decision could establish persuasive precedent on, among other things, whether a failure to comply with training agency standards (such as PADI or NAUI standards), if required by the policy, can eliminate coverage.

If the court agrees with DAN's interpretation, insurers may: revise their policy wording to make exclusions or coverage conditions more explicit while requiring stricter compliance with agency training standards and place greater emphasis on documentation showing that instructors and dive centers followed applicable standards.

If DAN prevails, then in future cases professional liability insurance may not cover losses arising from scuba training that materially departs from the applicable training agency's required standards when the policy conditions or exclusions make compliance with those standards a prerequisite to coverage.

And insurance prices may increase. If the cost of effective policies become sky-high, that would need to be reflected in the prices they charge or they would be driven out of business. Dive center owners, dive boat operators, and those responsible for teaching and for the safety of divers, might decide to follow less problematic careers. Without a supply of newly trained divers to keep an industry solvent, it could mean the end of most recreational diving in the USA.

But for now, how the outcome of DAN's case will actually affect the industry is anyone's guess.

John Bantin

PS: What is certain is that if PADI's lawsuit prevails, the defendants who were insured by DAN will lose their insurance and will be left to hire their own attorneys or defend themselves.