Canada

I feel you. I think at a bare minimum anyone wanting to do something like this should be required to get some sort of insurance coverage that will help bear the cost of rescue/recovery if the worst happens.

There's a... I don't want to call it an "easy solution", but there's a pretty understandable and clear distinction that can be made here: If you're offering a commercial service to people, and an investigation finds negligence on your part, the public should be able to sue to recoup at least some of the expenses.

I don't think it's all that slippery a slope. Not many deep sea private submarine rescue operations going on amidst the working class.

I think there needs to be a limit. In (Inland) search and rescue for example, they will do all they can to get you out, but if you're injured they aren't calling an ambulance (unless you desire so) and they don't cover the cost of any kind of healthcare.

In this scenario, it would make sense to restrict or limit aid for non-millitary underwater recovery operations, especially those involving a submarine. The govt should not be bankrolling private companies' experiments IMO unless there is a really good reason for it

Edit: added type of SAR

Though the families suing them should get first dibs on the company's carcass, IMO.

They were an ocean apart from each other and the deep-sea submersibles and hydrophones used in the Ocean Gate rescue would have been pretty much useless in the case of the refugee boat. So being upset about the resources spent on Ocean Gate is a bit unfair, it's not like they were facing an either/or choice.

Search and rescue does not normally include anywhere near the extent of services given to looking for a lost private submarine.

I could see a good case being made for rules that charge the rescuees a fine or fee if they were doing something knowingly and deliberately stupid that put them into the situation that required rescue, such as trespassing into clearly marked off-limits areas.

Whether this sub counts as that would be a matter for the courts, if such a rule existed.

In general I'm all for the service being already paid for so that someone uses it when they need it. However in this case I feel like three billionaires, namely the Stockton rushes, should foot at least some of the bill here.

That instead sets the precedent of "we don't need an actual law to seize your money, we can just decide we don't like you on a case-by-case basis" which I would argue is much worse.