Conflicted on this one.
I mean, obviously he's just looking for a payday here. Lost his job a while ago, no longer married to the woman in question, and have to assume that his father's law firm isn't exactly charging him to do this, so it's a free shot at a payday. From that perspective, no dice. Also, obviously even if everything else wasn't a factor, he waited a long time to file this, and only did so because he needed the money and the statute of limitations was going to expire on this one.
On the other hand, would have to look at the contract and the photos. Claims he wasn't happy with them originally, missed big moments, etc. Obviously there's something going on there, although I'm positive that the contract specifies that damages would be limited to cost of service, no promises about exactly what shots you get, etc.
It WAS their responsibility to be there and capture the event. If the couple stayed 'on script' and didn't do anything real spontaneous that the photographers would have an excuse to miss, why aren't there pictures? Regular limits on damage are a bitch in situations like this, because if they decide to wander off when you have your first dance, or the pictures just don't come out because they didn't take enough or they got wrecked, what recourse do you really have? Can't really get that moment back, so what are the damages?
That's why you have to be pretty careful when hiring out the vendors for the event, check references, etc. My MIL is still pissed at her photographer 30 years later because he was drinking with everyone else, and photos are blurry, off-center, etc. You can get your money back, but you can't get someone else to photograph the wedding after...
Still, in this case, he might be entitled to a portion of the original contract, but not much if anything for damages, and certainly not getting paid to recreate the wedding. Especially since he's been divorced a couple years now, so why would anyone want to participate in that? Not going to get the same clothes/haircut, try to look younger, and pretend to be happy for a couple that already split up
Pretty clear money grab here. If he was asking for a lot less, and was still married, MAYBE he'd have had a point, but since neither is the case, he should drop it.
Cases like this are why you should have to pay opposing legal fees when you lose. Photographer has spent thousands defending himself here in a pretty blatant nonsense case, while I'm sure the Groom got his comped by his dad's firm. Not ok...
