Unlikely unless their spouses had a lot of life insurance.
The participants signed releases out of their wazoo. Plus, the tour company very likely doesn't have any money. It has had no reliable source of revenue and will certainly have no source of revenue after this. It has likely heavily leveraged itself to support its research and development.
Furthermore, I'm guessing the company couldn't get liability insurance due to the significant risks involved. Even if it was able to get insurance, (i) the insurance company will argue, likely successfully, that it's not obligated to pay due to the releases signed by the participants, and (ii) the amount of coverage will likely be insignificant in the scheme of things.
Those waivers are unlikely to protect OceanGate if negligence or gross negligence is established. Ignoring legitimate warnings about the safety of the vessels and/or withholding pertinent information about the submersible would seem to be at least negligent behavior on OceanGate's part.
OceanGate is likely in some sense judgement-proof because they probably have very few assets of their own for the plaintiffs to claim.
everything you say is true ... nonetheless, if fraud was involved (e.g., statements that they met standards that they didn’t actually meet), then waivers could be voided ... still there probably won’t be any assets anyway ... i bet everything was leased, including the mothership ... the little bit that might be available will be soaked up instantly by the lawyers ...