PADI getting sued over Insurance Program

[Wookie]

A really simple example might be if you paid an insurance broker $500 to put a fire insurance policy on your building, but instead of placing the policy, they just pocketed the cash. A year passes. Your house does not burn down. But then you learn they never arranged the cover - they just spent the cash. You are outraged. They say "What are you complaining about? Your house didn't burn down, so you didn't lose the benefit of any claim, and you paid the premium either way." For various legal and moral reasons, the courts don't want the insurance brokers to have incentives to do this, so they allow the unjust enrichment claim.

But if the broker pocketed the cash and wrote you a policy that appeared to be underwritten by a major insurance underwriter, you have a case for fraud, not just outrage. Regardless of whether you had a fire or not.

 

[RJP]

But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves...

A quick read through this thread and the one thing that hits me is the one word that is most common in nearly every post is the word "IF"

If PADI is doing this...
If PADI is doing that...
If...
If...
If...

 

[Rhone Man]

But if the broker pocketed the cash and wrote you a policy that appeared to be underwritten by a major insurance underwriter, you have a case for fraud, not just outrage. Regardless of whether you had a fire or not.

Sure, you can plead your action however you like. But the point I was trying to illustrate is that the homeowner is no worse off as a result of the fraud than if the broker had performed the service which he had agreed to do. As I said, it is just a very simple illustration.

 

[ReefHound]

Sure, you can plead your action however you like. But the point I was trying to illustrate is that the homeowner is no worse off as a result of the fraud than if the broker had performed the service which he had agreed to do. As I said, it is just a very simple illustration.

And you're no worse off if the assassin's bullet misses your head but I'd hardly call that "no harm no foul".

The homeowner IS worse off because one of the benefits of having insurance is peace of mind. Having discovered that he was uncovered all along, how can he have peace of mind in a future policy?

When we buy insurance we are paying big money for the benefit of protecting us from a potential catastrophic loss. We never know 100% if we got what we paid for until that moment comes, and if we discover at that moment that we didn't get what we paid for, it's too late to do anything about it. The integrity of the insurance policy is of utmost importance, that is why there must be drastic penalties for any violations of that integrity whether they resulted in actual losses or not.

 

[PRL]

A quick read through this thread and the one thing that hits me is the one word that is most common in nearly every post is the word "IF"

If PADI is doing this...
If PADI is doing that...
If...
If...
If...

I think its more of self preservation. Have no doubt that PADI lawyers and Lessers team are watching this thread.

If still not convinced, than just ask SB why they have a defense fund. In todays world, you do not have to be doing anything wrong, just have to be accused of it, and that is enough to destroy everything you worked for.

How much money do you think you need to say that you are not guilty if a big company says you do? I'm guessing at least $200K

As usual, this is just my opinion, and should be taken as such.

 

[The Chairman]

If still not convinced, than just ask SB why they have a defense fund.

Ask us? We would rather you read about it and give: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...right-post-scubaboard-legal-defense-fund.html

 

[PRL]

Just a couple nits to pick;

As I understood it we are required to use the new Flip Chart; were/are we required to use Cue Cards?

The old "illegal" flip chart next to me has a "BCD inflation at surface" panel and a "BCD deflation at surface" panel; were those not skills back then?

I don't have my notes in front of me, but if I remember right. It was not the Discover Scuba Diving that was scrutinized, but the National Geographic DSD.

But my memory is bad, and this is a bit off topic. Besides its all just my opinion.

 

[PRL]

Ask us? We would rather you read about it and give: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...right-post-scubaboard-legal-defense-fund.html

I did donate last night

 

[Rhone Man]

And you're no worse off if the assassin's bullet misses your head but I'd hardly call that "no harm no foul".

I wasn't saying 'no harm, no foul', I was explaining (perhaps I should say: trying to explain) why a person could still have a valid legal claim despite not suffering any direct financial loss.

The point has become a bit of an irritating distraction though, so let's move on.

 

[theduckguru]

That is the thing about unjust enrichment claims. The hypothetical defendant can turn around and say "What are you complaining about? You got everything that you paid for, at the price we had agreed!" But the essence of such claims is that the defendant made a profit in an illicit/illegal/immoral way so must disgorge the profits which it made in such unlawful fashion.

A really simple example might be if you paid an insurance broker $500 to put a fire insurance policy on your building, but instead of placing the policy, they just pocketed the cash. A year passes. Your house does not burn down. But then you learn they never arranged the cover - they just spent the cash. You are outraged. They say "What are you complaining about? Your house didn't burn down, so you didn't lose the benefit of any claim, and you paid the premium either way." For various legal and moral reasons, the courts don't want the insurance brokers to have incentives to do this, so they allow the unjust enrichment claim.I am not trying to draw a parallel with the PADI case - just showing you a situation where someone can have a legitimate claim despite suffering no financial loss.

Your example is poor because the person didn't pay the broker for his house not to burn down, he payed to have insurance during a specified period and the bogus transaction is common theft.

Instead of the government investigating this fraud, submitting the evidence to grand jury, prosecuting, obtaining restitution for the victims and sending some folks to jail, the plaintiffs have to pay their attorney 1/3 of their loss and the bad guys get to go home to cook up their next scheme - which is why the country is in the mess it is.