PADI getting sued over Insurance Program

[djcheburashka]

I read the complaint.

It would be an understatement to say I'm not impressed.

The theory is that PADI said the insurance was provided by lexington, when really PADI has a deductible. The complaint does not allege that any dive shop - or anyone else - actually experienced one cent of actual damages.

There are also numerous defects that may seem technical to a non-lawyer. (You can't have a fraud class action, for one. The RICO claim is hopelessly confused, for another. Rescission isn't an available class remedy, for a third.). But are really pretty serious problems, legally speaking.

If anyone is willing to take the other side, I'd be happy to take bets on the outcome.

 

[mdb]

You can bet that PADI will settle this under the radar.

 

[Thalassamania]

PADI's failure to pay up it's deductible in a timely fashion destroyed the chap on Kaui's business, that is (I believe) what the claim is based on. Rather good legal counsel seems to think that there's rather a strong case here (PADI has a long history of losing cases that most other organizations would never had gotten themselves into).

 

[djcheburashka]

PADI's failure to pay up it's deductible in a timely fashion destroyed the chap on Kaui's business, that is (I believe) what the claim is based on. Rather good legal counsel seems to think that there's rather a strong case here (PADI has a long history of losing cases that most other organizations would never had gotten themselves into).

Nope.

The case doesn't say that PADI failed to pay a deductible; or that PADI failing to pay anything would terminate lexington's insurance obligation; or that the kaui business was destroyed.

I'm not sure who the "rather good" legal counsel is who thinks the case is strong, and I'm not going to argue about comparative reputations. My view is that its junk, and the settlement value is less than the cost of defense.

 

[ItsBruce]

My specialty is insurance litigation. I spent 20 years representing insurance carriers in coverage and bad faith litigation. I've then spent the last 6 years suing them over their claims handling. Given my background, the thing I find most fascinating about the lawsuit here is what is not in the complaint. Most notably, I see nothing about claims handling or about there being any sort of delay in the payment of a claim or any injury resulting from such a delay. This fascinates me since as I understand it, the whole thing started as the result of a claim.

I generally won't even look at a case against an insurance company without delay or denial and damage jumping right out at me. If these are present, I'll then start thinking about the claims handling and whether the denial or delay might have been unreasonable. Only if I think the delay or denial may have been unreasonable will I even think about taking the case. Everyone I know in the legal business looks at cases in the same manner.

So, the absence of any reference to delay or damage from delay strikes me as odd.

I can certainly see why a lawyer might not plead claims for breach of contract or of what we call "bad faith." Most notably, such claims might detract from the claims that are being made. The claims that are being made are pretty inflammatory and would certainly strike fear in the heart of any defendant. Just look at the reaction to those reading this thread!

Imagine playing poker and being dealt three aces, a kings and a queen. Would you toss two of the aces in hopes of drawing a straight?

 

[djcheburashka]

People seem concerned by the allegations because the allegations were exaggerated and hyped-up here.

Anyone willing to place bets? I'm serious.

 

[Wookie]

I'm not a lawyer, although I play one on a dive boat. I wonder if the point of the litigation hasn't been already made. As in, the dive shop owner in Hawaii was upset and driven out of business (allegedly) and chose to take revenge. Everyone knows that Rick Lessor has no love for PADI, and it wouldn't take much to get him to zing them any way he can. I'd be willing to bet that this has caused no small amount of grief at PADI HQ, and maybe the California AG will investigate PADI's insurance practices just because it's been thrown in their face by this action. Maybe that's all this action was supposed to accomplish, the action may languish as long as the court allows, and if the AG in fact does investigate, maybe there will be a payday for the plaintiff, or at least vindication. Maybe...

 

[djcheburashka]

Ok-I'll give odds to anyone who wants to take the other side of the bet

 

[SeekerOfJustice]

Ok-I'll give odds to anyone who wants to take the other side of the bet

I'll bite! I take the other side. Is the other side that PADI will reach a negotiated settlement agreement?

 

[djcheburashka]

No, because they could pay cost of defense or something nominal that would be a defense victory. Pm me we'll define our bet terms.