SeekerOfJustice
Guest
Well, that's no fun. I figure it will settle for sure.
PADI getting sued over Insurance Program
- Thread starter cerich
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
SoccerDad
Contributor
Wookie probably has something here because looking at the complaint there is just not a lot there and no one anyone actually lost anything so the real issue is that I believe Lessor wanted to stick PADI with is that they are taking in more money in fees than they are paying out in claims. That is a assumption because they do not have the actual claim data but are just doing simple math based on the fee times the number of dive shops. Lessor may also be trying to bring to light that this has not been disclosed which I do not believe is required but would seem to be the right thing for PADI to do, which will possibly cost them some members.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
PADI has a long history of hubris, taking illegal actions that they just assume are OK for them and then they are all shock and aw shucks when the lose. There's the Don Dibble suit for example.
SeekerOfJustice
Guest
Any details of the Don Dibble suit? I did a brief search to no avail?
Sunset_House
Registered
From Dive Newswire.. Sorry if this is a repost
Judge grants defendants motions to dismiss in insurance lawsuit, and Richard Lesser disqualified as attorney for plaintiffs
(DiveNewswire) - Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 29 March 2011 Plaintiffs recently suffered two major setbacks in the highly publicized lawsuit filed several months ago against the PADI organization, Vicencia & Buckley, PADI Risk Purchasing Group, Lexington Insurance Company and York Risk Services Group:
First, the court granted the Motions to Dismiss, with leave to amend. The courts rulings cited, among other issues, that the damages alleged by the plaintiffs were speculative and that key allegations were without factual support.
Second, the court granted the PADI organizations Motion to Disqualify Richard Lesser and his firm from representing the Plaintiffs. The Motion claims that Lessers continued representation of the Plaintiffs constitutes a violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. The court granted this Motion and mandated Lessers immediate dismissal from the case.
The courts decisions reaffirm the inaccurate allegations and speculative nature of this case, says Al Hornsby, Senior Vice President for PADI Worldwide. Its a shame that time and energy is spent on these matters when we as an industry should be focused on working together constructively to build bridges among industry stakeholders and to develop collaborative efforts that support dive retailers and resorts in the market. PADI is focused on long-term, positive outcomes that will benefit members and the industry as a whole.
PADI-endorsed insurance programs are once again renewed with Lexington Insurance Company for the 2011/2012 policy year. PADI Members can look forward to new, expanded insurance coverages. Stay tuned for exciting announcements about all PADI-endorsed insurance program improvements. For more information regarding this message, please contact Al Hornsby at 800 729 7234 or +1 949 858 7234, ext. 2390 or Steve Vicencia at 800 223 9998 or +1 714 739 3177, ext. 219.
Judge grants defendants motions to dismiss in insurance lawsuit, and Richard Lesser disqualified as attorney for plaintiffs
(DiveNewswire) - Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 29 March 2011 Plaintiffs recently suffered two major setbacks in the highly publicized lawsuit filed several months ago against the PADI organization, Vicencia & Buckley, PADI Risk Purchasing Group, Lexington Insurance Company and York Risk Services Group:
First, the court granted the Motions to Dismiss, with leave to amend. The courts rulings cited, among other issues, that the damages alleged by the plaintiffs were speculative and that key allegations were without factual support.
Second, the court granted the PADI organizations Motion to Disqualify Richard Lesser and his firm from representing the Plaintiffs. The Motion claims that Lessers continued representation of the Plaintiffs constitutes a violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. The court granted this Motion and mandated Lessers immediate dismissal from the case.
The courts decisions reaffirm the inaccurate allegations and speculative nature of this case, says Al Hornsby, Senior Vice President for PADI Worldwide. Its a shame that time and energy is spent on these matters when we as an industry should be focused on working together constructively to build bridges among industry stakeholders and to develop collaborative efforts that support dive retailers and resorts in the market. PADI is focused on long-term, positive outcomes that will benefit members and the industry as a whole.
PADI-endorsed insurance programs are once again renewed with Lexington Insurance Company for the 2011/2012 policy year. PADI Members can look forward to new, expanded insurance coverages. Stay tuned for exciting announcements about all PADI-endorsed insurance program improvements. For more information regarding this message, please contact Al Hornsby at 800 729 7234 or +1 949 858 7234, ext. 2390 or Steve Vicencia at 800 223 9998 or +1 714 739 3177, ext. 219.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
That's a PADI press release ... let's wait and see what reality is.
Scared Silly
Contributor
Very true, but regardless of where it comes from and the spin the basics are quite interesting.
Agree - PADI may be spinning it, but conditionally dismissing with leave to amend and barring the claimant's lawyer from acting are two pretty heavy blows to have landed.
ItsBruce
Contributor
The following is from the Court's minute order on the motion to disqualify the Lesser firm:
In an under-seal Order, the Court GRANTED Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Richard A. Lesser and the Law Firm of Lesser & Associates, PLC as counsel for Kauai Scuba in this matter based on Lesser’s prior employment with PADI. The evidence demonstrates that Lesser likely gained access to confidential information that would create a conflict of interest in this litigation and that there was a substantial connection between Lesser’s former involvement with PADI and the instant lawsuit. As a result, the Court disqualified Lesser. Furthermore, because Lesser failed to argue that his firm has erected, or would erect, an ethical wall to seal off potentially confidential communications between himself and the other attorneys in his firm, the other attorneys at Lesser & Associates were disqualified as well.
In an under-seal Order, the Court GRANTED Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Richard A. Lesser and the Law Firm of Lesser & Associates, PLC as counsel for Kauai Scuba in this matter based on Lesser’s prior employment with PADI. The evidence demonstrates that Lesser likely gained access to confidential information that would create a conflict of interest in this litigation and that there was a substantial connection between Lesser’s former involvement with PADI and the instant lawsuit. As a result, the Court disqualified Lesser. Furthermore, because Lesser failed to argue that his firm has erected, or would erect, an ethical wall to seal off potentially confidential communications between himself and the other attorneys in his firm, the other attorneys at Lesser & Associates were disqualified as well.
ItsBruce
Contributor
I've read the Court's order on the motion to dismiss by York and by Lexington. York and Lexington moved to dismiss the claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
The Court granted the motion, but gave the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. What this means is that the court found (1) the plaintiff's allegations about the alleged misrepresentations and RICO violation were not sufficiently specific, and (2) even assuming the truth of everything the plaintiff said, that does not entitle the plaintiff to any recovery or relief.
The second part of this is really the important part. What the Court said relative to the second point is interesting:
"Finally, the FAC [First Amended Complaint] also fails to allege damage resulting from the alleged intentional misrepresentation. The FAC does not allege that Plaintiff has suffered actual loss, let alone loss because of the Defendants’ conduct. Instead, Plaintiff’s FAC merely alleges, in conclusory fashion, that Plaintiff has 'been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.' FAC ¶ 62. This injury is predicated on the allegation that 'in an event of a major disaster of multiple dive shops, PADI does not and will not have sufficient funds to cover multiple losses at once.' Id. at ¶ 16. Without factual support, such allegations do not rise beyond the level of pure speculation and are therefore insufficient for purposes of pleading a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation. See Frustuck v. City of Fairfax, 212 Cal. App. 2d 345, 367-68 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963) (stating 'damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot serve as a legal basis for recovery.')"
FWIW, there had previously been some discussion along these lines in this thread. It does not bode well for the plaintiff as it will be very difficult to satisfy the requirement of damages resulting from the alleged intentional misrepresentation. And, that is assuming the plaintiff can come up with specifics, e.g. who, what, when, where, how and why of the alleged misrepresentations.
The Court granted the motion, but gave the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. What this means is that the court found (1) the plaintiff's allegations about the alleged misrepresentations and RICO violation were not sufficiently specific, and (2) even assuming the truth of everything the plaintiff said, that does not entitle the plaintiff to any recovery or relief.
The second part of this is really the important part. What the Court said relative to the second point is interesting:
"Finally, the FAC [First Amended Complaint] also fails to allege damage resulting from the alleged intentional misrepresentation. The FAC does not allege that Plaintiff has suffered actual loss, let alone loss because of the Defendants’ conduct. Instead, Plaintiff’s FAC merely alleges, in conclusory fashion, that Plaintiff has 'been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.' FAC ¶ 62. This injury is predicated on the allegation that 'in an event of a major disaster of multiple dive shops, PADI does not and will not have sufficient funds to cover multiple losses at once.' Id. at ¶ 16. Without factual support, such allegations do not rise beyond the level of pure speculation and are therefore insufficient for purposes of pleading a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation. See Frustuck v. City of Fairfax, 212 Cal. App. 2d 345, 367-68 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963) (stating 'damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot serve as a legal basis for recovery.')"
FWIW, there had previously been some discussion along these lines in this thread. It does not bode well for the plaintiff as it will be very difficult to satisfy the requirement of damages resulting from the alleged intentional misrepresentation. And, that is assuming the plaintiff can come up with specifics, e.g. who, what, when, where, how and why of the alleged misrepresentations.
Similar threads
