PADI getting sued over Insurance Program

[PuMpUi]

OMG ....

Has Rick really "lost it" now?

I mean ... getting himself DISQUALIFIED as an ATTORNEY because he had a dog in this fight DECADES ago as an EMPLOYEE of PADI ??? How CARELESS of him is THAT !?!?!

OMG ... what can this mean???

Could it mean that because the California Courts ... at PADI's INSISTENCE ... have found that Rick was an EMPLOYEE of PADI's (who just might NOT be subject to "attorney-client" privileges) and was NOT their attorney, where there MIGHT have been a "conflict of interest" if he were allowed to continue in this legal matter ... that PADI may have "won the battle" but "lost the war" even though it's all over and all is well, as they have said ???

oh ... but wait ...

If Rick is NOT an attorney bound by such high standards of confidentiality (in which case he could NOT testify to the things that he knew first-hand to be true) ... and is MERELY a previous EMPLOYEE (apparent, at least according to the California Judge) with first-hand knowledge of how PADI structured their "insurance" (the term is used loosely) program ...

OMG ... does this mean that Rick just MIGHT be an EXPERT WITNESS with FIRST-HAND information who now can actually SPEAK FREELY about PADI's "insurance" program and how it might not be the "right thing" to do ???

OMG ... just HOW could Rick Lesser have ****ed up so badly ??? After all ... his reputation is on the line here !!! All these years of being so good in the legal arena ... righting the wronged and defending the helpless and all that kinda stuff.

Does this mean that PADI and their infamous hubris attitudes has actually ENABLED their "arch adversary" (Sir Rick the Lessor) to testify against them ???

OMG ...

what next??? A response from the Attorney General of California AND Hawaii about PADI's pretending to be an insurance company and PROFITTING over $2,200,000.00 (two million two hundred thousand dollars) per year at the expense of their Members for HOW many years now ???

(Phuket ... and I thought that PADI was all about "The Way The World Learns to Dive" .... foolish me !!!)


Or ... could it possibly be that ...

The attorneys in the class action suit already HAD prepared – in advance – a "revised complaint" (or whatever the attorneys want to call it) to the original class action suit, just WAITING for Rick to be disqualified and it has ALREADY BEEN FILED, per the Judge's orders ????

OMG … did you hear that? What was that?

Was that the sound of a well-set trap being sprung by an arduous prey?

OMG ... is there yet ANOTHER lawsuit waiting to be filed in HAWAII for the damages suffered by Kauai Scuba because PADI (NOT an insurance company) REFUSED to pay off on their Ponzi scheme when there was a legitimate claim???

OMG ... can you imagine ???

A CALIFORNIA corporation (PADI/Vicencia & Buckley?) backed and supported by REAL insurance companies (Lexington, et al) operating across state lines ... via internet and US Mail (I think Federal law applies here ... how do YOU spell RICO ???) representing themselves to be an insurance company in Hawaii and in other states and locales as well (the locals DO remember Hurricane Iniki ... kinda like "Remember the Alamo" ... and in a jury of your peers ... ) ... but not really "being" an insurance company ...

Could it be that the Attorney General of Hawaii “might" be interested in this cock fight?

OMG .... this sounds SO like an episode of LA Law, Season 3 ...

Is Rick really the infamous “Teflon Don” and nothing sticks to him?
Will Steve get to keep his expensive cars?
Will Rick get to testify to what he knows ... as an EMPLOYEE and NOT as an attorney ???

Will PADI be required to RETURN the premiums that they collected as an "insurance company"?

Will Kauai Scuba EVER get paid from PADI or WHOEVER the REAL insurance company was/is for their losses?

How many others have been victimized by this ???

Will we ever know the truth ....


Stay tuned. <Fade to commercial>.



Just my opinion ... and we ALL know what THAT'S worth

 

[ItsBruce]

I look forward to reading the amended complaint and then seeing how the various defendants respond to it. I am not sure what the plaintiff will allege to try to cure the defects identified by the Court. However, I expect that regardless of what the plaintiff alleges, the defendants, which will probably now include PADI, will file another round of motions to dismiss. (If it worked once, give it another shot and see what happens.)

My guess is that the Court will dismiss at least some of the current claims. The Court has already expressed concern about the plaintiff's ability to allege actual damages and I have trouble seeing how the plaintiff can fix that. After all, whether PADI collected money for "bad" insurance, there does not seem to be an instance in which a claim was not paid due to the self-insured retention.

I would also anticipate one or more motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment.

What the plaintiff's side needs (although it won't actually help the plaintiff) is for another insurance company that issues dive shop insurance to come in and allege it was unable to sell insurance to dive shops because the PADI program was undercutting its prices with the "bad" insurance it was selling.

Now, that would make an interesting lawsuit.

 

[Scott L]

As I stated early in the thread, PADI greatest indiscretion probably lies with breaking at a half dozen State Insurance laws...

 

[PuMpUi]

ItsBruce said ... "After all, whether PADI collected money for "bad" insurance, there does not seem to be an instance in which a claim was not paid due to the self-insured retention."


Really? So, just because someone drives 110 mph through a school zone while drunk-as-a-skunk but don't run over any children then it's OK?

 

[djcheburashka]

ItsBruce said ... "After all, whether PADI collected money for "bad" insurance, there does not seem to be an instance in which a claim was not paid due to the self-insured retention."


Really? So, just because someone drives 110 mph through a school zone while drunk-as-a-skunk but don't run over any children then it's OK?

I'm sorry, but where's the violation here? People keep claiming that PADI violated state insurance regulations by itself becoming the insurer. Really?

The "facts" seem to be that PADI purchased a master liability policy from Lexington and PADI members purchase coverage under that policy from Lexington through a licensed insurance broker under terms requiring PADI to cover a deductible.

So what? Can anyone point to any specific insurance regulation of any state that's actually being violated? I note that the plaintiffs complaint does not identify *a*single*one*. Isn't PADI just an association of the members anyway? The setup sounds like it's a mutual insurance system with Lexington providing excess coverage/reinsurance. What's wrong with that?

I confess that once in the distant past I briefly represented Lexington, but that is not an insurance company generally inclined to violate state regulations! They have a nationwide commercial insurance business I don't think they'd be inclined to jeopardize over the measly annual premium they get from PADI and its members.

 

[Thalassamania]

PADI pretended to be an insurance carrier and agent in a state that requires such entities to be registered and licensed and meet various other requirements that PADI did not. Simple. Lexington is likely not liable, but complicit.

 

[ItsBruce]

I confess that once in the distant past I briefly represented Lexington, ....

I forgive you ... but only because Lexington has paid me pretty well over the years.

 

[ItsBruce]

So, just because someone drives 110 mph through a school zone while drunk-as-a-skunk but don't run over any children then it's OK?

Such a driver could be prosecuted and put in jail. Such a driver should be prosecuted and put in jail.

If you or I decided to sue that driver, not only would our case be thrown out of court, the court might sanction us for wasting its time.

Now, if someone got hurt due to the speeding drunken driver, that is another story. The problem is that nearly any cause of action available in a civil suit requires that the plaintiff be able to show actual damages. Theoretical or speculative damages do not count. Even an action under California's Unfair Competition Laws requires the plaintiff to be "aggrieved." I don't see that here. Sorry.

If the plaintiff gets past the 12(b) motions and needs someone to draft some utterly diabolical interrogatories or requests for admissions, let me know.

 

[PuMpUi]

On Chapter 1, Verse 1 of this entire thread, Cerich quoted the PADI spin news release which said that :

"The lawsuit has no merit and is premised on a number of factual inaccuracies. For example, it alleges that PADI is acting as the primary insurer under the dive store insurance program it endorses when, in fact, the primary insurer is Lexington Insurance Company, an A-rated insurance company. In addition, the lawsuit falsely alleges that PADI is collecting insurance premiums under the program.

Didn't PADI admit in court that they recieved over $2.2 million (2 million 2 hundred thousand dollars) in excess of what they paid for the premium?

Isn't that at least PART of what started this whole debacle? When I smell BBQ coming from my next door neighbor's yard .... I generally figure that he's got a fire going.

Additionally, in the previous "speeding drunk driving" illustration, if someone DID receive an injury due to this action, then I think that we can all agree that we ARE on the same page here and that the Judge and the Jury will be awarding damages against the drunk driver ... and whether Lexington has paid us in the past ... or we play a dive instructor on a boat ... or simply love diving ...

right is right and wrong is wrong.

IMO.

 

[theduckguru]

You should have also included the first paragraph, PADI states they endorse the program - they do, but they also participate and administer.

On Chapter 1, Verse 1 of this entire thread, Cerich quoted the PADI spin news release which said that :

"The lawsuit has no merit and is premised on a number of factual inaccuracies. For example, it alleges that PADI is acting as the primary insurer under the dive store insurance program it endorses when, in fact, the primary insurer is Lexington Insurance Company, an A-rated insurance company. In addition, the lawsuit falsely alleges that PADI is collecting insurance premiums under the program.

Didn't PADI admit in court that they recieved over $2.2 million (2 million 2 hundred thousand dollars) in excess of what they paid for the premium?

Isn't that at least PART of what started this whole debacle? When I smell BBQ coming from my next door neighbor's yard .... I generally figure that he's got a fire going.

Additionally, in the previous "speeding drunk driving" illustration, if someone DID receive an injury due to this action, then I think that we can all agree that we ARE on the same page here and that the Judge and the Jury will be awarding damages against the drunk driver ... and whether Lexington has paid us in the past ... or we play a dive instructor on a boat ... or simply love diving ...

right is right and wrong is wrong.

IMO.