Well ... for 2.2 million bux per year for 10 years or more ... of COURSE they would endorse the program too, good grief !!!
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
Well ... for 2.2 million bux per year for 10 years or more ... of COURSE they would endorse the program too, good grief !!!
djcheburashka
Contributor
Where does the complaint say that?
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
That is not a question for the suit, but rather for the California Insurance Commissioner.
the dive_addict
Guest
Will someone please give the case info i.e. name of the case{Jerk V PADI} No 69 Court of Confusion.
ItsBruce
Contributor
Kaui Scuba Center vs. PADI America, Inc. USDC No. SACV 10-1579 DOC (MANx)
ItsBruce
Contributor
If the plaintiff can show an actual injury that was proximately caused by any act or omission by PADI, I would hate to see what happens to PADI. However, given what I've seen in the complaint and amended complaint, I have trouble imagining it.
ItsBruce
Contributor
I just read the second amended complaint. It is fascinating.
First, the Court ordered that it be filed by April 6, 2011. Although the plaintiff submitted it for filing, it was rejected by the clerk's office as being deficient. (It was submitted electronically but was supposed to have been filed traditionally.) This is probably not critical as many lawyers make this reasonable error.
Second, it does not look to me like the plaintiff corrected the deficiencies that led the Court to grant the prior motions to dismiss. I expect that the various defendants will renew their motions. I also expect PADI will file a motion to dismiss. My best guess is that if the motions are done right, the Court will again grant it, possibly without leave to amend.
Third, I think that the plaintiff's own firm recognizes that they have a serious problem with the case.
Here is why: The basic theory of the case is that dive shops buy insurance through the PADI program thinking they are getting insurance under which Lexington pays every dollar of every loss, up to the policy limits, when, in fact, PADI pays the first $300,000. As a result, the shops are not getting as valuable a policy as if Lexington were paying the whole loss; and no one told the shops this.
The second amended complaint (SAC) tries to plead eleven (11) different legal theories as to why the various defendants should be liable for doing what I have described above as being alleged. That it takes eleven different legal theories, signals to me (and probably to the Court) that no one is really sure that any of these theories is actually viable. Lawyers plead multiple alternative theories when they are not really sure about what they've got.
Fourth, there is still no real allegation that anyone was actually damaged as a result of the alleged scheme. If what is alleged about the program is accurate, it is a shabby practice. If what is alleged about the program is accurate, the "insurance" the shops are getting is not as good as they may have believed. If what is alleged about the program is accurate, the shops may have been overpaying for what they were getting. But, if there was no loss for which a shop was not properly compensated, there is no damage and thus no viable lawsuit.
It is like the drunk driver example someone posited earlier. You can't sue drunk drivers for driving drunk and hope to win. You can't even sue them for hurting a stranger or damaging a stranger's property.
First, the Court ordered that it be filed by April 6, 2011. Although the plaintiff submitted it for filing, it was rejected by the clerk's office as being deficient. (It was submitted electronically but was supposed to have been filed traditionally.) This is probably not critical as many lawyers make this reasonable error.
Second, it does not look to me like the plaintiff corrected the deficiencies that led the Court to grant the prior motions to dismiss. I expect that the various defendants will renew their motions. I also expect PADI will file a motion to dismiss. My best guess is that if the motions are done right, the Court will again grant it, possibly without leave to amend.
Third, I think that the plaintiff's own firm recognizes that they have a serious problem with the case.
Here is why: The basic theory of the case is that dive shops buy insurance through the PADI program thinking they are getting insurance under which Lexington pays every dollar of every loss, up to the policy limits, when, in fact, PADI pays the first $300,000. As a result, the shops are not getting as valuable a policy as if Lexington were paying the whole loss; and no one told the shops this.
The second amended complaint (SAC) tries to plead eleven (11) different legal theories as to why the various defendants should be liable for doing what I have described above as being alleged. That it takes eleven different legal theories, signals to me (and probably to the Court) that no one is really sure that any of these theories is actually viable. Lawyers plead multiple alternative theories when they are not really sure about what they've got.
Fourth, there is still no real allegation that anyone was actually damaged as a result of the alleged scheme. If what is alleged about the program is accurate, it is a shabby practice. If what is alleged about the program is accurate, the "insurance" the shops are getting is not as good as they may have believed. If what is alleged about the program is accurate, the shops may have been overpaying for what they were getting. But, if there was no loss for which a shop was not properly compensated, there is no damage and thus no viable lawsuit.
It is like the drunk driver example someone posited earlier. You can't sue drunk drivers for driving drunk and hope to win. You can't even sue them for hurting a stranger or damaging a stranger's property.
Scott L
Contributor
Nice write-up. Yeah, the revelation that PADI is operating as an unlicensed insurance carrier launches numerous questions, mainly with the State of California. The certificates of insurance they are despensing are fraudulent as PADI (Unrated) of course does not share the same A.M. Best rating as Lexington Ins Co. (A.M. Best A+)...
djcheburashka
Contributor
I think some of the posters in this thread claiming that PADI is actually violating a rule, seem like shills.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,798
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
And some of the posters in this thread claiming that PADI did no wrong seem to not understand the issues.
Similar threads
