PADI getting sued over Insurance Program

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I wonder what the connection is between PADI and Vicencia & Buckley?

PADI is so protective of the "brand name" yet it seems like V&B has used it to file a Risk Retention Group with PADI's name in it yet it is Steve V. who is the Registered Agent and the President of it.

Ya think I could file for a RRG using it, too? Maybe something like "The PADI Risk Retention Group North America, Inc." and then collect the money ???

Do we have a dive training agency acting as an insurance broker ... or do we have an insurance broker acting like a dive training agency?

Just wondering.
 
The info regarding PADI Risk Purchasing Group is very interesting. However, the various websites do not really tell us much. It does not appear they have been authored or authorized by PADI Risk Purchasing Group.

I'd love to see the actual articles of incorporation, the corporate by-laws and minutes of the BOD.
 
The info regarding PADI Risk Purchasing Group is very interesting. However, the various websites do not really tell us much. It does not appear they have been authored or authorized by PADI Risk Purchasing Group.

I'd love to see the actual articles of incorporation, the corporate by-laws and minutes of the BOD.

I would bet that, there has been considerable changes made to the program since the suit's filing.
 
1. Theres a definition of rrg in the statute. It doesn't involve walking or talking.
2. That isn't how corporate registrations work. They don't just "lapse" and the corporation ceases to exist.

This is becoming ridiculous. If people hate padi insurance so much buy insurance from someone else.
 
1. Theres a definition of rrg in the statute. It doesn't involve walking or talking.
2. That isn't how corporate registrations work. They don't just "lapse" and the corporation ceases to exist.

This is becoming ridiculous. If people hate padi insurance so much buy insurance from someone else.



Re: #1. Is this a reference to "if it walks like a RRG ..." Post?

Re: #2. Corporations are considered "perpetual", but there are filing requirements. So, if the "original" RRG is "perpetual", then why was it "re-started" once there were problems?

Re: #3. Kinda the whole thang here is about PADI "insurance" and their legitimate ability to offer/sell/endorse/benefit/profit from it, isn't it? It seems like a LOT of informed insureds (and certainly not informed by PADI) have already changed their insurance over.

Your's is good advice, most certainly. However, there is still the matter of a whole lotta money that's been left on (or under) the table.

Just my opinion, but lately a lot of peeps have taken me off of their Christmas "A" list.


:idk:
 
The info regarding PADI Risk Purchasing Group is very interesting. However, the various websites do not really tell us much. It does not appear they have been authored or authorized by PADI Risk Purchasing Group.

I'd love to see the actual articles of incorporation, the corporate by-laws and minutes of the BOD.


True, the various web sites don't tell us the insider's details about the AOI, by-laws or minutes of the BOD, but it would appear that the source of the information came from PUBLIC RECORDS in California.

Point being made is that there's more smoke. Or maybe it's just that So-Cal haze?
 
I wonder what the connection is between PADI and Vicencia & Buckley?

PADI is so protective of the "brand name" yet it seems like V&B has used it to file a Risk Retention Group with PADI's name in it yet it is Steve V. who is the Registered Agent and the President of it.

Do we have a dive training agency acting as an insurance broker ... or do we have an insurance broker acting like a dive training agency?


Is it starting to look like the Insurance Broker (Steve V and V&B Insurance, et al), who is President of the PADI Risk Retention Group, may be the one who decides "which" claims get paid and which ones do not, and that it is PADI who pays the first $300,000 of the claim (how many dive shops are worth $300k in the first place, not counting the torching their boats, inventory and compressors, etc.)?

Conflict of interest? Well, according to Joe Foxx, head of The Joe Foxx Security Agency, which was in charge of providing security at the Acme Chicken Coop, when asked about a report of missing chickens was overheard to say, "Chickens? Missing chickens? We don't got no missing chickens here. If there were missing chickens, I would have known about it (do I hear the sounds of shredding machines stage-left)."

:idk: :rofl3: :idk:
 
Last edited:
This has now passed into the moronic.

Right now no-one can offer an even minimally *coherent*, let alone accurate, explanation of why anything that PADI is doing is remotely improper.

This is like arguing with "birthers" and people who believe income taxes are unconstitutional.

Im not spending more time on this thread unless PADI wants to start paying my hourly.
 
This has now passed into the moronic.

Right now no-one can offer an even minimally *coherent*, let alone accurate, explanation of why anything that PADI is doing is remotely improper.

This is like arguing with "birthers" and people who believe income taxes are unconstitutional.

Im not spending more time on this thread unless PADI wants to start paying my hourly.

Ditto, except that I will continue to provide commentary for the benefit of those SB members who might find it of benefit. No one needs to pay my hourly because I am not advocating positions for anyone nor providing information that might be of use to the litigants.
 
I found the pleadings filed so far on Westlaw. I'm neither a litigator nor an insurance specialist but here is my synopsis of what the case is about and where it stands. It's a class action lawsuit filed in a US District Court by KAUAI SCUBA CENTER, INC, a Hawaii Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated. Richard Lesser's law firm and Schreiber & Schreiber (class action firm) are plaintiff's counsel. They are suing for 1. Rescission of the insurance contracts 2. Breach of Contract 3. Unjust Enrichment 4. Money Had and Received 5. Breach of Contract 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 7. Negligence 8. Intentional Misrepresentation 9. Negligent Misrepresentation 10. Rico 11. False Advertising 12. Fraudulent and Deceptive Business Practices. They are seeking damages in an amount equal to all the insurance premiums paid to PADI plus interest and attorneys fees. Defendants are PADI AMERICAS, INC., a California Corporation; PADI Worldwide Corp., a California Corporation; the PADI Risk Purchasing Group, Inc., a California Corporation; Vicencia & Buckley Insurance Services, Inc., a California Corporation; Lexington Insurance Company, a Delaware Corporation; York Risk Services Group, Inc., a New York Corporation.

Claims and allegations do not completely make it clear how the insurance policies were set up, but it appears that PADI sponsored and marketed commercial general liability ("GCL") and property damage ("PD") insurance to dive shop owners "brokered" exclusively by Vicencia & Buckley. Lexington Insurance Co. is the insurance company providing the coverage and York Risk Services is the claims adjuster for the program. Policies were not provided directly to the dive shops by Lexington. PADI appears to have provided GCL and PD insurance to the dive shops with no deductible. PADI then obtained 1 or more master insurance policies from Lexington for this program with a $300,000 deductible per occurence. The premiums paid by the dive shops
is greater than the premiums paid by PADI to Lexington and PADI intended to use the excess to pay the $300,000 mismatch - the retained risk. PADI was therefore providing insurance coverage to the dive shops (the retained risk) without proper insurance licensing and without maintaining the required reserves to support the retained insurance risk ($300,000 per occurrence).

Twelve pleadings filed so far and the action will need to survive a motion to dismiss by the defendants. The motion is primarily based on the fact that the plaintiffs have not actually lost money. There seems to be no evidence that PADI has failed to pay out any claim filed by Kuaui Scuba Center ot any other dive shop. If the action survives the motion to dismiss, the defendants will file an answer to the complaint, the parties will go thru a discovery process (requesting docs, interviewing various parties, etc.) and then go to trial unless the parties settle. Also, I think the court needs to certify the action as a "class action" which may be difficult to do. If you're a dive shop that made a claim received a payment from PADI, you probably don't want to rescind the contract. You'll get your premiums back but you'll also need to return the amounts you received for claims made under the policy.

They are trying to disqualify Richard Lesser because he previously represented PADI on other matters. Under the California attorney code of conduct this could be considered a conflict of interest if the matters he worked on are related to the issues in this case.
 

Back
Top Bottom