wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce the
intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they had just
clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won the battle in the
end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title "seems to
indicate" something to asking me to defend what you presumed the title
must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a $2.5mm
settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that will probably
bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out of the bottom line.

There was a way to sell this boat properly, and that I would have
defended. In fact, we don't really know from the news account how this
boat was sold, with what specific disclosures, and/or whether the judge
knew anything at all about boats.

If I were selling a boat that had been damaged and repaired, I would
use a verbal disclosure that would go something like this:

"Mr. and Mrs. Prospect, a lot of dealers might be afraid to tell you
what I'm about to say, but you need to know that this particular boat
was damaged during shipment from the manufacturer. As a result of a
collision between two trucks on the freeway, we had to replace or
repair items and/or areas W, X, Y, and Z. The work was done in a
factory authorized warranty yard and we have had an independent marine
surveyor, Ms. N. Itpick, examine the work and pronounce that the boat
has beeen restored to original structural standards. If this boat is of
interest to you, we would encourage you to engage a marine surveyor of
your own choosing to examine the areas that were repaired and confirm,
to your satisfaction, that the only difference between the current
condition of this new boat and one that had never been damaged during
transit
is the outstanding price we're willing to offer you on this particular
vessel."

If we were still moving forward after the verbal disclosure, I'd want
to be sure there was a written statement in the closing file, signed by
the buyer, summarizing and acknowledging the verbal disclosure and
stating that, in exchange for a price consideration (*very important*,
legally), the buyer has chosen to proceed with the purchase. The price
consideration is important because if the buyer agrees to buy as is but
doesn't save any specific money for doing so, an attorney can argue
that the buyer signed away his rights without compensation.

Like I said, we don't have any idea how the boat was sold- but if it
were sold with a full disclosure and encouragement to the buyer to seek
independent confirmation of the vessel's condition I would side with
the seller in this dispute. It isn't the seller's job to talk people
who want to buy something out of buying it- but it is the seller's
responsibility to make sure that the buyer's attention is directed to
any unusual history or condition impacting the item being sold.

If it were sold with a statement, "we had to touch up a few scratches
on the port side after the boat arrived" and it later developed that
the boat had required $200,000 in hull repairs (for instance) I would
side with the buyer. That would appear to be the buyer's position in
this matter, and the judge obviously found the buyer's attorney and
argument more compelling than the seller's.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce the
intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they had just
clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won the battle in the
end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title "seems to
indicate" something to asking me to defend what you presumed the title
must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a $2.5mm
settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that will probably
bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out of the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance company was
left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max other than possible
higher insurance rates.

snip

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce the
intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they had just
clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won the battle in the
end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title "seems to
indicate" something to asking me to defend what you presumed the title
must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a $2.5mm
settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that will probably
bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out of the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance company was
left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max other than possible
higher insurance rates.

snip

Maybe not; It wouldn't be unusual for an insurance company to exclude
from coverage any damages awarded to purchasers proving blatantly
dishonest sales practices.

Even if the insurance company winds up paying that insurance company
will then raise its rates to all businesses that it insures, which will
then show up in higher boat prices for everybody.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce the
intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they had just
clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won the battle in the
end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread seems
to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title "seems to
indicate" something to asking me to defend what you presumed the title
must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a $2.5mm
settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that will probably
bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out of the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance company was
left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max other than possible
higher insurance rates.

snip

Maybe not; It wouldn't be unusual for an insurance company to exclude
from coverage any damages awarded to purchasers proving blatantly
dishonest sales practices.


Actually not. Unless the judge or State orders/mandates otherwise they are
paid by the insurance company under most standard commercial insurance
policies.


Even if the insurance company winds up paying that insurance company
will then raise its rates to all businesses that it insures, which will
then show up in higher boat prices for everybody.


Yep.

But in any case.........this was not as big of hurt to MarineMax as it first
appears.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce the
intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they had
just clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won the
battle in the end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread
seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title
"seems to indicate" something to asking me to defend what you
presumed the title must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a
$2.5mm settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that
will probably bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out of
the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance company
was left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max other than
possible higher insurance rates.

snip

Maybe not; It wouldn't be unusual for an insurance company to exclude
from coverage any damages awarded to purchasers proving blatantly
dishonest sales practices.


Actually not. Unless the judge or State orders/mandates otherwise
they are paid by the insurance company under most standard commercial
insurance policies.

Wrong. First, most commercial insurance policies specifically exclude
punitive damages and damages from an intentional act. In fact, in many
states, it is illegal to even sell insurance covering punitive damages.
Here the judge ruled the misrepresentations to be "deliberate." Second,
the base amount of the award, the difference between what the buyer paid
and what the boat was worth, is also not usually covered by insurance.
That's becasue had the misrepresentation never occured, the dealer would
have been paid the lower amount; to have the insurance company now cover
the difference would mean the insurance company would be paying the
dealer for the loss profit that never should have existed in the first
place. Sorry, Marine Max is most likely SOL in this case. And yes, I am a
lawyer and have litigated many insurance coverage cases.

"akheel" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce the
intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they had
just clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won the
battle in the end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread
seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title
"seems to indicate" something to asking me to defend what you
presumed the title must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a
$2.5mm settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that
will probably bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out of
the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance company
was left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max other than
possible higher insurance rates.

snip

Maybe not; It wouldn't be unusual for an insurance company to exclude
from coverage any damages awarded to purchasers proving blatantly
dishonest sales practices.


Actually not. Unless the judge or State orders/mandates otherwise
they are paid by the insurance company under most standard commercial
insurance policies.

Wrong. First, most commercial insurance policies specifically exclude
punitive damages and damages from an intentional act. In fact, in many
states, it is illegal to even sell insurance covering punitive damages.
Here the judge ruled the misrepresentations to be "deliberate." Second,
the base amount of the award, the difference between what the buyer paid
and what the boat was worth, is also not usually covered by insurance.
That's becasue had the misrepresentation never occured, the dealer would
have been paid the lower amount; to have the insurance company now cover
the difference would mean the insurance company would be paying the
dealer for the loss profit that never should have existed in the first
place. Sorry, Marine Max is most likely SOL in this case. And yes, I am a
lawyer and have litigated many insurance coverage cases.

That was not my understanding as I thought it was a State by State thing.
But I will defer to your expertise and accept what you say.

"akheel" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce the
intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they had
just clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won the
battle in the end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread
seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title
"seems to indicate" something to asking me to defend what you
presumed the title must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a
$2.5mm settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that
will probably bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out of
the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance company
was left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max other than
possible higher insurance rates.

snip

Maybe not; It wouldn't be unusual for an insurance company to exclude
from coverage any damages awarded to purchasers proving blatantly
dishonest sales practices.


Actually not. Unless the judge or State orders/mandates otherwise
they are paid by the insurance company under most standard commercial
insurance policies.

Wrong. First, most commercial insurance policies specifically exclude
punitive damages and damages from an intentional act. In fact, in many
states, it is illegal to even sell insurance covering punitive damages.
Here the judge ruled the misrepresentations to be "deliberate." Second,
the base amount of the award, the difference between what the buyer paid
and what the boat was worth, is also not usually covered by insurance.
That's becasue had the misrepresentation never occured, the dealer would
have been paid the lower amount; to have the insurance company now cover
the difference would mean the insurance company would be paying the
dealer for the loss profit that never should have existed in the first
place. Sorry, Marine Max is most likely SOL in this case. And yes, I am a
lawyer and have litigated many insurance coverage cases.


Perhaps that is true in the State you practice in.

I just checked with a friend of mine who is a commercial lines underwriter
for a fairly large insurance company. She said that it is a State by State
decision (whether the insurance company can/shall pay for punitive) and that
her company no longer excludes punitive damages by endorsement.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
news

"akheel" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce
the intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they
had just clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won
the battle in the end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread
seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title
"seems to indicate" something to asking me to defend what you
presumed the title must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a
$2.5mm settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that
will probably bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out
of the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance
company was left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max
other than possible higher insurance rates.

snip

Maybe not; It wouldn't be unusual for an insurance company to
exclude from coverage any damages awarded to purchasers proving
blatantly dishonest sales practices.


Actually not. Unless the judge or State orders/mandates otherwise
they are paid by the insurance company under most standard
commercial insurance policies.

Wrong. First, most commercial insurance policies specifically exclude
punitive damages and damages from an intentional act. In fact, in
many states, it is illegal to even sell insurance covering punitive
damages. Here the judge ruled the misrepresentations to be
"deliberate." Second, the base amount of the award, the difference
between what the buyer paid and what the boat was worth, is also not
usually covered by insurance. That's becasue had the
misrepresentation never occured, the dealer would have been paid the
lower amount; to have the insurance company now cover the difference
would mean the insurance company would be paying the dealer for the
loss profit that never should have existed in the first place. Sorry,
Marine Max is most likely SOL in this case. And yes, I am a lawyer
and have litigated many insurance coverage cases.


Perhaps that is true in the State you practice in.

I just checked with a friend of mine who is a commercial lines
underwriter for a fairly large insurance company. She said that it is
a State by State decision (whether the insurance company can/shall pay
for punitive) and that her company no longer excludes punitive damages
by endorsement.



It is indeed state by state, and my comments were perhaps too general. In
California where I practice it would be very unlikely that it would be
covered. But insurance for punitive damages are prohibited in many states
as wel, and in those where allowed, often has to be specifically covered in
the policy. Ohio, where the case was brought, seems to follow this rule.
See:

http://www.mcandl.com/puni_states.html

This webpage is a review of all 50 states viewpoint on this issue if anyone
is interested in that sort of thing. My original point was that there's a
good chance the punitive damages weren't covered by insurance and an even
better chance that the fraud damages weren't covered either because they
merely represent the benefit of the bargain that the buyer lost, and most
policies won't cover that. They only way to know for sure is to read the
actual policy.

I apologize for my lack of clarity in my question and any offense you
may have felt.

In a verbal conversation you probably would have understood me better.
In the dry medium of the typed word I can see how I came across
differently than what I intended, now that I re-read what I wrote.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my poorly worded question
with exactly the kind of response I was hoping for.

In my opinion you are one of the best contributors to this group. I
alway look forward to reading your posts and I have learned quite a bit
from you.