wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
MarineMax of Ohio, Inc., the world's largest marine retailer, must pay
a Columbus man $2.5 million for selling a yacht with a hull that had
been severely damaged while saying only minor repairs had been made to
it -- and then refusing to take it back for the purchase price.

State Judge Paul C. Moon of Ottawa County, Ohio awarded triple and
punitive damages, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest and costs to
Doug Borror, said Borror's attorney, Jim Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold
& Scott in Columbus. Arnold filed the case under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

Judge Moon called MarineMax's sale in 2002 of a 51-foot 2001 Sea Ray
yacht to Borror for $780,000, "conscious, deliberate, malicious,
deceitful and particularly gross and egregious."


Chuck, could you share a link to that story either here or via email? I
need to send it to an acquaintance and I cannot locate the full story on
google.

Thanks!
Jim

Check your AOL account. This information came to me by email from one
of the attorney's involved in the case. The judge's decision and the
court order are attached to the email.


Thanks but I do not have an AOL account. Anyway, I found the Court document
on line and will pass that along to my friend.

Interesting case. Thanks for bringing it up for discussion.

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.

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
MarineMax of Ohio, Inc., the world's largest marine retailer, must pay
a Columbus man $2.5 million for selling a yacht with a hull that had
been severely damaged while saying only minor repairs had been made to
it -- and then refusing to take it back for the purchase price.

State Judge Paul C. Moon of Ottawa County, Ohio awarded triple and
punitive damages, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest and costs to
Doug Borror, said Borror's attorney, Jim Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold
& Scott in Columbus. Arnold filed the case under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

Judge Moon called MarineMax's sale in 2002 of a 51-foot 2001 Sea Ray
yacht to Borror for $780,000, "conscious, deliberate, malicious,
deceitful and particularly gross and egregious."


The court case was apparently last year. I wonder if MarineMax wrote the
check as declared in the judgement or strung the poor guy out even
further with an appeal.



MarineMax stung a buddy of mine with a defective boat here in Minnesota.
I'm not surprised to hear of this type of practice done elsewhere. I won't
buy anything from them and have told the story to others.

Capt. Jeff


Hold your horses Capt. I don't think you can use such a broad brush to make
such a claim. There are unethical salesmen in all sorts of fields,
including boats. However, their actions do not necessarily reflect on the
company they work for unless the company is aware of and condones those
actions.

I would not torpedo MarineMax based on a couple of bad transactions,
especially considering they are one of the largest boat dealers in the
world.

That said, I would be interested in knowing the frequency of similar claims
MarineMax is being hit with and balance those claims with the volume of
business they do.

RG wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
MarineMax of Ohio, Inc., the world's largest marine retailer, must pay
a Columbus man $2.5 million for selling a yacht with a hull that had
been severely damaged while saying only minor repairs had been made to
it -- and then refusing to take it back for the purchase price.

State Judge Paul C. Moon of Ottawa County, Ohio awarded triple and
punitive damages, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest and costs to
Doug Borror, said Borror's attorney, Jim Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold
& Scott in Columbus. Arnold filed the case under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

Judge Moon called MarineMax's sale in 2002 of a 51-foot 2001 Sea Ray
yacht to Borror for $780,000, "conscious, deliberate, malicious,
deceitful and particularly gross and egregious."


The court case was apparently last year. I wonder if MarineMax wrote the
check as declared in the judgement or strung the poor guy out even further
with an appeal.



MarineMax stung a buddy of mine with a defective boat here in Minnesota.
I'm not surprised to hear of this type of practice done elsewhere. I
won't buy anything from them and have told the story to others.

Capt. Jeff

" 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 wrote:
"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
MarineMax of Ohio, Inc., the world's largest marine retailer, must pay
a Columbus man $2.5 million for selling a yacht with a hull that had
been severely damaged while saying only minor repairs had been made to
it -- and then refusing to take it back for the purchase price.

State Judge Paul C. Moon of Ottawa County, Ohio awarded triple and
punitive damages, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest and costs to
Doug Borror, said Borror's attorney, Jim Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold
& Scott in Columbus. Arnold filed the case under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

Judge Moon called MarineMax's sale in 2002 of a 51-foot 2001 Sea Ray
yacht to Borror for $780,000, "conscious, deliberate, malicious,
deceitful and particularly gross and egregious."

The court case was apparently last year. I wonder if MarineMax wrote the
check as declared in the judgement or strung the poor guy out even
further with an appeal.



MarineMax stung a buddy of mine with a defective boat here in Minnesota.
I'm not surprised to hear of this type of practice done elsewhere. I won't
buy anything from them and have told the story to others.

Capt. Jeff


Hold your horses Capt. I don't think you can use such a broad brush to make
such a claim. There are unethical salesmen in all sorts of fields,
including boats. However, their actions do not necessarily reflect on the
company they work for unless the company is aware of and condones those
actions.

I would not torpedo MarineMax based on a couple of bad transactions,
especially considering they are one of the largest boat dealers in the
world.

That said, I would be interested in knowing the frequency of similar claims
MarineMax is being hit with and balance those claims with the volume of
business they do.


That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Capt. Jeff

JimH wrote:
"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
MarineMax of Ohio, Inc., the world's largest marine retailer, must pay
a Columbus man $2.5 million for selling a yacht with a hull that had
been severely damaged while saying only minor repairs had been made to
it -- and then refusing to take it back for the purchase price.

State Judge Paul C. Moon of Ottawa County, Ohio awarded triple and
punitive damages, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest and costs to
Doug Borror, said Borror's attorney, Jim Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold
& Scott in Columbus. Arnold filed the case under the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

Judge Moon called MarineMax's sale in 2002 of a 51-foot 2001 Sea Ray
yacht to Borror for $780,000, "conscious, deliberate, malicious,
deceitful and particularly gross and egregious."


The court case was apparently last year. I wonder if MarineMax wrote the
check as declared in the judgement or strung the poor guy out even
further with an appeal.



MarineMax stung a buddy of mine with a defective boat here in Minnesota.
I'm not surprised to hear of this type of practice done elsewhere. I won't
buy anything from them and have told the story to others.

Capt. Jeff


Hold your horses Capt. I don't think you can use such a broad brush to make
such a claim. There are unethical salesmen in all sorts of fields,
including boats. However, their actions do not necessarily reflect on the
company they work for unless the company is aware of and condones those
actions.


In the automobile business, I supervised new and used car sales crews
for many years.
While its possible to sell a ton of stuff while conducting business
honestly, not enough people who are attracted to careers in the auto
industry have the skills to do so. Those who do, go very far. In a
dealership selling a couple of thosand cars a year, we probably had
somebody hollering "fraud!", or what not, about once a month. There
were cases where the customer was, frankly, either lying or wrong-
(sometimes thought they discovered what looked like a better deal after
taking delivery of a car from us and would be willing to say or do
*anything* to unwind their decision and go save, they thought, a couple
of hundred bucks somewhere else). There were other cases where the
customer
was right, and one salesperson or another said or did something that
was either careless, misinformed, or deliberately dishonest. Even when
you run a strong "desk" system, as I always did, things will sometimes
be said in the privacy of the closing booth that aren't even similar to
what the salesperson was instructed to say.

If the customer had a valid claim because the salesperson did something
that was careless or misinformed, we'd make things right with the
customer, counsel or train the salesperson, and tell the salesperson
that repeating the exact same mistake could result in termination.

If the customer had a valid claim because the salesperson did something
that was intentionally dishonest, we'd make things right with the
customer and then go to the parts department to find an empty cardboard
box to hand to the culprit. We'd give the salesperson about five
minutes to empty his or her desk, turn in the keys to their demo, and
be waiting at the curb for the next city bus to haul their shameful
butt away.
You can change careless behavior, train the misinformed, but you can't
normally turn somebody around who thinks its easier to lie and steal
for a living than it is to sell.



I would not torpedo MarineMax based on a couple of bad transactions,
especially considering they are one of the largest boat dealers in the
world.


When you need to hire a lot of salespeople, a few bad apples will
accidentally slip into the barrel. The difference between a top flight
organization and a House of Sleeze isn't whether one could discover a
bad apple working the floor- but what sort of action the dealership
takes when the bad apple makes him or herself known by actions and
statements. Too many guys take the short view and say, "But he was the
top producer last quarter!". The fact is that most of the people he
*didn't sell* (which will be the majority of customer contacts for
nearly everybody) probably walked out of the place with a negative
impression of a salesperson that seemed far too eager and slick. If
management were able to measure the amount of future business that the
wrong sort of salesperson actually *costs* them and subtract that from
the amount of business he somehow managed to bully or grease into
place, they wouldn't keep him on for 15 minutes.

Like I said up thread, there was a proper and ethical way to sell this
boat. If the buyer was fully informed about the damages to the boat
(and allowed or encouraged to have his own surveyor check out the work
and render an expert opinion) and if the buyer then agreed to proceed
with the transaction, the seller did everything the seller could
possibly have done. The responsibility for making the purchase, *if
fully informed and not deliberately deceived* becomes the buyer's.

While we know which way the judge ruled, we don't really know how the
sales process went. I can say from experience that when an auto or boat
dealer goes to court he or she steps up to the plate with two strikes
already called (especially if an emotional jury is involved) and needs
to realize that in the eyes of the human beings applying the law he or
she is "guilty, unless proven innocent, and if proven innocent there
must have been a miscarriage of justice." :-)




That said, I would be interested in knowing the frequency of similar claims
MarineMax is being hit with and balance those claims with the volume of
business they do.