| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
"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. |
Threaded Mode
