|
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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." |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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? |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
|
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
|
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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 |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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." MarineMax of Ohio is located in Port Clinton, Ohio: http://www.yachtworld.com/marinemaxohio/ Official site: http://www.marinemax.com/ The official Findings of Fact and Conclusion court document: http://tinyurl.com/nq6wh I know Greg Group, surveyor, who discovered the damage. He surveyed 3 of my boats. I wonder why the damage and subsequent repairs were not discovered during the initial survey (prior to the purchase)? |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
|
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
"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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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 |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
" 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. |
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. 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. |
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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 |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
(clipped)
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. (next post) 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." :-) After 28 years in major appliance sales, I couldn't agree with you more. I wish some of our sales managers had been like you. I can't tell you how many times they held up to us as an example "their" top producer who the rest of the staff knew was was not above board in his/her transactions. Usually, within a month of the bragging, they would find out that the star salesman was not only cheating customers but usually cheating the company, also. He/She would disappear and management would never mention their name again. It never did any good to point out the salesperson's digressions as management usually took it as "sour grapes" because we didn't have the "numbers" they were getting from the star. I can honestly say, however, that the bad people were a small minority and usually didn't last long. Tom G. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
: "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. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
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's the paradox of consolidation. Trying to "go big" in the rather small boating market seems like financial suicide. One location screws up and they all take a beating for it. I'd much rather go with a long time regional dealer than a corporate outfit like MarineMax. |
OUCH! Triple and punitive damages of $2.5mm over a boat deal!
"Bill Kearney" wrote in message ... 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's the paradox of consolidation. Trying to "go big" in the rather small boating market seems like financial suicide. One location screws up and they all take a beating for it. I'd much rather go with a long time regional dealer than a corporate outfit like MarineMax. The very method that MarineMax used to "go big" was in fact to buy out every regional dealer they could. The process is ongoing as we speak. They are essentially using a model similar to AutoNation and others in the car business. Point being, the regional dealer you buy from today, may well be part of a corporate outfit tomorrow. It appears that there are now two types of Sea Ray dealers. Those that have been bought by MarineMax and those that will be. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com