This Guy Needs a Grip: AMC Lawsuit?

[Oh My!]

Found the clip below in today's Quick 18 column on pgatour.com. I have 2 thoughts on the matter:

1) I highly doubt his "proceeds" would have gone 100% to charity, and

2) Why ON EARTH would he sue one of the most charitable human beings on the planet?

18. An ace that was 11 yards too short? That's the way the insurance company underwriting the policy for a $1 million payout for a hole-in-one on the 13th hole at Trump National Golf Club during the Alonzo Mourning Charities Tournament last August saw it. According to the NY Post, former Commodities Exchange Commissioner Marty Greenberg aced the hole, but, after showing the insurance folks where he hit it from, they determined the shot was only 139 yards, not the required 150. So Greenberg is now suing Mourning . "This situation should have been a happy and exciting event,'' Greenberg told the Post. "It is my intention to use the proceeds for charitable purposes, which makes my being forced into legal action all the more tragic. Sadly, I was left with no choice.''

"No choice", huh? How about you accept the decision of the insurance company & move on with your life? If you can afford to participate in an AMC event at Trump National, you likely do not NEED the $1mil, nor should you be greedy enough to SUE over the ordeal.

As Charlie Brown would say: "Good Grief!"

[joey0403p]

How is Zo possibly liabel in this?
Curious if any lawyers out there have an opinion.

Also - if he hit the ball inside the markers...what is the problem?

[Oh My!]

Here's a NY Post Article from Friday w/ more info on the situation:

www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/hole_in_one_ace_sues_for_4kfiBvVrgRj0agKB0Aj8TK

Guy sounds like a real winner.

[Boz]

He's not suing Alonzo. He's suing Alonzo's charity.

It's hard to say without seeing what the rules were. If the contest said something like, "$1M to anyone who holes a shot from 150 yards out, then it's clear that this wouldn't qualify.

Or even if the contest said, $1M for a hole in one on this hole from the championship tees (more likely). And the guy hit it from the blue tees. In which case he has no claim either, I wouldn't think.

Either the contest rules are explicit or they aren't. If they aren't they should pay the man. If they are, then he should have played by the rules.

[SFHoya99]

I'm suing a charity so I can give money to a charity?

Also, that's what you get for hitting off the ladies' tee.

[LizziebethHoya]

Why isn't he suing the insurer that was backing the event and was the one who denied him the money? Suing the charity because he wants to give the money to charity seems pretty useless unless he really disagrees with the mission of Alonzo's clarity, which is unlikely given that he participated in the tourney.

[GUHoya07]

Anyone else notice this response in the comments section? "Bottom line: Alonzo Mourning = Georgetown = lowlife miscreant scoundrels."

What a lovely thing to say.

[seaweed]

I kind of like Trumps solution - "Play me, beat me and I will give you the $mil. But if you lose, you owe me $100k." Maybe Zo could challenge him to a game of one-on-one for the money.

hopefully AM Charities has another policy which will defend the organization from a wrongful acts lawsuit like this, most likely their Directors & Officers' Policy, which would have to respond if the allegation was the any managers misconduct or negligence led to the "loss". If not, there is still a chance either the hole-in-one insurer or Trump's greenskeeper's professional liability policy (yes, there is such a thing) may have to cover. Chances are they all claim against each other and the only actual winner is the Editedbag who takes their $.

Not that there is any effective way to blackball a scumbag like this, he is already too powerful, but maybe at least somebody could key his limo or mess with his wife or something.

ps: yes, I know I need to make up my mind whether he is a Editedbag or a scumbag, but I live close to UCon and it is hard to tell in winter which is which up here

[jgalt]

Huh, I guess Charities arent having very good luck with these giveaways these days. The same kind of thing happened to the minor league hockey team in Indy, though this had a better outcome than a law suit:

sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/After-hockey-fan-s-50-000-goal-charities-almos?urn=nhl-320928

[71hoya]

I'm on the scumbag's side on this one. The insurance company that insured this hole in one needs to pay -- unless he knowingly hit from the wrong tee. The insurance companies always have and had a representative on site and should have made it clear where to hit from. You can't allow him to hit from a tee and then when you loose, go back and tell him he hit from the wrong tee. I can't believe he wants the charity to pay. He wants the insurance company to pay, and they should.

[SFHoya99]

Feb 14, 2011 18:42:17 GMT -5 71hoya said:

I'm on the scumbag's side on this one. The insurance company that insured this hole in one needs to pay -- unless he knowingly hit from the wrong tee. The insurance companies always have and had a representative on site and should have made it clear where to hit from. You can't allow him to hit from a tee and then when you loose, go back and tell him he hit from the wrong tee. I can't believe he wants the charity to pay. He wants the insurance company to pay, and they should.

I think he is suing the charity because they set the hole/tee location too short and that's why he got shorted. There's no case against the insurance company, I assume.

He's a dick because instead of a worthy charity getting $1M, a worthy charity is going to get about $.5M and lawyers are going to get $.5M for exactly what reason? So he can be a dick?

[jerseyhoya34]

Is he a BANKER?

[roysgirlfriend]

Yes, sounds like he is suing the charity because the insurance company the charity hired has refused to pay. The charity likely could bring the insurance company into the suit and say, if we have to pay, then the insurance company has to pay. I also agree with the above poster that I would imagine it would turn on whether the terms of the offer specified where he had to hit the shot from. If it just said "hit a hole in one on the 13th," then you would think any tee players usually hit from would count.

I don't mind him suing the charity. He is really suing the insurance company. It seems fine to hold insurance companies to their agreements; particularly in order to ensure that they pay in future cases where a non-millionaire wins a prize and would not otherwise be able to donate the money.

[roysgirlfriend]

Not to mention the fact that the $1 million offer likely induced people to play in the tournament and donate money to the Mourning charity in the first place. If insurance companies are going to stop paying prizes, then some people may stop entering these tournaments.

[kchoya]

Feb 14, 2011 19:48:57 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Feb 14, 2011 18:42:17 GMT -5 71hoya said:

I'm on the scumbag's side on this one. The insurance company that insured this hole in one needs to pay -- unless he knowingly hit from the wrong tee. The insurance companies always have and had a representative on site and should have made it clear where to hit from. You can't allow him to hit from a tee and then when you loose, go back and tell him he hit from the wrong tee. I can't believe he wants the charity to pay. He wants the insurance company to pay, and they should.

I think he is suing the charity because they set the hole/tee location too short and that's why he got shorted. There's no case against the insurance company, I assume.

He's a dick because instead of a worthy charity getting $1M, a worthy charity is going to get about $.5M and lawyers are going to get $.5M for exactly what reason? So he can be a dick?

You run into me. Your insurance company refuses to pay for my injuries. I don't have a claim against your insurance company (without you assigning your claims to me).

[Hoyaholic]

I can't believe anyone is defending this Edited, whether or not he has a rightful legal argument against anyone.

If he is awarded $1 million in a lawsuit, 1/3 is going to go to attorneys, then 40% of the remainder will go to taxes, leaving him with $400K to donate to charity.

No one in their right mind would sue a charity (which he has likely already contributed to in the form of entering the golf tournament) for $1 million so that he could then donate the $400K of leftover proceedings to another charity.

The guy wants the money for himself - you can take that to the bank.

[flyoverhoya]

Feb 15, 2011 16:26:09 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Feb 14, 2011 19:48:57 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

I think he is suing the charity because they set the hole/tee location too short and that's why he got shorted. There's no case against the insurance company, I assume.

He's a Edited because instead of a worthy charity getting $1M, a worthy charity is going to get about $.5M and lawyers are going to get $.5M for exactly what reason? So he can be a Edited?

You run into me. Your insurance company refuses to pay for my injuries. I don't have a claim against your insurance company (without you assigning your claims to me).

Depends where you are. Some states (like mine) have a direct action statute, so you actually can (have to?) proceed directly against an insurer.

[4aks]

No one wants to be taken in a rigged game.
AMC is responsible for setting a fair game.
By buying the wrong insurance, the game doesn't work .
Greenberg could let it go, but after being burned, he wants to burn back, and has a case -- depending on the entry rules. If the rules said 'from our tee' then he has the rights. If the rules say 'from 150+ yards, in a manner covered by the insurance' - then Greenburg might just get a refund on the entry fee, because no eligible game occurred.

I don't know if AMC has the $1m , if they do they should compromise with Greenberg to transfer $1m to the charity of his choice. The downside for Greenberg is he doesn't get the tax credit. He will get the appreciation from the charity of his choice though.

The insurance firm isn't really at fault, though maybe their guy on the ground could have been more proactive about making sure the game was an insured game, but the guy was a lacky.

AMC could have said 'we screwed up' and called every player back that wanted a real try from 150 yards. I assume the insurance was for something like '50 players, 1 try each, 150 yards' , essentially, 0 tries were made and any 'redo' would be covered -- maybe they can reschedule the event and give all those players entry.

For the insurance, it's a square numbers situation, AMC could have bought 120-yard hole in one insurance, and if the tee ends up at 130-yards no sweat. They didn't pay attention to the details. 120-yard insurance would have been more expensive. They went with the cheap stuff. The insurance firm is just going off a book of odds, assessing the risk, adding a margin, and shouldn't have to pay when clients buy the cheap insurance with longer odds and then set up a put-put game and make a claim against it.

Same with the hockey game referenced above, they could have bought 3/4 rink insurance and if the shooter slightly crosses over on the 7/8 rink shot, no big deal, still a covered event, everyone is happy.

[SFHoya99]

Feb 15, 2011 18:15:42 GMT -5 Hoyaholic said:

The guy wants the money for himself - you can take that to the bank.

+1. That's my point. I get being annoyed by it, but at the end of the day, if you were really going to donate it, the only winners are the lawyers if you sue.