Trump Stiffs Hole in 1 Winner

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I would think they would have a representative on site for that amount of scratch. A million bucks would divide up nicely between a witness and a foursome. 

Here's the witness requirements from that company's application form, for a million dollar prize:

Quote

two non-event participant witnesses (one of which is a PGA Professional or Police Officer) are required as well as a continuous, unedited videotape shot from behind the green of all shots to win the prize.

I don't know how much that insurance costs, but it seems unlikely that the premium is enough to cover transportation, lodging, and meals to have an insurance representative on site.  Maybe someone at TST has actually organized an event with HOI insurance, and can let us know what the arrangements were.

[CarlSpackler]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

Here's the witness requirements from that company's application form, for a million dollar prize:

I don't know how much that insurance costs, but it seems unlikely that the premium is enough to cover transportation, lodging, and meals to have an insurance representative on site.  Maybe someone at TST has actually organized an event with HOI insurance, and can let us know what the arrangements were.

Interesting. I've never seen a camera recording shot at HIO prize holes. Maybe it's a hidden camera. 

[TourSpoon]

Well, this is not a measly $10,000 dollar prize! I am sure the video confirmed that this CEO was teed up a little too close. The story doesn't say, but maybe his ball was in front of the markers and he got busted! Lol. 

And obviously this guy was upset enough to go after the Trump Corporation, The sponsor charity (really?) and the insurance company. He received a legal remedy in getting a payment made to his personal foundation. 

Did anyone notice this happened in 2010? 

This just makes me think I picked the wrong major! I need a personal foundation! 

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

Well, this is not a measly $10,000 dollar prize! I am sure the video confirmed that this CEO was teed up a little too close. The story doesn't say, but maybe his ball was in front of the markers and he got busted! Lol. 

And obviously this guy was upset enough to go after the Trump Corporation, The sponsor charity (really?) and the insurance company. He received a legal remedy in getting a payment made to his personal foundation. 

Did anyone notice this happened in 2010? 

This just makes me think I picked the wrong major! I need a personal foundation! 

Really, you need to be an attorney.  I'm sure the lawyers for all 4 entities involved each were paid well into 5 or maybe 6 figures for their efforts.  It wouldn't surprise me if the total attorney fees exceeded the settlement amount.

[imsys0042]

My original take is that he should have paid and several responses after that hasn't changed my mind.   Not because it's anything political, but because this is Donald Trump who has made a name for himself living large and using his wealth to do lavish things.   Someone like that should pay up if there is this kind of mistake and take the publicity for doing so.

Same thing if this was an event hosted by Warren Buffet.   Now considering how the insurance arrangements are done, a sponsor or golf course that cannot afford if the insurance bails obviously cannot pay out and it sucks, but someone goofed.

[TourSpoon]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Really, you need to be an attorney.  I'm sure the lawyers for all 4 entities involved each were paid well into 5 or maybe 6 figures for their efforts.  It wouldn't surprise me if the total attorney fees exceeded the settlement amount.

Haha, the real winners of the hole-in-one scandal were the attorneys! So true! 

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Here's the witness requirements from that company's application form, for a million dollar prize:

I don't know how much that insurance costs, but it seems unlikely that the premium is enough to cover transportation, lodging, and meals to have an insurance representative on site.  Maybe someone at TST has actually organized an event with HOI insurance, and can let us know what the arrangements were.

I just remembered ... the same tournament that I mentioned above that my mom organizes also had a hole-in-one contest one year, however, it was a little different.  Before the tournament started, they chose ONE NAME from a raffle of all players entered, and that one person went down into the 18th fairway with a couple of reps (not sure if they were insurance people, charity people, or just people that worked at the course) to the designated distance (was probably about 150 yards) and took one shot.

They would have had no trouble with witnesses on that one because there were about 80 or 100 of us all standing around the green watching.  Somebody may have been videotaping as well, I don't know.

---

Now I wonder if there isn't video of the event and an insurance rep wasn't there to confirm (and if that was the case, then they should be liable for not correcting the mistake ahead of time), how does the insurance company "prove" that the shot wasn't at least 150 yards?  Unless it was way, way under, I guess.

[imsys0042]

I'm sure based on the prize there are different requirements from the insurance company.   There were two hole-in-one prizes at a recent tourney at my place and one was unattended and the other had someone who worked for the course.   They weren't high value prizes.  Where I caddied as a kid there was always 1-2 women who watched the hole that had a car during an outing.  I don't know who they worked for.

A car is much less than $1M.   A huge prize might require an onsite insurance person.  Otherwise the organizer and the insurance company can agree who is trustworthy to monitor.  Insurance companies might even have resources in many regions that they can sub-contract to and pay them to watch.

My home course awards a vacation package to anyone who makes a hole-in-one.  However there must be two witnesses, the theory that you'd have to have three people holding up the lie.  I made both of my hole-in-ones there playing by myself, although my partner dropped out after 9 due to NFL week 1.   

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

 

Now I wonder if there isn't video of the event and an insurance rep wasn't there to confirm (and if that was the case, then they should be liable for not correcting the mistake ahead of time), how does the insurance company "prove" that the shot wasn't at least 150 yards?  Unless it was way, way under, I guess.

As I remember reading, the denial was based on the yardage, not on lack of the required witnesses and/or documentation.  The only list of conditions I found requires immediate telephone and written notification.  If someone talked to the insurer immediately, they might have been instructed to document the length of the shot using a laser or something similar.

[CarlSpackler]

18 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

My original take is that he should have paid and several responses after that hasn't changed my mind.   Not because it's anything political, but because this is Donald Trump who has made a name for himself living large and using his wealth to do lavish things.   Someone like that should pay up if there is this kind of mistake and take the publicity for doing so.

Same thing if this was an event hosted by Warren Buffet.   Now considering how the insurance arrangements are done, a sponsor or golf course that cannot afford if the insurance bails obviously cannot pay out and it sucks, but someone goofed.

I don't understand this logic. Should you have to pay up to every homeless panhandler because you are better off than they are? Why are the rules different for someone who has money vs. someone who doesn't? 

[jamo]

1 minute ago, CarlSpackler said:

I don't understand this logic. Should you have to pay up to every homeless panhandler because you are better off than they are? Why are the rules different for someone who has money vs. someone who doesn't? 

This is the second time you've said something like that. How are you making that logical jump?

[imsys0042]

2 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I don't understand this logic. Should you have to pay up to every homeless panhandler because you are better off than they are? Why are the rules different for someone who has money vs. someone who doesn't? 

It's a perception thing.   He lives large so part of his overall image would be to swoop in and pay the guy.   I wouldn't consider it a general rule.  But if I was running a tournament and I was in a position to correct a bad situation I would try.  Donald Trump tells a lot of stories how he helped people with money or rewarded them over and above.   There is a famous story he's "confirmed" about how he paid off the mortgage on a guy's house who helped him with a flat tire on his limo.   So I think it's in character.

On the flip side there are famous people who are reputed to be cheap and the expectation would be that they wouldn't do such a thing.

[CarlSpackler]

Just now, jamo said:

This is the second time you've said something like that. How are you making that logical jump?

His argument is that Trump should pay because he has a lot of money and says the same holds true for Warren Buffet, but if it were a regular muni golf course, they are off the hook. My argument is that DT would have to shown to be negligent first, not just because he is wealthy. If that were the case, then don't we all owe something to those with less.

3 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

It's a perception thing.   He lives large so part of his overall image would be to swoop in and pay the guy.   I wouldn't consider it a general rule.  But if I was running a tournament and I was in a position to correct a bad situation I would try.  Donald Trump tells a lot of stories how he helped people with money or rewarded them over and above.   There is a famous story he's "confirmed" about how he paid off the mortgage on a guy's house who helped him with a flat tire on his limo.   So I think it's in character.

On the flip side there are famous people who are reputed to be cheap and the expectation would be that they wouldn't do such a thing.

Perhaps he would have opened the checkbook if it was an average Joe or Jane that made the HIO, but because it was another rich guy who could have possibly been a jerk about it, DT said no way. Who knows. 

[imsys0042]

3 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

His argument is that Trump should pay because he has a lot of money and says the same holds true for Warren Buffet, but if it were a regular muni golf course, they are off the hook. My argument is that DT would have to shown to be negligent first, not just because he is wealthy. If that were the case, then don't we all owe something to those with less.

Perhaps he would have opened the checkbook if it was an average Joe or Jane that made the HIO, but because it was another rich guy who could have possibly been a jerk about it, DT said no way. Who knows. 

Yes, we actually don't know.   And the reason the story came up is because he is running for President.   But my argument is actually that it would be in character for the image that he likes to project to say "Hey, that wasn't right and off course I threw my money around to fix it".  

Much like any of us give to charity you have to consider the situation and whether it's the right thing to do, etc.   No one can walk around throwing money at people because they happen to be poorer or worse off.

Note:  I don't think legally Trump has/had to pay.   I just think given the situation he should have ponied up.  Or ponied up part of it and said "I think that's fair".

[JxQx]

It seems like the tournament organizer should be on the hook for the money not really the course, unless the course is also organizing the tourny.

[Golfingdad]

18 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I don't understand this logic. Should you have to pay up to every homeless panhandler because you are better off than they are? Why are the rules different for someone who has money vs. someone who doesn't? 

He answered it both times.  You're talking technically and legally, he's talking about public perception.  Answer this:  In general, do you think DT would be viewed more favorably or less favorably if he offered to pay the guy out of his own pocket?

Nobody is saying he owes anything.  Just that it would be good for him if he paid.

[CarlSpackler]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

He answered it both times.  You're talking technically and legally, he's talking about public perception.  Answer this:  In general, do you think DT would be viewed more favorably or less favorably if he offered to pay the guy out of his own pocket?

Nobody is saying he owes anything.  Just that it would be good for him if he paid.

I finally caught up to that in his last post. I thought he was saying that DT was obligated to pay based on his wealth, but now I see that I was wrong. 

[Valleygolfer]

9 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

He answered it both times.  You're talking technically and legally, he's talking about public perception.  Answer this:  In general, do you think DT would be viewed more favorably or less favorably if he offered to pay the guy out of his own pocket?

Nobody is saying he owes anything.  Just that it would be good for him if he paid.

 

16 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

Yes, we actually don't know.   And the reason the story came up is because he is running for President.   But my argument is actually that it would be in character for the image that he likes to project to say "Hey, that wasn't right and off course I threw my money around to fix it".  

Much like any of us give to charity you have to consider the situation and whether it's the right thing to do, etc.   No one can walk around throwing money at people because they happen to be poorer or worse off.

Note:  I don't think legally Trump has/had to pay.   I just think given the situation he should have ponied up.  Or ponied up part of it and said "I think that's fair".

I disagree. It sets a precedent that if you make a big enough stink about something associated by someone(Trump) with money, they'll pay up. It already happens enough. I would have to sue Donald for ruining my handicap because I hit too many balls in the water at Doral....