No cash for Minn. boy who made 'miracle' shot

FAIRBAULT, MN -- A Minnesota boy who made an incredible hockey shot during a charity event won't collect the $50,000 prize because his twin brother should have taken the shot.

The company that insured the event, Odds On Promotions, said Wednesday it would instead donate $20,000 to youth hockey in Minnesota in the boys' names.

Eleven-year-old Nate Smith hit the puck through a tiny hole 89 feet away during a charity hockey game in Faribault (FAYR'-boh) on Aug. 11. But it was Nate's identical twin, Nick, whose raffle ticket won the chance to take the shot.

I gave the exception of substituting someone with higher skill.

My point was that was all that mattered odds wise regarding having someone else shoot the shot verses the random raffle ticket winner. You made it sound like because the individual odds of winning each stage of the event were so much better that somehow the insurance company miscalculated the odds under those conditions (two different people at the two stages) of paying out overall.

And my final point, if the skill of the two twin brothers were essentially identical then the odds of the insurance company having to payout were unchanged regardless of which brother took the final shot. Something that you implied was otherwise.

I was in the insurance industry in the late 80’s and have studied and written about the risk management industry for many years, and it is clear you do not understand that actuarial side of it. I disliked the industry as a practitioner but enjoy writing about it and I enjoy the statistical purity of it.

And any assumption that the skill level for twins is the same is an assumption that is clearly flawed. In fact, we should assume their skill level is considerably different. The fact that the shooter was the twin brother of the ticket holder is actuarially irrelevant - and only adds the human interest element of the story. The only fact that matters is that the shooter was NOT the ticket holder and thus - the only person on the planet eligible for the award.

The fact that this is not being contested, and the fact that the sponsoring organization is ponying up 20 grand to cover their butt, indicates that everybody knows this is the proper result and that the sponsoring organization is at fault for not making sure that the proper shooter took the shot.

I will guarantee you that the insurance contract - and these things are normally underwritten by a Lloyds or similar syndicate or specialty carrier from London - stipulated very clearly who the eligible shooter would be. And I am sure it stipulated that the sponsor would ensure that only the proper shooter take the shot. They did not, and they’re out 20 grand to cover themselves from a PR standpoint.

It’s easy to take the emotional way out and say “ah, hes just a kid and you’re a huge insurance company so pay up and shut up” — but that is illogical and almost liberally chidlish to take that bent. What about stockholders and employees of an insurance company who would ignore their own under writing guidelines and pay out willy nilly just because it feels good? Who will cover their lay offs and destroyed 401 K’s?

NOTHING happens in a vacuum.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.