Replies

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.