Federal Conviction Upheld of Calif. Man with History of Sunken Yachts
West News • September 1, 2004
A federal appeals court Aug. 30 upheld the conviction of a lawyer who tried to sink his $1.9-million yacht and then sought nearly double the price in insurance payments.
The court upheld the ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: Rex K. DeGeorge
Posted On: July 30, 2008, 2:22 am CDT
Posted By: REX K. DEGEORGE
Comment:
The comments that DeGeorge has a history of filing "questionable" claims has no factual meaning. Before an insurer pays a claimthey investigated and if there is any factual or legal basis for denying a claim they simply deny it. Mr. DeGeorge's claims were each investigated, the even of the loss was admitted by each insurer, and it was paid in full and without any compromise.Tehy even paid interest in some cases for holding up the paymant without any valid legalor fqactual basis.
As for the fact one has more cliams inhis life time than another, it has not value and constitutes no basis for assuming that one with many events which give rise to a claim is making a false claim. In the field of probabilities such an assumption is known as the "MOnte Carlo fallasy." That is, the probability that lightening will hit the same lace twice is the same that it will hit some other place. Or, each time you sin the roulette, the probability that the ball will hit red or black is unrelated to what color was obtained in the previous spin. Thus, each time a yacht casts off the probabbilty that the yacht will suffer an event is unrelated to what hapened last time the yacht had cast off.
Some will have no losses all their life and some, a samll number, will have many.
And just because a person is rear ended several times, it does not mean that he was rea ended in order to callect money from some inurer.
The gossip generated about DeGeorge was due to the interest of the insurers and some bad lawyers who seek to gain fame by dramatizing a phenomenom of life.
As for the conviction of the flooded yacht in 1992, no one is discussing the fact, the lack of motivation for DeGeorge to damage a new 76 fot luxury yacht on its maiden voyage, 50 mile off shore, with no food or water, not enough fuel to get to shore on a rubber lefe raft, when there was no insurance policy issued yet, and when there wasno valid insurance yet because the captain had not been approved by the insurer yet. There was absolutely no reason, motivation or expected profit to damage a yacht under such conditions.
West News 
Subject: RE: Rex K. DeGeorge
As for the fact one has more cliams inhis life time than another, it has not value and constitutes no basis for assuming that one with many events which give rise to a claim is making a false claim. In the field of probabilities such an assumption is known as the "MOnte Carlo fallasy." That is, the probability that lightening will hit the same lace twice is the same that it will hit some other place. Or, each time you sin the roulette, the probability that the ball will hit red or black is unrelated to what color was obtained in the previous spin. Thus, each time a yacht casts off the probabbilty that the yacht will suffer an event is unrelated to what hapened last time the yacht had cast off.
Some will have no losses all their life and some, a samll number, will have many.
And just because a person is rear ended several times, it does not mean that he was rea ended in order to callect money from some inurer.
The gossip generated about DeGeorge was due to the interest of the insurers and some bad lawyers who seek to gain fame by dramatizing a phenomenom of life.
As for the conviction of the flooded yacht in 1992, no one is discussing the fact, the lack of motivation for DeGeorge to damage a new 76 fot luxury yacht on its maiden voyage, 50 mile off shore, with no food or water, not enough fuel to get to shore on a rubber lefe raft, when there was no insurance policy issued yet, and when there wasno valid insurance yet because the captain had not been approved by the insurer yet. There was absolutely no reason, motivation or expected profit to damage a yacht under such conditions.