Oklahoma Schools Destroyed by Tornado Lacked ‘Safe Rooms’
Connecticut Court Rules That Lawyers Can’t Be Sued for Fraud
Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers
Cyber Attacks On Banks More Serious Than Public Realizes
E&O Insights: Restaurant and Tavern Risks
CEA’s First CIO Reflects C-Suite Trend
Golf and Country Clubs Weather the Storm
Midwest AGs Go After Storm-Chasing Roofing CompaniesFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
I guess I don\’t understand his issue. If the painting was worth $139 mil before he damaged it and $85 mil now and they are offering him $54 mil as settlement, that adds up to the $139 mil it was with before he screwed up????? where is the problem.
Wynn\’s claim was for $54 mil diminished value, it seems that Lloyd\’s is offering him something less than that.
We need to know the remaining variables… What was the value insured for? I would bet he had a stated value policy with a value of less than the $139 mil he supposedly was going to sell it for, making the claim quite profitable for Mr Wynn if he does get his $54 mil.
Hopefully more details will be released as things progress.
According to Mississippi and the Katrina cases, the duty of insurance is not to return a person to the same financial standing as they were at the time of an accident. It is to enrich a person beyond their prior standing who has suffered a loss…
$139 mil? $85 mil? for a damn painting is absolutely ridiculous and demonstrates the disconnect in our society between the haves and have-nots. I feel sorry for neither Mr. Wynn or the greedy Lloyd\’s investors – they are all obscene and have misguided priorities and no social sensibilities. Gimme a break!
sometimes the rich can\’t add
You fail to understand…Wynn\’s \”claim\” is $54 million for deminution of value, the insurance company is not offering $54 mil, their offer was not disclosed: \”Their offer is ridiculous, owner Steve Wynn said. He declined to give specifics, and Lloyd\’s declined to comment on the matter.\”
As a former Insurance Company Executive, I agree with Wynn\’s comments that \”insurers play \”dirty tricks\’\’ and habitually delay responding to claims, hoping to wear down those making claims and get them to settle for much less than what they are owed.
\”Most folks that have insurance can\’t afford the legal fees, so they take what they get,\’\’ Wynn said in a telephone interview. \”There\’s only one way to stop this kind of thing, and that is to go to court.
Atta-Boy Steve!
Mr. Wynn did something stupid and expects an insurance company to pay for his error. How does this make sense?
Insurance does not insure stupity!
As much as I say its worth. Insurance is not supposed to be gambling, yet a gambler wants to roll the dice and see how much he can collect. More power to ya, Stevie Boy but youd better make sure you have either an appraisal or a bona fide offer from a potential buyer of the item PRIOR to the loss.
Hope you had your ducks in order, Mr. Wynne. Otherwise just because you insured it at a set value doesnt mean youre going to get it, whether you paid a stupid amount of premium for a silly value or not.
I beleive Mr. Winn is asking for $54 million as \”loss of value from damage\”, determining loss of value from damage in a repaired \”pricless irreplaceable artwork\” is a tough call especially with the fickle art market, damaged or not it\’d be hard to establish the value of any Picasso without selling it on the open market, the most accurate estimate would be what did you pay for it?
I\’d put the loss of value from damage at zero with the only loss to the company the repair cost, in fact the value may even have been enhanced, the next buyer can say \”Mr. Winn the previous owner poked a hole in it in front of celebrities …., but you can\’t tell unless under a black light\”.
What did Mr. Winn insure the painting for is a damn good question.
Am I to understand that most of the comments about this article of from those who don\’t know the whole story. This was a highly publicized story, (do a google search) Wynn contracted a deal to sell this painting for $139K one day before he accidentally damaged the painting.
The Insurance Journal does it again – leave out just enough information from a nationally publicized article – About a bazillion hits on Google show the entire article states:
\”Wynn said he purchased the painting depicting Picasso\’s mistress, Marie-Therese Walter, in 2001 from someone who bought it anonymously in 1997 for more than $48 million. Though he said he paid more than the anonymous buyer had paid, he declined to divulge the purchase price\”
Looks to me \”more than $48million\” may have been the $54 million and that was before the hole – If LLoyd\’s paid for the repair at $90,000 – - – where is the problem?
Rich and powerful doesn\’t mean greedy and stupid
Fed up with insurance companies getting the rap – the darn thing was only worth what someone would pay for it at the time of the transaction – not what he was supposed to sell it for
I bet if someone spent some time on google they would get the whole story – not the chop-shop excerpts that leave out the meat
Thanks for reminding us of the fuller story. Like I said, if the offer was bona fide from a real person or entity, and Wynne had insured it to the full value of $139 mil, and if Lloyds wont pay the loss in value, he may have a leg to stand on (hope he doesnt put his knee through the canvas next) but hes going to have to go to arbitration to get what he wants.
Just pray that the broker got enough lead time from Wynnes RM to advise the market of the increased value before he jabbed a hole in the face of the dreamer. If they kept it at the lower pre-sale value, that could be REAL sticky. Sounds like a potential Friday 5PM nightmare.
It would be bad public policy to pay for lost value in cases where the insured does the damage himself. Accidentally or otherwise.
I find it difficult to believe that the policy would cover any kind of loss up to the limit. If the syndicate had any sense, they would have an exclusion for diminution of value caused by boneheaded insured actions while still covering cost of repair for such a peril. If that\’s the case, the $90K makes sense and Wynn\’s case won\’t get far.
Hal, why not have auto policies exclude single-vehicle accidents caused by careless drivers?
Physical damage coverage is supposed to pay unexpected, accidental loss regardless of whether it was caused by the owner or another party. It becomes incumbent upon the carrier to make sure that the offer to purchase the item (forget Wynnes purchase price) was legitimate and not the first step in an insurance scam.
Just because my Grandma offered Steve a cool $140mil doesnt mean she can afford it, or that Steve could use her offer as a basis for a higher value / limit.
Of course we insure STUPID! It\’s the reason most folks buy insurance. If we didn\’t insure stupid, who would repair your home when your teenager drives the family car through the garage wall into your livingroom?
I\’m sorry your painting was damaged by your own clumsy move. We all do dumb stuff sometimes. I ran over my husband\’s tool box with my very sweet \’69 442 last summer and scratched the bumper. I didn\’t turn in a claim because the repairs cost less than my deductible.
Tell you what, let\’s get together and we will both go cry in one of your mansions. We can sit on your fine leather furniture, drink away our woes with your rare vintage wines and wipe our tears with your Hermes hankies.
His comment about \”not going the way he would like\” tells more about his following comments trashing the industry, going to court, etc. than anything else. Granted, details are lacking in the article, but most of us can put 2 & 2 together. He got what he paid for, but it isn\’t enough….So the next step is….
If Steve wants to bash the the Lloyd\’s syndicate, let\’s hear some facts from him.
What did he pay for it?
How much was it insured for?
How much was he offered in settlement?
What were the contract terms?
Otherwise, it\’s just whining.
Hey…the painting is worth more now…it
has (how do they say it on Antiques\’ Roadshow?) provenance…
now, it is THE painting damaged by The
Steve Wynne…
He was going to sell it but it fell through, that is why he smashed the painting. Its so he can make an insurance claim. He even made sure to damage in front of a bunch of credible witnesses, one of which was that old wind bag Wawa Walters.
You\’re right that Wynn, like everyone else, would need to have an appraisal to prove value. In fact, he must have had such an appraisal to get his expensive policy to begin with. Lloyd\’s will not have written a policy without this documentation.
This is continuing to smell foul. Reminds me of several years ago when art dealers were getting hefty federal/local fines for under-declaring sales figures in order to minimize sales taxes, then shipping empty cartons to the low-tax-rate second home while the art itself went directly to the new buyers Manhattan residences.
Remember Tyco? Old Teddy K refined the scam. Betcha Wynne didnt pay the full tax, which is why hes trying to hide the original purchase price.
Hey you Claims Adjusters out there – does Wynne face a tax bill on the difference between what the adjusted loss is, less the residual value of the damaged item? What about the difference between what he originally paid for the painting and the adjusted loss amount? Is this a way to get around capital gains tax?
Smart Man, we gonna getcha!
Mr. Wynn paid $48.4 million for the painting in 1997. The day before damaging the 1932 painting, Mr Wynn had agreed to sell it to hedge fund mogul Steve Cohen for $139m. That deal, which would have made it the most expensive painting ever sold, was called off after the painting sustained what Mr Wynn described as a \”silver-dollar-size hole\” in the arm of its subject, Picasso\’s mistress Marie-Theresa Walter. The damage has been repaired. It looks fine to the “naked eye” but is visible under a black light.
Well, then, lets see if weve got this right.
If the painting were insured for the full $139 mil, then Wynn would have a claim (not necessarily a loss payment) for $139 mil less the residual value of the painting, which to him is worth nothing.
The painting goes to auction in a repaired, noted and excepted condition, where it fetches say $60 mil (many great works have had damage repairs by great restorers throughout the years and it doesnt necessarily mean the works are trashed). Wynn then gets to claim $79mil, still much more than he paid for the work.
Problem for Wynn will be this – just because someone made a VERBAL offer to buy, it doesnt mean he can claim $139 mil as a \”market value prior to the date of loss\”. And it doesnt mean underwriters would have agreed to $139 mil for the piece, either – any valuation way out of whack with the rest of the Picasso market would still be subject to review and agreement by the carriers.
Chances are that Wynn et al didnt have the time to get London on board with a new set of numbers before he stuck in his thimb and pulled out a plum and said \”What a great way to get rich\”!
I would remind Art N.Shurer(mail 15th Jan) that standard Auto policies don\’t cover dimunition of value following damage – whether it was own damage or, caused by a third party. So the example is not in the least apt. In fact, an auto policy would only pay the cost for repair.