You don’t HAVE to be a gentleman to play golf, but it sure helps. A blown tee shot means you are hitting three with your second tee shot. Free mulligans, give me a break.
As mulligans were paid for and not free, and part of the tournament, policy should pay. Under the special events form, there is no exclusion for mulligans for outings. Proper coverage should have been purchased from the carrier. If nothing else the E&O of the agency placing coverage will react.
I was kind of annoyed when I read the headline that anyone would even try to argue that a mulligan is valid.
But, what was the $5.00 mulligan purchased (from tournament officials) all about? Sounds to me like the insurance company is off the hook but that the tournament sponsor will probably have to pony up the $10k.
It would seem that somebody is likely to pay and from my vantage point it will likely be the association group. The association group sponsoring the event will likely employee a risk manager in the future to insurer that the prinicipals do not make promises that were not contemplated when insurance was secured.
As a golfer it sounds like this guy made par. A great shot but he’s not buying drinks for anyone since it was not his first stroke. It’s good for high fives from your buddies, that’s all.
Forget the mulligans, let’s go by the rules of golf.
Also, the guy should remember that this is a charity event and he’s now making the FFA pay for defense. Thanks to him not being kind they are now out more than they probably made on the event.
I agree with JAnger. He paid the insurance for a free swing by paying for the mulligan that was in the rules of the tourney. The assoc. should have paid for proper insurance for the hole-in-one.
Now you’ll tell us that he also won the new driver and trophy for the low gross contest by two strokes because he took a 1 on his score card on said fifth hole. Give me a break Adam.
obviously, we have found yet another way to turn something fun into a bone of legal contention. therefore, this is something any tourney with a like grand prize must be extra careful about. it’s always something…….
Since no one here has identified themselves as having inside knowledge of the the policy in question, or the whacked out deal with selling mulligans, I will have to wait on the jury, BUT if I had to put my 2 cents in it would be that Janger steps way out of line to suggest somehow that the agent E&O should pay. The only way I would go for this is if the policy does exclude mulligans and the agent was aware they were selling them (new one for me)and did not offer additional coverage or suggested it was covered in some way. Since I have never heard of selling a mulligan, I doubt the agent has done anything wrong, My guess is that the promoter or the non profit group saw another way to make $5 and jumped on it without asking their agents advise. Unless someone can show me a golf rule book that says a mulligan (purchased or not) erases the wiff from the score card, he still swung more than the one time required by the contest.
I agree that mulligans are not allowed under USGA rules. However, this was not a USGA sponsored/sanctioned event, it was a fund raaising event. If they sold mulligans, then obviously the players can use mulligans, which makes the mulligan shot in this case a hole-in-one.
Not being in the production or underwriting end, I am just curious as to whether, as part of the application/underwriting process, a full set of the tournament rules was obtained/proffered at placement.
Assuming that the policy wording is silent about the use of mulligans in charity events, and if the rules turned in to the producer didn’t include the fact that mulligans could be purchased (common at fundraisers) and used for “prize holes”, and that wasn’t conveyed to the underwriter, it appears to me that the carrier is off the hook. Being able to “officially” use mulligans sounds to me like it would be a material fact affecting the exposure, and thus the underwriters willingness to accept the risk.
In the tournaments that I’ve played in where mulligans could be purchased, it was clearly stated in the tournament rules that mulligans could not be used on the “prize” holes. If the FFA didn’t set that out in its tournament rules, and the coverage denial is appropriate, then it sounds like, unfortunately, the FFA is on the hook. That’s too bad, because $10,000 is probably more than the net made off of the event.
I’m just wondering if the placing agent had enough experience in the product to ask the right questions of the FFA.
And, even though it’s a lot of money, it’s a shame that this guy feels the need to sue a non-profit organization for what sounds like was a tremendously fortuitous event. He may well be within his rights, but I’ve never known a skunk to be welcome at a picnic.
as a golfer i have (i think ) never played in a tournament where they didn’t exclude mulligans from winning special events such as a 10000prize or a car standard operating procedure p. s. mulligans add a little bit of fun (sometimes) and extra revenue for the charity etc
…this case is too bizarre. This was a charity event, intended to raise money for this FFA. Here comes a bloke, who technically missed his first shot, and took a “mulligan.” He was able to replay his shot, but then he has a 3 on his scorecard. This loser deserves nothing. but the bill for court time. There are times where I wished we followed the British rule of law when it came to who pays for the court costs…in England, the loser pays…would certainly stop this sort of silliness.
I don’t understand how anyone, especially a fund raising entity, can claim to duck responsibility because they don’t have insurance. If the hole-on-one prize did not stipulate that mulligans could not be used (and why else would you buy them?) what possible leg could they ahve to stand on?
I don’t understand how any event that sells and/or even just allows mulligans can then start arguing from the rules of golf. (Harvery Pennick, “If it’s not according to the rules of golf, it’s some other game.”)
I don’t understand how someone buys an insurance policy and doesn’t bother to read the definitions, exclusions or limitations.
I don’t understand how anyone can say that one ball, hit one time from a tee is not a hole in one, if it goes directly into the hole. It doesn’t matter if the score on that hole is a one or a twelve (lost balls in water, e.g.), that’s a hole in one.
The tee shot replay was fairly obtained by virtue of the $5.00 payment for the mulligan.That purchse legally made the second tee shot the first tee shot.If the policy has no exclusion,as one of the prior writers maintains,then the company owes the money.From the kid’s standpoint he had a legitimate tee shot go into the hole and he won the money, and wants to be paid. $10,000 to not only him but to a lot of others is a meaningful amount, so don’t be so quick to criticize him for wanting it.That the sponsor let it go this far for so long says little for their judgement.
Jim,There seems to be a lot of things you don’t understand. A tournament sells mulligans so the golfers can use them to reduce their golf score on their score card. If the golfer used 5 mulligans to reduce his final score by 5, and then won a tournament prize for low score he would have legitimately won that prize. A hole in one contest has nothing to do with a golf score or tournament score prizes. It is simply “a hole in one shot” on that hole. This guy took 2 shots to get it in so he did not qualify for the prize. The $5 mulligan ticket was not sold or purchased as an extra entry ticket for for the hole in contest. If it was, every good golfer would spend $100 for 20 mulligan tickets for 20 extra shots at the $10,000. If this guy was good enough to hit the ball that well, he knows the rules and how the tournament works. He’s just abusing the system and will now change the way every future tournament has to be set up.
I put him on level with all the other idiots who are screwing up our society by making us spell out written rules and restrictions on everything, just because they are too stupid to use common sense.
As a Tournament Director, I have researched Hole in one insurance, I have yet to find a company that does not exclude the use of mulligans. The Mulligan excusion is generally in bold print in the contract. Nothing buried. For my future event, we will not longer sell mulligans. It puts my charity organization on the line, and the Club House that writes the rules and presents them to the golfers at the outing. Next it will be fighting over the longest drive contest,or closest to the pin. I think most golfers coming out to charity events are there for the charity, and are stand up guys. Too bad everyone loses in this case.
So the prize is $10,000 for a hole in one on the 5th hole, mulligans are $5 each?
I would like $500 worth of mulligans please. I stand the chance to make $9500 if I make it in the cup within 100 swings.
SOUNDS PRETTY STUPID TO ME. You get one chance to sink a shot on a specified hole, the mulligan will reduce your overall score for the entire 9 or 18 holes but does not give you as many practice shots as you want for the prize
Adam was 18 years old at the time. He didn’t pay the $5.00’s, someone else on the team did. So, it was not officially his mulligan. Too bad cheap-skate.
Well said. And in my opinion, correct on all counts. I have NEVER been to a tournament where these rules were not explained at the start of the tournament or at the sign up table, NEVER, and I play a LOT. I’ve sponsored these hole in one prizes, and sold the policies also. There has always been a witness at the hole. (who knows the rules)It sounds like FFA dropped the ball on this one. I have heard the statement that this kid is a member of a High School Golf team. Assuming he knows the rules, I assume he must have a lawyer relative or friend, and this was the “goose that laid the golden egg” as most “lawyers vs. insurance companies” appear to the plaintiff to be. Any way, to me it is disgusting to pursue legal action against the FFA, after I’m sure 90% of all the people he knows that golf informed him that his assumption was wrong. Well that’s enough, the outcome is here. Des Moines register’s website tells the final story, or simply search “hole in one lawsuit” and you’ll find that a good portion of us readers were correct in forecasting this outcome. Enjoy all your comments always, they sure beat the forums on MSN or Yahoo. They would all be blaming democrats or republicans for this event taking place!!!
Shots: A shot is a stroke as defined by the USGA Rules of Golf. No practice shots or mulligans are permitted on the Target Hole.
The tournament director should have made certain that somebody was watching the hole and making the instructions clear. “No mulligans, no practice shots”.
However, the kid needs to give the charity a break. He at the very least, stretched the rules, and the only recourse he is going to get is possibly taking $10,000 from a non-profit group that is probably short on funds to begin with. As most of the H-in-1 policies I buy are direct via the net, I doubt there is an agent to chase for E&O.
Dilbert, this is the ultimate example of why people should not buy insurance from the internet, A good agent would provide the correct information and advise as to what the tournament should do and the policy provisions that apply. If you buy the insurance without knowing what options are available, then don’t blame anyone for not providing the coverage you really needed, since you bought online to get “a better deal”. Justin, I can only assume you have no idea what we are talking about. The charity bought an insurance policy that would pay out the prize funds “or a large percentage of it” if someone made a whole in ONE shot on a specific prenamed hole. Obviously the chances are low that it will actually happen and in fact it did NOT happen in this case since the 18 year old claimant shot twice. as far as “Idot golfer” Not sure if this was supposed to be “idiot” or not. I would guess that if the tournament officials posted the rules correctly and did make mention the mulligans were not allowed on the prize hole that they have nothing to worry about, However if they bought the coverage on the internet without an agent, they could certainly be made to look like idiots in court if they had little to no knowledge of policy provisions and the use of mulligans.
This entire case will either prove to be a complete waste of time and still make 2 lawyers richer or it will be because some one failed to perform specific duties and will still likely result in no money being awarded. Although we must remember a weasel attorney could wind up convincing a jury that this KID should get pain and suffering and loss of consortium because he can’t perform for his girlfriend due to the defamation of his character that has been caused by his frivalous suit against a non profit charity. Makes him look like, well, a cry baby in my humble opinion. Someday when this BOY matures he will hopefully look back and say” what an inexperienced young thing I was to have done this”, how do I make it right?
Or he will become a smuck attorney because he sees how easy it is to get a settlement out of someone.
The charity appears to be on the hook for the prize and it should be paid. I am betting the court will see it the same way. Shame on the tournament director for not clearly spelling out the rules. The tournament charged a fee above the normal cost of a round of golf, and hole in one contests, closest to the pin and longest drive promotions are common enticements to draw people to golf tournaments, charity sponsored or not.
I fully agree that it is normal to disallow any practice swings, mulligans, do overs, etc… for hole in one contests. In my experience, the rules are spelled out clearly in less of half of the tournaments I have played in. Many do specifically outline the rules including “no mulligans” on prize holes.
In the absence of any rule clearly outlined in the tournament registration, tournament rules, or on the “hole in one” sponsorship signage on the hole itself outlining the rules, one could and should logically assume that a mulligan can be used to replace any shot at any time unless specific prohibitions are clearly outlined as to how they may be used. If you miss a birdie putt and use the mulligan to putt again, you get the birdie. If you use it to replace your tee shot and the mulligan goes in the hole, it is a hole in one. The PGA won’t sanction it as there is no such thing as a mulligan anywhere to be found in the rules of golf. But the PGA didn’t sponsor this tourament; the FFA did and by offering a mulligan package and taking money in return for it, they modified the rules of golf as they chose to define them for this tournament. They screwed up by remaining silent to the matter of how mulligans can be used and assumed participants would understand that you can’t use a mulligan on a hole in one contest hole. Why did they assume that. What about the next par three that did not have a hole in one contest on it. If this same foursome all hit their tee shots in the woods and they used a mulligan and got a hole in one would anyone have argued that they could not put a “one” on their scorecard. I doubt it. It would have counted. That is what mulligans are for and that is how they work. Everyone in insurance knows ambiguity always results in favorable rulings for the insured and this is no different.
I personally wouldn’t take it to court and this prize would not have changed my life. But it may change the life of this 18 year old. It may allow him to go to college. Maybe he will acquire wealth and make a contribution in like amount to FFA some day. Pay him the money.
And ,hey kid, my guess is you have the law on your side on this one, but so what. The charity volunteers are professionals at helping people and not at running golf tournaments. Cut FFA some slack and send the lawyers home. Everyone makes mistakes and this one was not intentional. Go on Oprah and Letterman and tell your story, get your fifteen minutes of fame and earn appearance money well in excess of the this now stained prize. Make your parents and America proud of you.
JR,
I’ll take your $500 and give you 100 swings to get a hole in one any day on a 196 yard hole. Better yet, hit as many as you want for the rest of your life paying me $5 per swing and I’ll bet I come out on top.
Every tournament that I have ever played where a significant prize is available to be won has had a spotter from the insurance company present (and awake). The spotter should know the rules. If the players were never told they couldn’t use their mulligans for prizes, what would be the purpose behind selling (or buying) them? I’m sure there were prizes for low score. Are you saying they shouldn’t lower their score if they used a mulligan that was clearly sold for the intent of replaying a shot?
Since I don’t know all the particulars of this case, it is hard not to say “PAY THE KID!” Shame on the tournament officals and the golf course for offering promotions they are not willing to give away when the players were not fully advised of the rules. I’m sure they paid the prizes for low total scores – which must have included the mulligans.
Please read the “tie goes to the runner” post and my reply to it from earlier on in this forum. The way it ends up, it APPEARS the charity didn’t explain the rules or didn’t know them before the tourney started, and this policy (same as any I have ever sold)doesn’t allow for more than one chance at it. Any of you that play in golf outings have probably had the opportunity to buy mulligans if the event chooses to offer them, and they always tell you where they can and can’t be used. Apparently, no host or organizer at this event did so. I think the kid, on a high school golf team, probably knew it wasn’t right, but took the approach that since “nobody said you couldn’t, then you can” attitude, THEN APPARENTLY made a great shot, then lawyered up. I say apparently because if no “monitor” was there at the tee to tell him he couldn’t use a mulligan on a hole in ONE prize hole, was there anyone there aside from his high school friends to witness it at all? Either way, I would have not pursued it, because I know the rules. It HAS BEEN a good discussion board though.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the players should not be able to lower their OVERALL score for all holes played, but on a hole that has a prize for a hole in one, a mulligan does not erase your mistake. This is the way I have always seen it and sold it. I have had a few tournaments that had officials from the company on hand, but not any of this caliber for a small charity. Obviously if it was not disclosed or placed on the officials rules list there is a problem. My guess on this is that the insurance company is off the hook, and the charity will probably be found negligent for not disclosing the mulligan provision in the rules. Even if the charity was allowing the mulligans to reduce total scores, does not mean that the insurance policy allowed mulligans at all. If it were officially posted that the mulligans could NOT be used on prize holes, then this entire blog has been a waste of time, moreover the teenagers lawsuit has been a waste of time and I hope the charity countersues for damages.
If the officials were selling these $5.00 “mulligan’s” to the contestants, how in the world can they then claim these “Mulligans” don’t count for the $$? Sounds like typical BS to me. I think he should have settled for $50,000 because of the tournament officials’ stupidity, and audacity to even claim his hole in one was not “legal”.
mul·li·gan
n.
A golf shot not tallied against the score, granted in informal play after a poor shot especially from the tee.
I hardly think a tournament is INFORMAL play. and No one is suggesting that the mulligan would not help his score, but it does not remove the fact that he had one chance to hit a hole in one and he blew it, I do not know if it shanked out of the park or even landed on the green, the point will not count for his score, but he did not hit a hole in one according to any rule of golf I have ever seen. If it where official PGA play, it would not matter because they dont allow it.
Insurance has nothing to do with this. Why should the participant know or care what an insurance policy says ? The liability is between the participant and the tournament folks. I don’t care if they pay out of pocket or pay by way of a policy. That is between them and the insurance company. Obviously golf’s rules are not being used if mulligans are allowed and being paid for. So if I pay for 1 and use it – then dont complain – just pay up.
I believe this whole thing revolved around insurance, since there was a policy involved. It is not likely that the FFA could think about giving away $10,000 to some 18 y/o punk, but it looks like they will be giving away some. The issue was if the tournament advisors were responsible since they apparently did not post all the rules. However I think most people (at least those with a brain) agree that a mulligan does not mean 2 shots equal 1.
Please let this be the end>>>>>>>>
What the hell, if the Kid got over on the Insurance policy-holders, then good for him. If any of US could have gotten away with what he has, wouldn’t we have done the same thing?????????????????? BE HONEST AT LEAST TO YOURSELF.
All I am saying is that an insurance policy with the tournament and an insurance company has nothing to do with a participant in an event who has an implied contract with the tournament organizers. To let them off the hook because their policy doesn’t cover it shouldn’t be the answer. It appears that there has been a settlement – which is probably the fairest response. The organizers should have some responsibility. I am sure it will lead to better communication in other events that are similar.
Mac, I could not agree more with your last post, Sorry if I misunderstood, as far as Woody, NO I dont think that just because you can GET something that it is right, this mentalality is what drives scum sucking lawyers into corrupting what is left of any morals we used to have. The whole reason for this tournament was to raise funds for a charity that apparently reaches out and helps people in some way. It is reprehensible in my humble opinion to go after a charitable organization because you found a loophole in the plan. If it were a for profit organization that could afford it, I still don’t think it would be appropriate. When we start looking for a way to gain for ourselves at the expense of others (especially charities) we have become an evil society, but I guess we are already there. How many people will not be helped by this charity because of this punks ill gotten gain? I hope he does something worthwhile with his loot, other than buying a new set of clubs.
Did he sign up for this event to help the charity or to figure out how to make a buck? the end result is he screwed them out of any money they would have made on the tournament. I hope he remembers this and learns a lesson as he matures, he certainly has a way to go, as do a lot of people today. If there is a lesson to be learned here it is Don’t be on the committe of any charity or you can get screwed if you don’t spell out everything in a way that evil minded people could see no way to screw you. CYA because if you dont somebody will take a piece of it.
JR – Not sure if the kid was really looking for a loophole. I think the kid really thought he won the prize and I don’t think that it is his fault that he thought this way. The way I see it – kid (18) buys a mulligan – chooses to use it on a Par 3 – tournament officials should have been there to say he coulnd’t (and they weren’t) – tees up again and hits a miracle shot that goes in – everybody celebrates him winning the money – calls friends during the next few holes telling them of his accomplishment – then tournament folks say that he didn’t win. I think it is fine for everyone to have an opinion about what is right but I also belive that the kid thought that he won this fair and square and then it was taken away. Like I said before – some culpability on the tournament’s part is probably the right result.
Hey Clueless – I think a mulligan DOES mean that 2 shots equals 1. Isn’t that what a stupid mulligan is all about ? The golf cummunity has created a monster called a mulligan so live with it or eliminate it completely. I have always played competitive basketball – we never stop the game and give any of the players a second (or mulligan shot). Golf (although it espouses to be a game of tradition) has some of the craziest nontraditional things that they do. But it is all about money – they bend the rules more than any other pro sport – FOR MONEY. It is a money driven game with rules that bend when money is to be made.
I will say it again as per Webster
mul-li-gan
n.
A golf shot not tallied against the score, granted in informal play after a poor shot especially from the tee.
This definition does not indicate anything other than the shot does not count against the score, it in no way means that a hole in 2 equals a hole in one. It means that if you shot a 76 on your round and you use a mulligan your score would be 75, but you would not receive any award for any hole in which a do-over was made. In this case that was not posted, but I sure this kid probably knew that, but proceeded to continue on his pursuit of money
And it is NOT a sanctioned practice in golf, it is not used in pro golf partially because it is a joke. He missed the hole, he goes not get credited for a hole in one.
Whether he intended to find a loophole or not, whether he thought he won or not is not offset by the fact he did file a lawsuit to get what the charity can not afford and what he did not earn. I assume the terms of the settlement were sealed or something because it has not been released, but I am sure that the lawyers fees were certainly more than the $10,000 prize. Other than publicity, I can’t think of why any lawyer would take such a pathetic case, but then I would have to think like a lawyer, and I pray to GOD I never do that. The lesson I see is that no matter what good deed you attempt, somebody will find fault or a problem that will cost you in the end.
Golfers know what mulligans are? gemees for those that are not proficient in the game, but they also know that they are never going to win a tournament if you need to use a mulligan.
Another lesson, miracles do happen, as evidenced by this kid making a hole in two. (Since the mulligan really doesn’t remove the wasted shot)
You don’t HAVE to be a gentleman to play golf, but it sure helps. A blown tee shot means you are hitting three with your second tee shot. Free mulligans, give me a break.
As mulligans were paid for and not free, and part of the tournament, policy should pay. Under the special events form, there is no exclusion for mulligans for outings. Proper coverage should have been purchased from the carrier. If nothing else the E&O of the agency placing coverage will react.
I was kind of annoyed when I read the headline that anyone would even try to argue that a mulligan is valid.
But, what was the $5.00 mulligan purchased (from tournament officials) all about? Sounds to me like the insurance company is off the hook but that the tournament sponsor will probably have to pony up the $10k.
It would seem that somebody is likely to pay and from my vantage point it will likely be the association group. The association group sponsoring the event will likely employee a risk manager in the future to insurer that the prinicipals do not make promises that were not contemplated when insurance was secured.
PAY THE LUCKY &*%^@%&$&
He bought a MULLIGAN BALL…
As a golfer it sounds like this guy made par. A great shot but he’s not buying drinks for anyone since it was not his first stroke. It’s good for high fives from your buddies, that’s all.
Forget the mulligans, let’s go by the rules of golf.
Also, the guy should remember that this is a charity event and he’s now making the FFA pay for defense. Thanks to him not being kind they are now out more than they probably made on the event.
I agree with JAnger. He paid the insurance for a free swing by paying for the mulligan that was in the rules of the tourney. The assoc. should have paid for proper insurance for the hole-in-one.
Now you’ll tell us that he also won the new driver and trophy for the low gross contest by two strokes because he took a 1 on his score card on said fifth hole. Give me a break Adam.
obviously, we have found yet another way to turn something fun into a bone of legal contention. therefore, this is something any tourney with a like grand prize must be extra careful about. it’s always something…….
Please note that there was no “Free” mulligan…
The player purchased the mulligan for $ 5.00 and therefore should be awarded the $ 10K prize….
Since no one here has identified themselves as having inside knowledge of the the policy in question, or the whacked out deal with selling mulligans, I will have to wait on the jury, BUT if I had to put my 2 cents in it would be that Janger steps way out of line to suggest somehow that the agent E&O should pay. The only way I would go for this is if the policy does exclude mulligans and the agent was aware they were selling them (new one for me)and did not offer additional coverage or suggested it was covered in some way. Since I have never heard of selling a mulligan, I doubt the agent has done anything wrong, My guess is that the promoter or the non profit group saw another way to make $5 and jumped on it without asking their agents advise. Unless someone can show me a golf rule book that says a mulligan (purchased or not) erases the wiff from the score card, he still swung more than the one time required by the contest.
I agree that mulligans are not allowed under USGA rules. However, this was not a USGA sponsored/sanctioned event, it was a fund raaising event. If they sold mulligans, then obviously the players can use mulligans, which makes the mulligan shot in this case a hole-in-one.
Not being in the production or underwriting end, I am just curious as to whether, as part of the application/underwriting process, a full set of the tournament rules was obtained/proffered at placement.
Assuming that the policy wording is silent about the use of mulligans in charity events, and if the rules turned in to the producer didn’t include the fact that mulligans could be purchased (common at fundraisers) and used for “prize holes”, and that wasn’t conveyed to the underwriter, it appears to me that the carrier is off the hook. Being able to “officially” use mulligans sounds to me like it would be a material fact affecting the exposure, and thus the underwriters willingness to accept the risk.
In the tournaments that I’ve played in where mulligans could be purchased, it was clearly stated in the tournament rules that mulligans could not be used on the “prize” holes. If the FFA didn’t set that out in its tournament rules, and the coverage denial is appropriate, then it sounds like, unfortunately, the FFA is on the hook. That’s too bad, because $10,000 is probably more than the net made off of the event.
I’m just wondering if the placing agent had enough experience in the product to ask the right questions of the FFA.
And, even though it’s a lot of money, it’s a shame that this guy feels the need to sue a non-profit organization for what sounds like was a tremendously fortuitous event. He may well be within his rights, but I’ve never known a skunk to be welcome at a picnic.
as a golfer i have (i think ) never played in a tournament where they didn’t exclude mulligans from winning special events such as a 10000prize or a car standard operating procedure p. s. mulligans add a little bit of fun (sometimes) and extra revenue for the charity etc
Pay the guy. A hole in one even using a Mulligani (I’M ITALIAN) is a remarkable feat.
…this case is too bizarre. This was a charity event, intended to raise money for this FFA. Here comes a bloke, who technically missed his first shot, and took a “mulligan.” He was able to replay his shot, but then he has a 3 on his scorecard. This loser deserves nothing. but the bill for court time. There are times where I wished we followed the British rule of law when it came to who pays for the court costs…in England, the loser pays…would certainly stop this sort of silliness.
If you dont want to give away any money dont have any prizes!!!!!
I don’t understand how anyone, especially a fund raising entity, can claim to duck responsibility because they don’t have insurance. If the hole-on-one prize did not stipulate that mulligans could not be used (and why else would you buy them?) what possible leg could they ahve to stand on?
I don’t understand how any event that sells and/or even just allows mulligans can then start arguing from the rules of golf. (Harvery Pennick, “If it’s not according to the rules of golf, it’s some other game.”)
I don’t understand how someone buys an insurance policy and doesn’t bother to read the definitions, exclusions or limitations.
I don’t understand how anyone can say that one ball, hit one time from a tee is not a hole in one, if it goes directly into the hole. It doesn’t matter if the score on that hole is a one or a twelve (lost balls in water, e.g.), that’s a hole in one.
The tee shot replay was fairly obtained by virtue of the $5.00 payment for the mulligan.That purchse legally made the second tee shot the first tee shot.If the policy has no exclusion,as one of the prior writers maintains,then the company owes the money.From the kid’s standpoint he had a legitimate tee shot go into the hole and he won the money, and wants to be paid. $10,000 to not only him but to a lot of others is a meaningful amount, so don’t be so quick to criticize him for wanting it.That the sponsor let it go this far for so long says little for their judgement.
Earle
Jim,There seems to be a lot of things you don’t understand. A tournament sells mulligans so the golfers can use them to reduce their golf score on their score card. If the golfer used 5 mulligans to reduce his final score by 5, and then won a tournament prize for low score he would have legitimately won that prize. A hole in one contest has nothing to do with a golf score or tournament score prizes. It is simply “a hole in one shot” on that hole. This guy took 2 shots to get it in so he did not qualify for the prize. The $5 mulligan ticket was not sold or purchased as an extra entry ticket for for the hole in contest. If it was, every good golfer would spend $100 for 20 mulligan tickets for 20 extra shots at the $10,000. If this guy was good enough to hit the ball that well, he knows the rules and how the tournament works. He’s just abusing the system and will now change the way every future tournament has to be set up.
I put him on level with all the other idiots who are screwing up our society by making us spell out written rules and restrictions on everything, just because they are too stupid to use common sense.
As a Tournament Director, I have researched Hole in one insurance, I have yet to find a company that does not exclude the use of mulligans. The Mulligan excusion is generally in bold print in the contract. Nothing buried. For my future event, we will not longer sell mulligans. It puts my charity organization on the line, and the Club House that writes the rules and presents them to the golfers at the outing. Next it will be fighting over the longest drive contest,or closest to the pin. I think most golfers coming out to charity events are there for the charity, and are stand up guys. Too bad everyone loses in this case.
So the prize is $10,000 for a hole in one on the 5th hole, mulligans are $5 each?
I would like $500 worth of mulligans please. I stand the chance to make $9500 if I make it in the cup within 100 swings.
SOUNDS PRETTY STUPID TO ME. You get one chance to sink a shot on a specified hole, the mulligan will reduce your overall score for the entire 9 or 18 holes but does not give you as many practice shots as you want for the prize
Adam was 18 years old at the time. He didn’t pay the $5.00’s, someone else on the team did. So, it was not officially his mulligan. Too bad cheap-skate.
Well said. And in my opinion, correct on all counts. I have NEVER been to a tournament where these rules were not explained at the start of the tournament or at the sign up table, NEVER, and I play a LOT. I’ve sponsored these hole in one prizes, and sold the policies also. There has always been a witness at the hole. (who knows the rules)It sounds like FFA dropped the ball on this one. I have heard the statement that this kid is a member of a High School Golf team. Assuming he knows the rules, I assume he must have a lawyer relative or friend, and this was the “goose that laid the golden egg” as most “lawyers vs. insurance companies” appear to the plaintiff to be. Any way, to me it is disgusting to pursue legal action against the FFA, after I’m sure 90% of all the people he knows that golf informed him that his assumption was wrong. Well that’s enough, the outcome is here. Des Moines register’s website tells the final story, or simply search “hole in one lawsuit” and you’ll find that a good portion of us readers were correct in forecasting this outcome. Enjoy all your comments always, they sure beat the forums on MSN or Yahoo. They would all be blaming democrats or republicans for this event taking place!!!
From my latest H-in-1 insurance contract:
Shots: A shot is a stroke as defined by the USGA Rules of Golf. No practice shots or mulligans are permitted on the Target Hole.
The tournament director should have made certain that somebody was watching the hole and making the instructions clear. “No mulligans, no practice shots”.
However, the kid needs to give the charity a break. He at the very least, stretched the rules, and the only recourse he is going to get is possibly taking $10,000 from a non-profit group that is probably short on funds to begin with. As most of the H-in-1 policies I buy are direct via the net, I doubt there is an agent to chase for E&O.
Why would the charity be offering a $10,000 prize if they don’t want to pay anything?!?!!? That’s just stupid if you ask me.
Sounds like the tournament officials needed some tournament E&O! This is a quite possible case for D&O for the Charity involved!
Dilbert, this is the ultimate example of why people should not buy insurance from the internet, A good agent would provide the correct information and advise as to what the tournament should do and the policy provisions that apply. If you buy the insurance without knowing what options are available, then don’t blame anyone for not providing the coverage you really needed, since you bought online to get “a better deal”. Justin, I can only assume you have no idea what we are talking about. The charity bought an insurance policy that would pay out the prize funds “or a large percentage of it” if someone made a whole in ONE shot on a specific prenamed hole. Obviously the chances are low that it will actually happen and in fact it did NOT happen in this case since the 18 year old claimant shot twice. as far as “Idot golfer” Not sure if this was supposed to be “idiot” or not. I would guess that if the tournament officials posted the rules correctly and did make mention the mulligans were not allowed on the prize hole that they have nothing to worry about, However if they bought the coverage on the internet without an agent, they could certainly be made to look like idiots in court if they had little to no knowledge of policy provisions and the use of mulligans.
This entire case will either prove to be a complete waste of time and still make 2 lawyers richer or it will be because some one failed to perform specific duties and will still likely result in no money being awarded. Although we must remember a weasel attorney could wind up convincing a jury that this KID should get pain and suffering and loss of consortium because he can’t perform for his girlfriend due to the defamation of his character that has been caused by his frivalous suit against a non profit charity. Makes him look like, well, a cry baby in my humble opinion. Someday when this BOY matures he will hopefully look back and say” what an inexperienced young thing I was to have done this”, how do I make it right?
Or he will become a smuck attorney because he sees how easy it is to get a settlement out of someone.
The charity appears to be on the hook for the prize and it should be paid. I am betting the court will see it the same way. Shame on the tournament director for not clearly spelling out the rules. The tournament charged a fee above the normal cost of a round of golf, and hole in one contests, closest to the pin and longest drive promotions are common enticements to draw people to golf tournaments, charity sponsored or not.
I fully agree that it is normal to disallow any practice swings, mulligans, do overs, etc… for hole in one contests. In my experience, the rules are spelled out clearly in less of half of the tournaments I have played in. Many do specifically outline the rules including “no mulligans” on prize holes.
In the absence of any rule clearly outlined in the tournament registration, tournament rules, or on the “hole in one” sponsorship signage on the hole itself outlining the rules, one could and should logically assume that a mulligan can be used to replace any shot at any time unless specific prohibitions are clearly outlined as to how they may be used. If you miss a birdie putt and use the mulligan to putt again, you get the birdie. If you use it to replace your tee shot and the mulligan goes in the hole, it is a hole in one. The PGA won’t sanction it as there is no such thing as a mulligan anywhere to be found in the rules of golf. But the PGA didn’t sponsor this tourament; the FFA did and by offering a mulligan package and taking money in return for it, they modified the rules of golf as they chose to define them for this tournament. They screwed up by remaining silent to the matter of how mulligans can be used and assumed participants would understand that you can’t use a mulligan on a hole in one contest hole. Why did they assume that. What about the next par three that did not have a hole in one contest on it. If this same foursome all hit their tee shots in the woods and they used a mulligan and got a hole in one would anyone have argued that they could not put a “one” on their scorecard. I doubt it. It would have counted. That is what mulligans are for and that is how they work. Everyone in insurance knows ambiguity always results in favorable rulings for the insured and this is no different.
I personally wouldn’t take it to court and this prize would not have changed my life. But it may change the life of this 18 year old. It may allow him to go to college. Maybe he will acquire wealth and make a contribution in like amount to FFA some day. Pay him the money.
And ,hey kid, my guess is you have the law on your side on this one, but so what. The charity volunteers are professionals at helping people and not at running golf tournaments. Cut FFA some slack and send the lawyers home. Everyone makes mistakes and this one was not intentional. Go on Oprah and Letterman and tell your story, get your fifteen minutes of fame and earn appearance money well in excess of the this now stained prize. Make your parents and America proud of you.
JR,
I’ll take your $500 and give you 100 swings to get a hole in one any day on a 196 yard hole. Better yet, hit as many as you want for the rest of your life paying me $5 per swing and I’ll bet I come out on top.
Every tournament that I have ever played where a significant prize is available to be won has had a spotter from the insurance company present (and awake). The spotter should know the rules. If the players were never told they couldn’t use their mulligans for prizes, what would be the purpose behind selling (or buying) them? I’m sure there were prizes for low score. Are you saying they shouldn’t lower their score if they used a mulligan that was clearly sold for the intent of replaying a shot?
Since I don’t know all the particulars of this case, it is hard not to say “PAY THE KID!” Shame on the tournament officals and the golf course for offering promotions they are not willing to give away when the players were not fully advised of the rules. I’m sure they paid the prizes for low total scores – which must have included the mulligans.
Please read the “tie goes to the runner” post and my reply to it from earlier on in this forum. The way it ends up, it APPEARS the charity didn’t explain the rules or didn’t know them before the tourney started, and this policy (same as any I have ever sold)doesn’t allow for more than one chance at it. Any of you that play in golf outings have probably had the opportunity to buy mulligans if the event chooses to offer them, and they always tell you where they can and can’t be used. Apparently, no host or organizer at this event did so. I think the kid, on a high school golf team, probably knew it wasn’t right, but took the approach that since “nobody said you couldn’t, then you can” attitude, THEN APPARENTLY made a great shot, then lawyered up. I say apparently because if no “monitor” was there at the tee to tell him he couldn’t use a mulligan on a hole in ONE prize hole, was there anyone there aside from his high school friends to witness it at all? Either way, I would have not pursued it, because I know the rules. It HAS BEEN a good discussion board though.
I don’t think anyone is saying that the players should not be able to lower their OVERALL score for all holes played, but on a hole that has a prize for a hole in one, a mulligan does not erase your mistake. This is the way I have always seen it and sold it. I have had a few tournaments that had officials from the company on hand, but not any of this caliber for a small charity. Obviously if it was not disclosed or placed on the officials rules list there is a problem. My guess on this is that the insurance company is off the hook, and the charity will probably be found negligent for not disclosing the mulligan provision in the rules. Even if the charity was allowing the mulligans to reduce total scores, does not mean that the insurance policy allowed mulligans at all. If it were officially posted that the mulligans could NOT be used on prize holes, then this entire blog has been a waste of time, moreover the teenagers lawsuit has been a waste of time and I hope the charity countersues for damages.
If the officials were selling these $5.00 “mulligan’s” to the contestants, how in the world can they then claim these “Mulligans” don’t count for the $$? Sounds like typical BS to me. I think he should have settled for $50,000 because of the tournament officials’ stupidity, and audacity to even claim his hole in one was not “legal”.
mul·li·gan
n.
A golf shot not tallied against the score, granted in informal play after a poor shot especially from the tee.
I hardly think a tournament is INFORMAL play. and No one is suggesting that the mulligan would not help his score, but it does not remove the fact that he had one chance to hit a hole in one and he blew it, I do not know if it shanked out of the park or even landed on the green, the point will not count for his score, but he did not hit a hole in one according to any rule of golf I have ever seen. If it where official PGA play, it would not matter because they dont allow it.
Insurance has nothing to do with this. Why should the participant know or care what an insurance policy says ? The liability is between the participant and the tournament folks. I don’t care if they pay out of pocket or pay by way of a policy. That is between them and the insurance company. Obviously golf’s rules are not being used if mulligans are allowed and being paid for. So if I pay for 1 and use it – then dont complain – just pay up.
I believe this whole thing revolved around insurance, since there was a policy involved. It is not likely that the FFA could think about giving away $10,000 to some 18 y/o punk, but it looks like they will be giving away some. The issue was if the tournament advisors were responsible since they apparently did not post all the rules. However I think most people (at least those with a brain) agree that a mulligan does not mean 2 shots equal 1.
Please let this be the end>>>>>>>>
What the hell, if the Kid got over on the Insurance policy-holders, then good for him. If any of US could have gotten away with what he has, wouldn’t we have done the same thing?????????????????? BE HONEST AT LEAST TO YOURSELF.
All I am saying is that an insurance policy with the tournament and an insurance company has nothing to do with a participant in an event who has an implied contract with the tournament organizers. To let them off the hook because their policy doesn’t cover it shouldn’t be the answer. It appears that there has been a settlement – which is probably the fairest response. The organizers should have some responsibility. I am sure it will lead to better communication in other events that are similar.
Mac, I could not agree more with your last post, Sorry if I misunderstood, as far as Woody, NO I dont think that just because you can GET something that it is right, this mentalality is what drives scum sucking lawyers into corrupting what is left of any morals we used to have. The whole reason for this tournament was to raise funds for a charity that apparently reaches out and helps people in some way. It is reprehensible in my humble opinion to go after a charitable organization because you found a loophole in the plan. If it were a for profit organization that could afford it, I still don’t think it would be appropriate. When we start looking for a way to gain for ourselves at the expense of others (especially charities) we have become an evil society, but I guess we are already there. How many people will not be helped by this charity because of this punks ill gotten gain? I hope he does something worthwhile with his loot, other than buying a new set of clubs.
Did he sign up for this event to help the charity or to figure out how to make a buck? the end result is he screwed them out of any money they would have made on the tournament. I hope he remembers this and learns a lesson as he matures, he certainly has a way to go, as do a lot of people today. If there is a lesson to be learned here it is Don’t be on the committe of any charity or you can get screwed if you don’t spell out everything in a way that evil minded people could see no way to screw you. CYA because if you dont somebody will take a piece of it.
JR – Not sure if the kid was really looking for a loophole. I think the kid really thought he won the prize and I don’t think that it is his fault that he thought this way. The way I see it – kid (18) buys a mulligan – chooses to use it on a Par 3 – tournament officials should have been there to say he coulnd’t (and they weren’t) – tees up again and hits a miracle shot that goes in – everybody celebrates him winning the money – calls friends during the next few holes telling them of his accomplishment – then tournament folks say that he didn’t win. I think it is fine for everyone to have an opinion about what is right but I also belive that the kid thought that he won this fair and square and then it was taken away. Like I said before – some culpability on the tournament’s part is probably the right result.
Hey Clueless – I think a mulligan DOES mean that 2 shots equals 1. Isn’t that what a stupid mulligan is all about ? The golf cummunity has created a monster called a mulligan so live with it or eliminate it completely. I have always played competitive basketball – we never stop the game and give any of the players a second (or mulligan shot). Golf (although it espouses to be a game of tradition) has some of the craziest nontraditional things that they do. But it is all about money – they bend the rules more than any other pro sport – FOR MONEY. It is a money driven game with rules that bend when money is to be made.
I will say it again as per Webster
mul-li-gan
n.
A golf shot not tallied against the score, granted in informal play after a poor shot especially from the tee.
This definition does not indicate anything other than the shot does not count against the score, it in no way means that a hole in 2 equals a hole in one. It means that if you shot a 76 on your round and you use a mulligan your score would be 75, but you would not receive any award for any hole in which a do-over was made. In this case that was not posted, but I sure this kid probably knew that, but proceeded to continue on his pursuit of money
And it is NOT a sanctioned practice in golf, it is not used in pro golf partially because it is a joke. He missed the hole, he goes not get credited for a hole in one.
Whether he intended to find a loophole or not, whether he thought he won or not is not offset by the fact he did file a lawsuit to get what the charity can not afford and what he did not earn. I assume the terms of the settlement were sealed or something because it has not been released, but I am sure that the lawyers fees were certainly more than the $10,000 prize. Other than publicity, I can’t think of why any lawyer would take such a pathetic case, but then I would have to think like a lawyer, and I pray to GOD I never do that. The lesson I see is that no matter what good deed you attempt, somebody will find fault or a problem that will cost you in the end.
Golfers know what mulligans are? gemees for those that are not proficient in the game, but they also know that they are never going to win a tournament if you need to use a mulligan.
Another lesson, miracles do happen, as evidenced by this kid making a hole in two. (Since the mulligan really doesn’t remove the wasted shot)
you guys have way too much time on your hands. WHO CARES!