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!
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.
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.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
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.