Kings Island loses$20 million

[marlfox_21]

I do not want for anyone to question where this came from. This is from "The Pulse Journal" and is a staff report, from March 31, 2008. ( so everyone knows this is not plaguarism ) I currently have no way to copy, paste, etc., so I am simply going to type it out.

Kings Island LOSES $20M INSURANCE CASE

Kings Island cannot collect more than $20 mil. in insurance damages from Admiral Insurance Company, the 12th District Court of Appeals ruled.

In November, 2000, Paramount filed a complaint in the trial court against RCCO for breach of contract, breach of warranties and negligence, involving the Son of Beast coaster. The coaster had flaws resulting in K. I. having to close the ride several times. A Son of Beast accident also sent 27 people to the hospital in 2006. K.I. continues to deal with lawsuits filed in Warren County Common Pleas Court stemming from that accident.

In 2002, a federal court granted Paramount a default judgement against RCCO, and in 2005, ordered RCCO to pay more than $20 mil. in damages to Paramount. Paramount then asked Admiral to pay the damages, and Admiral refused. In 2006 Paramount filed a complaint against Admiral, alleging that Admiral was required to pay the damages.

On April 26,2007, a trial court granted judgement in favor of Admiral and against Paramount, finding that Paramount's claims against RCCO were not covered by the policy. On appeal, Paramount argued that the trial court erred by granting judgement in favor of Admiral. Paramount claimed that RCCO's shoddy workmanship caused the wood on Son of Beast to break, and that the breaking of the wood was an accident, and Paramount negligence claims against RCCO were covered by the policy. As a result, according to Kings Island, Admiral was required to pay the damage award of more than $20 mil.

But the 12th District Court of Appeals announced this week that it has upheld the trial court's decision. The presiding judge noted that Admiral's policy applies to property damage only if the aproperty damage is caused by an accident. The judge also noted that claims for negligent manufacture or for defective or negligent workmanship are generally not covered under such a policy.

This judge ruled, and 2 other judges concurred, that Paramount's negligence claims were not covered under the policy because the complaint never alleged an accident.

The judge had stated that, although on appeal Paramount alleged that an accident occurred- that is, the wood on Son of Beast broke- Paramount never alleged that fact in its original complaint.

The judge concluded that because Paramount's claims were not covered under this policy, Admiral was not required to pay the damage award to Paramount.

King Island officials could not be reached for comment.

[Dane]

See Kings Island Loses $20M Case