Litigation to Continue in Miami as Spartan Race Stumbles in Class Action Over Insurance Fee
Since the judge denied the change-of-venue request and Spartan Race's most recent motion to stay all discovery, an attorney for the plaintiff said, "Now we will depose all of the executives."
June 01, 2020 at 03:35 PM
4 minute read
The organizers of the Spartan Race just ran into another legal obstacle.
U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom in Miami denied a motion by Spartan Race Inc. to both have a class action dismissed and venue transferred to a court in Massachusetts. Bloom also allowed depositions to proceed.
The case is a financial and public relations problem for Spartan Race as it competes with other competitors in the growing field of obstacle races. The complaint included an allegation that Spartan Race has taken millions of dollars from consumers in violation of Florida and common law for its "racer insurance fee," and that Spartan Race "pockets nearly all."
Florida native Aaron Fruitstone is the lead plaintiff in the case. He is among hundreds of thousands of athletes in the state and across the country that have competed in a Spartan Race. To participate, athletes had to pay a $14 insurance fee, "which Spartan Race secretly pocketed," alleged plaintiffs counsel Adam Moskowitz, who's handling the Florida litigation.
"We sued them for fraud, and we expanded it recently to nationwide because we are using the Massachusetts consumer statue where they're based," Moskowitz said.
Since Bloom denied the change-of-venue request and Spartan Race's most recent motion to stay all discovery, Moskowitz is looking toward the next move.
"Now we will depose all of the executives," he said.
Scott Bassman, a partner at Cole, Scott & Kissane in Fort Lauderdale who represents Spartan Race in this case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Spartan Race has athletic events that take place across the globe in different terrains and various distances at each chosen venue. These competitions often involve running long distances while navigating challenging obstacles. For instance, an upcoming race in Mulberry, Florida, advertises a "21K Beast and 5K spring weekend" which is a half marathon that has 30 obstacles "engineered to push you out of your comfort zone and right up to your limits." Prices for that event start at $129.99.
The lawsuit claimed that the required insurance coverage is "secondary" and the company forced its "insurance scheme" upon the racers. Since the insurance is secondary, the athlete would be required to first utilize its own health insurance coverage with all the difficulty that ensues when seeking coverage for a medical expense. Following exhaustion of the athlete's primary coverage, Spartan Race's medical coverage could be utilized after satisfying a $500 deductible.
"That's a big deal because a lot of these companies charge you these insurance charges, which is just a pass-through," Moskowitz said. "They don't offer the insurance, they just keep a secret kickback, which they really are not allowed to because they are not an insurance company."
|Read the order:
|In its reply to plaintiff's response to the motion to transfer venue, Spartan Race said the athletes participating in its races agreed to a binding contract. In that contract, the registration payment total included a "mandatory administrative and racer insurance fee."
Spartan Race's website includes a FAQ section, in which it claimed to have purchased "accident medical insurance coverage from a licensed third-party insurance carrier," which was secondary coverage to the racers' primary medical coverage and was subject to the $500 deductible. The webpage does not say how much Spartan Race paid for the third-party medical insurance coverage.
Spartan Race claimed it did not make any "misrepresentation or misstatement as to how the $14 fee is calculated or allocated." Because of this assertion, Spartan Race insisted that a participating athlete could not reasonably expect that the racer insurance fee would only be distributed to the "third-party insurance carrier," rather than being retained by Spartan Race itself.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
Wachtell Helps Miami Dolphins Secure One of NFL’s First Private Equity Deals
3 minute read$1,575 Daily Interest Is Being Added in This Landmark Miami Case
Disney's Black Eye Over Arbitration Gambit Likely to Linger, Underscoring PR Risks of Spurning Courts
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyers Scramble to Secure Jobs Ahead of A&O Shearman's South Africa Closure
- 2Big Law's Biggest Stories (UK Edition) For 2024
- 3Luigi Mangione Indicted in Federal Court for Stalking, Murder and Firearms Offenses
- 4Biggest Legal Tech People Moves of 2024
- 5NY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250