I think the mystery I referred to in the post is solved, so I’m turning off the comments.

I think there are better places to discuss these grievances, such as an online forum or a court of law.

Concerned is throwing up a smokescreen and is trying to get the target issue pushed into obscurity.

There is one overriding issue – Smartcruiser, BPC, LJ and the others sold illegal insurance from an unlicensed provider who in addition did not have an underwriter.
Not once (with Trip Assured) but TWICE.

Quote:
(7) breach of fiduciary duty [ Unlike travel suppliers and
tour operators, travel agents have a fiduciary relationship with their customers [ see Brown v. Hambric40 ( travel agents are “ professionals and fiduciaries and are expected to be
knowledgeable of the travel services they sell “ )

[d] Consumer Remedies & Penalties

[i]-United States

Any violation of a Travel Seller statute should, as
it does in Florida……constitute a violation the each State’s Consumer Protection Act giving rise to a private right of action and entitling the consumer to treble damages, attorneys fees and costs.

It also appears from Peters demand Mr Smolinski did not fulfill his fiduciary responsibilities by NOT buying insurance from anyone for three months.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT.

After my post last night, I re-read the entire blog again and still felt like that dog chasing his tail. I was caught by the fact that the language in Peter’s letter to Smolinski was very similar in tone and content to language posted by Arthur. Maybe you noticed the same thing. Robert, I think you may be putting 2 and 2 together too. I went back to an email that I sent to Arthur for help a few weeks ago and at the bottom of the email was a fax number he provided me to send him documents. I won’t list the fax number he gave me here due to privacy concerns, but when I Googled the number it came up as belonging to Peter Lay. I believe due to this fact that Peter Lay and Arthur are the same blogger.

Another item that I didn’t notice until I re-read Peter’s letter to Smolinski was item #17 which stated, “Thank you for sending me the e-mail from Jerry Watson. To ask a former felon and perpetrator of the scam to give himself a reference is beyond my comprehension.” This is further proof that Smolinski had been communicating with Peter contrary to Peter’s assertions otherwise that Smolinski had been ignoring him.

Peter also indicated in item #12 claiming Smolinski knew that Watson was a convicted felon because it was public record. I have tried to find this information online but have unable myself. Could someone point me in the direction as to where I can find it? Many people on this blog mentioned this as a true fact, but I can’t find it anywhere.

I am also confused with what you said Robert about documents in people’s possession with reference to Trip Assured lawsuit. I could not find any of these documents online either. Granted I don’t have access to the tools that lawyers have. Are these posted in a certain court docket? If Peter Lay a/k/a Arthur has documents such as these in his possession then they must be readily available on a court docket. I am not a lawyer but was involved in a lawsuit and when the case ended we were required to destroy all documents obtained in discovery. My belief is that the public is not entitled access to documents provided by the litigating parties unless they have been entered into a court record or used as evidence in a trial. Did the Trip Assured case go to trial? Is there a lawyer here that can answer these questions?

I am now of the belief that Peter a/k/a Arthur is confusing this blog with irrelevant and misleading information and should provide the communications between Smolinski and himself. I don’t know about you, but I am really curious about seeing this information, especially the “email from Jerry Watson to Smolinski” that he mentions in item #17 and even more so, the “suggestion of Smolinski” that was stated at the end of his parable.

What do you have to say Peter?? Arthur??

The issue is simple…there are several agencies who sold their clients an unauthorized, illegal trip protection plan between 2001-’06. The company they used, Trip Assured was run out of business by several state regulators including Florida. The travel trade published extensively about this matter. Despite this, we know of three prominent Florida agencies – Best Price Cruises, Legendary Journeys, and Palm Coast Travel that began selling the exact same product within months of the demise of Trip Assured. THIS IS THE ISSUE!

Can we agree on this, and get our cause out of the ditch and back on the road? Your comments are welcome.

Concerned is throwing up a smokescreen and is trying to get the target issue pushed into obscurity.

There is one overriding issue – Smartcruiser, BPC, LJ and the others sold illegal insurance from an unlicensed provider who in addition did not have an underwriter.
Not once (with Trip Assured) but TWICE.

Quote:
(7) breach of fiduciary duty [ Unlike travel suppliers and
tour operators, travel agents have a fiduciary relationship with their customers [ see Brown v. Hambric40 ( travel agents are “ professionals and fiduciaries and are expected to be
knowledgeable of the travel services they sell “ )

[d] Consumer Remedies & Penalties

[i]-United States

Any violation of a Travel Seller statute should, as
it does in Florida……constitute a violation the each State’s Consumer Protection Act giving rise to a private right of action and entitling the consumer to treble damages, attorneys fees and costs.

It also appears from Peters demand Mr Smolinski did not fulfill his fiduciary responsibilities by NOT buying insurance from anyone for three months.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT.

In his point number 14 he claims to have papers showing that Mr. Smolinski’s agency was a client of Mr. Watson in 2006 and earned a commission of 40%. This is not completely accurate. Mr. Smolinski’s agency, Palm Coast Travel/SmartCruiser was working with Trip Assured as evidenced by the legal documents Mr. Lay refers to. However, Palm Coast Travel/SmartCruiser’s representative, according to the document, was not Jerry Watson. The number 40 refers to what appears to be a commission structure. For Palm Coast Travel/Smart Cruiser the number appears as 40/49. Mr. Watson was the representative for Legendary Journeys and Best Price Cruises, but by 2006 he was no longer with Trip Assured. The name of the representative for Palm Coast Travel/SmartCruiser is irrelevant to this discussion.

Mr. Lay also contends that Mr. Watson’s previous companies were issued cease and desists by seven states. This is incorrect. Mr. Watson’s previous company, Traveler Protection Services was issued a cease and desist in May ‘08 by the state of Tennessee. This order was signed by Mr. Watson. An earlier company, Vacation Protection Services was also ordered to cease and desist by the Tennessee authorities. This order was issued in December ‘06, however there is no reference to the fact that Mr. Watson was associated with this company at the time of the order. It is known that at one time he was affiliated with this company, however.

Peter is obviously angry at Mr. Smolinski for denying his claim. However, the issues he has presented are secondary to the fact that this is the second time Mr. Smolinski’s agency has engaged in the sale of an unlicensed travel protection policy.