IP jackpot dispute

This came up last week, but I’m just getting around to it today. It’s from the Sun-Herald:

The three-member Mississippi Gaming Commission ruled unanimously Thursday that a gambler should be paid $1 million in a jackpot dispute, but a lawyer for the IP Casino said he expects the decision to be appealed.

The slot machine was mistakenly programmed to be a stand-alone progressive.

The casino contends the gambler is owed only $8,000 because that’s what the machine advertised. The machine, owned by IGT and leased to the casino, can be used as a standard slot or a progressive. An IGT technician set the progressive option when the casino had ordered a standard slot.

Florida Eash of Biloxi hit the jackpot Feb. 19, 2006. The machine lit up, informing her she had won $1 million. When casino employees told her the jackpot was $8,000, she requested the Gaming Commission investigate.

Gaming agents decided in favor of Eash and so did Larry Gregory, the agency’s executive director. The casino appealed that decision to Joan Myers, the agency’s hearing examiner. She decided in favor of the casino, ruling the contract between the gambler and the casino is spelled out on the machine’s signage.

The Gaming Commission on Thursday reversed the hearing examiner’s ruling after reviewing officials’ reports and transcripts.

Eash, who is in the real estate business and bet around $52,000 on table games and slots at the casino between December 2005 and February 2006, had represented herself before the hearing examiner. The casino had four lawyers.

The Sun Herald | 03/16/2007 | Woman wins jackpot dispute

Usually these disputes are settled in the house’s favor, so this caught my eye.

Spread the love