11-Year-Old Who Made Goal Denied $50,000 Prize by Insurance Company

You remember Nate Smith, don’t you? He’s the 11-year-old boy who made a $50,000 shot at halftime of a charity hockey game a few weeks ago. At the time we told you there might be an issue with Smith collecting the $50,000 prize. The problem was that Nate took the shot for twin brother Nick, whose name had been selected in a raffle. As you could imagine, the insurance company has decided not to pay the prize.

The twins’ father, Pat Smith, informed the contest officials about the Canseco-like switcheroo and that’s what the insurance company used to rule against awarding the prize. “Odds on Promotions, in Reno, Nev., informed the Smiths that they were not getting the money due to contractual breaches and legal implications.”

Instead, the insurance company has donated $40,000 to youth hockey leagues (split between two different leagues). The donation was a noble deed, but I still say the right move would have been to give the Smiths the $50,000. The money was for someone in the arena to nail the shot during the competition. Who cares if it was one twin brother and not the other? The idea was all the same.

The Smith’s are proud that they did the right thing and I agree. It’s too bad the insurance company didn’t reward them, but at least we know that Karma will be in their favor.

Stick tap to Off the Bench, click here to see the goal

Around The Web

  • http://twitter.com/SittonRead Charles Sitton

    This is ridiculous. I know insurance companies are greedy and petty ( If you need proof of that watch Sicko) but come on. To deny a child money is just cruel.

    Also they think they are noble for donating $40,000 to the youth hockey leagues. Can you say tax write off. 

  • Gene

    Why didn’t the proper twin take the shot?  I would like to have the answer to that one before I feel total sympathy for the kids. The father did the right thing and unfortunately the insurance company used the technicality.  By now, we should all know nthat insurance companies always have to win and make a profit.  If they ever lose, they change the coverage or get out of the field (see Northridge earthquake of 1994)

  • Anonymous

    I think Odds On did the right thing.  ‘After-the-fact’ honesty should never be rewarded.  It’s like robbing a bank, returning the money shortly thereafter and then expecting to be able to keep it since you fessed up… eventually.  Faribault has a great article on the subject here: