Woman blames gambling debt on casino - She says Caesars gave perks, credit

[clevfan]

Friday, August 31, 2007

Woman blames gambling debt on casino
She says Caesars gave perks, credit


By Grace Schneider

The Courier-Journal, Louisville



Jenny Kephart's fondness for the blackjack table took her to a world of private jet rides, her own table and dealer in casinos, and lavish hotel suites where iced champagne awaited her arrival.

"My every whim," recalled Kephart, 52, of suburban Nashville, Tenn., who now admits she was a compulsive gambler. She said she has lost more than $900,000 at casinos across the country.

Eventually, her gambling brought her to Caesars Indiana in Harrison County and put her deep in debt. The casino filed a lawsuit against her in January for failing to repay $125,000 she had borrowed during a March 2006 visit to the riverboat owned by Harrah's, a company that had been making her special offers for years.

But Kephart, who is unemployed, is fighting back with a counterclaim alleging that Caesars enticed her with giveaways and made money for gambling available to her, even though trained casino workers should have identified her as a problem gambler and casino executives knew she had come out of bankruptcy just four years earlier, when Harrah's was one of her creditors.

Caesars' lawyer, Stephen Langdon of Frost Brown and Todd in New Albany, Ind., argued in court and in filings that Kephart never asked to be banned from the casino or other properties run by Harrah's, so the casino had no way to know that she was a problem gambler.

The casino lawyers declined to comment further about the case.

On Wednesday, Judge H. Lloyd Whitis in Harrison Circuit Court heard their motion to dismiss Kephart's counterclaim. He is expected to rule in a month or so.

Kephart's case centers on whether a casino has a duty to protect an addicted gambler from himself or herself.

Her lawyer, Terry Noffsinger of Evansville, contends that pathological gambling is widely viewed as a mental illness. He argued that Caesars' representatives knew that Kephart couldn't control her gambling binges but still took "affirmative steps to persuade her to gamble" by calling her at home and offering her credit and complimentary hotel rooms, meals and limousine rides.

In similar cases, Indiana courts have held that casino operators don't have to prevent customers from gambling and consequently aren't responsible for their losses.

But Noffsinger stressed that the law is not fully settled in cases involving problem gambling.

"If she had just gone in (to Caesars) on her own, that would be one thing," he said. Instead, he told the judge Wednesday, he intends to prove that casino officials knew that Kephart was an addicted gambler and that they pursued her because she had money to spare from a $1 million inheritance she received in 2004.

Indiana gambling regulations allow casinos to lend money to people it deems credit-worthy. The Indiana Gaming Commission has declined in the past to disclose the amount of credit that individual casinos extend to patrons, citing privacy law and trade secrets.

Noffsinger previously represented Evansville resident and professed gambling addict David Williams in a federal lawsuit in which the precedent that casinos have no duty to protect a compulsive gambler from himself was upheld.

California lawyer I. Nelson Rose, a gambling-law expert, said he believes the court precedent is well established. He also said many wealthy gamblers are offered credit of hundreds of thousands of dollars, so Caesars' decision to lend Kephart large sums is not unusual.

But Noffsinger said he believes Kephart's case is different because Caesars sued her first, and the casino invited her to visit.

In an interview at her home last week, Kephart said she decided to fight the claim against her because she thinks Caesars took advantage of her. "They knew I had money, and they went after it," she said.

The native of Omaha, Neb., first began gambling more than a decade ago while working as a dealer at a casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa, she said. Employees by law can't gamble where they work, so she went to the Harrah's-owned casino next door.

It was a fun diversion for a while, Kephart said, but soon playing blackjack became an obsession and she would stay at the tables for hours without taking time to eat or sleep.

Like a lot of problem gamblers, Kephart said, she would keep going back after losing to try to recoup her losses. But she only dug herself deeper into debt, often concealing the size of the losses from her husband.

Fueled by those losses, she said, the couple filed for bankruptcy in late 2001. Among their debts was $20,000 owed to Harrah's in Iowa.

For the next three years, Kephart said, they made court-structured payments on the debts. But then she received the inheritance.

Her newfound wealth was no secret at Harrah's, Kephart said, since she had a relative working there. She said other employees told her she was welcome to come back even though she had not paid all the money she owed the casino. She said she was told that her slate there was wiped clean.

After the Kepharts moved to Tennessee three years ago to be closer to her family, Harrah's resorts in the region -- including Caesars Indiana and casinos at Metropolis, Ill., and Tunica, Miss. -- began calling to offer free rooms and other perks, she said.

"For a whole year, I spent all my time going back and forth to casinos," she said.

All told, she figures she lost at least $905,000 gambling. Some nights she would lose tens of thousands of dollars, including once in late 2005 when she lost $240,000, she said.

Bob Kephart said he didn't know how much money his wife was gambling away.

"If I thought for one minute it was this much, I'd have asked them (casino officials)" to ban her, he said.

But under self-exclusion rules in most states, including Indiana, such requests are valid only if made by the gambler -- not spouses or family members.

Jenny Kephart said she didn't ask to be banned because she didn't realize how seriously addicted she had become. Once her savings were gone, she said, she mortgaged her family's home -- property that she and her husband had owned outright -- to repay gambling debts.

She said her bankruptcy history got her rejected when she applied for credit cards. But Harrah's officials arranged a line of credit for her, explaining that it was safer for her not to carry large amounts of cash into the casino, she said.

According to court records, Caesars granted her a $100,000 line of credit in February 2006.

Kephart said she repaid that. But on a final trip to the riverboat on March 18, 2006, she received a second $100,000 in the form of six marker checks. When that was gone after an overnight marathon at the tables, casino officials arranged for her to get $25,000 more, she said.

"It was daylight out" by the time she wandered back to her hotel room dazed, exhausted and broke, she said.

If Caesars prevails, the court could award the casino three times the amount of the unpaid claim, plus legal fees.

Kephart said she now steers clear of gambling and is trying to rebuild her life. But she said she still feels overwhelmed by her predicament.

"I'm really scared about what's going to happen with all this," she said. But, "I am out of money, completely out of money."

[Dell Dude]

It makes me sick when politicians like Jon Kyl spew garbage of how online casinos take advantage of people with gambling problems. Hello! Read this article asshole. These offline casinos are interested in one thing and one thing only: taking money from people. If by some chance someone takes money from them, they not only don't like it they will try to stop it from happening and if they can't and this person wins what they deem too much they will throw them off of their property. Bookies are bookies. And politicians are politicians.

[clevfan]

Casino fails in bid to dismiss lawsuit

Goodlettsville woman says Caesars exploited addiction

Associated Press


Published: Monday, 10/01/07

A judge has rejected Caesars Indiana's request to dismiss a Goodlettsville woman's lawsuit claiming the casino exploited her gambling addiction after she inherited $1 million.

Harrison, Ind., Circuit Judge H. Lloyd Whitis' ruling in the case brought by Jenny Kephart could open the door to a trial examining a casino's responsibilities toward compulsive gamblers.

Whitis did not explain why he denied Caesars' motion for dismissal Friday.

Kephart, 52, countersued Caesars in May after the casino sued her to recover $125,000 that she lost in a single night of gambling in 2006.

Kephart has admitted losing more than $900,000 at casinos owned by Harrah's Entertainment Inc., which owns Caesars.

Her complaint alleges Caesars knew that she had received a $1 million inheritance and enticed her with free meals and rooms and provided money on credit for her to gamble, despite knowing she was a compulsive gambler.

Kephart's lawyer, Terry Noffsinger of Evansville, Ind., has said Caesars executives also knew that Kephart had gone through bankruptcy four years earlier, when parent Harrah's was one of her creditors.

Caesars' lawyer declined to comment on the ruling.

Gamblers have lost cases

Indiana courts have shown little sympathy to gamblers who insist that casinos should be liable for their losses, ruling in similar cases that casino operators don't have to prevent customers from gambling.

Caesars' attorney had argued in written briefs and during a hearing before Whitis in August that Caesars employees had no way to know that Kephart was addicted to gambling because she didn't ask to be placed on a self-exclusion list allowing gamblers to have themselves banned from casinos.

In Indiana, 2,097 gamblers have requested self-exclusion — for periods of one year, five years or life — since the program began in July 2004, according to Indiana Gaming Commission reports.

[clevfan]

September 18, 2008


Ind. appeals court hears case challenging casino losses

The Courier-Journal

The lawyer for a woman who blames the former Caesars Indiana casino for luring her to spend $125,000 while knowing she was addicted to gambling told an appeals panel today the riverboat shouldn’t be immune from taking steps to harm her.

Terry Noffsinger, the lawyer for Jenny Kephart of suburban Nashville, Tenn., told a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals that Kephart’s claims are different from those of other addicted gamblers who try to sue after they lose money because her hosts knew her and knew she had a gambling problem.

But Caesars lawyer Gene Price of New Albany said the casino is strictly regulated and is obligated to avoid doing business with people who acknowledge a gambling addiction by asking to be banned. Under questioning, Price said there’s no common law basis that would have required the casino to keep Kephart from gambling.

Kephart’s case is significant because it could rewrite the law on whether casinos have a duty to protect customers who are addicted to gambling. Courts in Indiana and other states have held that casino operators don’t have to prevent patrons from gambling and consequently aren’t responsible for a person’s losses.

The arguments today were held at Anderson University. More than 100 students and faculty of the Church of God-affiliated school watched intently as the judges vigorously grilled Price and Noffsinger.

Price said afterward the numerous questions showed the judges had done their homework before the 90-minute session.

“I thought the judges seemed really well prepared. They knew the case law (cited in briefs). They were all over the facts,” he said.

The case began in Harrison Circuit Court nearly two years ago when Caesars, now Horseshoe Southern Indiana, sued Kephart for failing to repay $125,000 in credit the casino extended to her while she played blackjack.

Noffsinger contends the casino purposely targeted her before a trip in March 2006 in order to get a chunk of a recent family inheritance.

Kephart countersued, alleging the casino enticed her with offers of money to gamble, free hotel stays and other giveaways while knowing she had emerged from bankruptcy four years earlier.

Harrison Circuit Judge H. Lloyd Whitis denied the casino’s motion to dismiss the case and Caesars appealed, leading to today’s hearing. The court of appeals is expected to rule sometime in the next three months.

[Uncle B]

Kephart has admitted losing more than $900,000 at casinos owned by Harrah's Entertainment Inc., which owns Caesars.

Her complaint alleges Caesars knew that she had received a $1 million inheritance and enticed her with free meals and rooms and provided money on credit for her to gamble, despite knowing she was a compulsive gambler.

So, the dumbass lost her 1 million dollar inheritance, and blames the casino for treating her like royalty...

They should counter sue, and ask for compensation for the free food and rooms..

[coolbreez72]

Uncle B. This is like you suing Tom Brady for depression because of his injury!

[Uncle B]

Originally Posted by coolbreez72

Uncle B. This is like you suing Tom Brady for depression because of his injury!

So, you saying i should drop the suit?

[StarnetGypsy]

LOL

good one Unc.

[Dell Dude]

Originally Posted by Dell Dude

It makes me sick when politicians like Jon Kyl spew garbage of how online casinos take advantage of people with gambling problems. Hello! Read this article asshole. These offline casinos are interested in one thing and one thing only: taking money from people. If by some chance someone takes money from them, they not only don't like it they will try to stop it from happening and if they can't and this person wins what they deem too much they will throw them off of their property. Bookies are bookies. And politicians are politicians.

My point is valid. Brick and Mortar casinos are legally allowed to go for the jugular with markers mixed with alcohol. That is 10000X worse than betting with a credit card on the internet. I would like this question to be axed of Kyl. If protecting people from the dangers of gambling is the goal, why are Las Vegas casinos allowed to use predatory tactics to remove money from people?

[clevfan]

Court Says Casino Not Obligated to Protect Gambler

Dated: 03/22/2009 17:00:04



INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that the Caesars Indiana casino, now Horseshoe Southern Indiana, wasn't obligated to protect a problem gambler who lost $125,000 in a single night.


The three-judge panel said Friday that 52-year-old Nashville, Tenn., resident Jenny Kephart failed to take advantage of programs that allow compulsive gamblers to have themselves banned from casinos.


Kephart's lawyer, Terry Noffsinger of Evansville, says he's disappointed by the decision. He says he won't know about a possible appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court until he has spoken to Kephart.

[clevfan]

Ind. Supreme Court to hear gambler's lawsuit

September 14, 2009 13:03 EDT


INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether a casino should have allowed a compulsive gambler to play and lose $125,000 in a single night.

The high court has agreed to take on the case after a state appeals court ruling in March that Jenny Kephart of Nashville, Tenn., failed to take advantage of programs that allow compulsive gamblers to have themselves banned from casinos.

Kephart countersued Caesars Indiana in 2007 after the Ohio River casino near Louisville, Ky., sued her to recover $125,000 that she had lost in a single night of gambling in 2006. The casino is now Horseshoe Southern Indiana.

Kephart said the casino enticed her to gamble with free meals and rooms and money on credit.

[clevfan]

November 7, 2009


Gambler gets second shot in suit against Ind. casino

By Grace Schneider
courier-journal.com

Jenny Kephart said she remembers her night of gambling at Caesars Indiana in March 2006 for how she ended it — exhausted and staggering back to her room at sunrise after losing $125,000.

This week, the Tennessee woman who claims the casino took advantage of her blackjack addiction to win a chunk of her $1 million inheritance hopes to persuade the Indiana Supreme Court that she should be allowed to argue in court that Caesars knew of her weakness and lured her into losing the money.

The court is scheduled Thursday to review the case of Kephart, an unemployed suburban Nashville resident who still owes the $125,000 to the Harrison County riverboat, now renamed Horseshoe Southern Indiana.

Kephart, 54, contends she gambled away more than $900,000 during more than a year of lavish betting, making her a target for complimentary stays in luxury hotel suites, dinners at fine restaurants and limousine service offered only to high rollers like her.

The case is being closely watched by the casino industry and gaming law experts, in part because courts in several states have rejected arguments that casinos have a “duty of care” responsibility to prevent compulsive gamblers from giving in to their addiction.

Because casinos have overwhelmingly prevailed in those cases, the decision by the Indiana high court to hear Kephart’s case may signal a shift in philosophy, said Joseph M. Kelly, a law professor at the State University of New York in Buffalo and a gambling law authority who wrote about the Kephart case in a recent law review article.

“Generally, the Indiana Supreme Court wouldn’t grant review if it was simply going to rubber stamp what had been going in on prior cases,” Kelly said in a telephone interview. “So there’s something about (Kephart’s) petition for review that must have interested somebody there.”

Gene Price, the lawyer for the casino, was unavailable last week for comment. A spokeswoman at parent Harrah’s headquarters in Las Vegas, Jacqueline Peterson, said company policy prohibits discussing pending litigation.

But Horseshoe’s lawyers have argued the casino doesn’t have to protect Kephart from herself and that she could have asked the gambling boat to ban her — but she didn’t.

Kephart declined to be interviewed last week. But in a brief statement relayed through her lawyer, Terry Noffsinger of Evansville, she said most people don’t understand how casinos operate because “they’re in a world of their own, making their own rules. I hope we get to court to expose and change these practices.”

In a 2007 interview with The Courier-Journal, she said it never occurred to her to ask to be banned from the casino because — like many addicted gamblers — she reasoned she would have to keep betting for a chance to win her money back.

The casino sued Kephart in Harrison Circuit Court in January 2007 for failing to repay six checks she wrote as markers, which bounced because of insufficient funds. Under Indiana law, gamblers who stiff casinos can be forced to pay triple damages, plus courts costs and legal fees. If Horseshoe ultimately prevailed, it could receive more than $500,000.

Kephart, meantime, filed a countersuit against the casino, claiming it knew she had a gambling problem but also knew about her inheritance. She scored a small victory when Judge H. Lloyd Whitis denied the casino’s motion to dismiss her suit, a decision that the casino appealed.

In March, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 for the casino. The majority said the riverboat isn’t legally obligated to protect Kephart from casino marketing and hosting and blamed Kephart for not cutting her ties to the casino in light of “her proclivity towards compulsive gambling.”

Still, even the majority judges — Paul D. Mathias and Carr Darden — wrote that they were “troubled” that the casino would allow Kephart to lose all the money, and they expressed sympathy for her because the casino can recoup triple losses.

Appeals Judge Terry Crone wrote a stinging dissent, calling the casino’s actions morally “repugnant.” Crone said the state failed to set high standards for casinos while reaping millions of dollars in financial gains from the industry.

Kelly called Crone’s dissent “pretty strong.”

Noffsinger said Crone was “right on. It’s wrong what they did to her.”

If the state Supreme Court rules in favor of Kephart, the case would return to Harrison Circuit, where Noffsinger said he hopes to show how the casino set its sights on Kephart and her money and that its actions were negligent. He said he’ll also ask the judges to consider whether Indiana law should be giving immunity to a business that takes advantage of a person known to be a compulsive gambler.

Noffsinger said the case has prompted calls from across the country, and he hopes it draws attention to what he described as gambling’s darker side.

Kephart, a dark-haired, petite woman, has shunned publicity except for the 2007 Courier-Journal interview. She said then she felt mortified about having her problems aired in public despite believing she was wronged.

“They knew I had money, and they went after it,” she said.

Kephart said she started playing blackjack while working as a casino dealer in Iowa more than a decade ago, but what began as a fun diversion transformed into an addiction. She and her husband Bob filed for bankruptcy in 2001, she said, but the inheritance that followed led her back to the blackjack tables.

When she and her family moved to Tennessee five years ago, she said, her ties to Harrah’s in Iowa led to calls from the company’s casinos in Mississippi, Illinois and Indiana. She estimated that she lost $905,000 in more than a year of gambling. She said she hid the size of her losses from her husband.

Ernie Yelton, executive director of the Indiana Gaming Commission that regulates and monitors state casinos, said the agency was “watching” the Kephart case. He said it would be premature to comment before the court makes a decision.