All I said was a good faith attempt to verify the claim was needed by the lottery and court.  Having one claiment and one unclaimed prize goes a long way toward putting that attempt together.

Like you, I would like more details to base a judgement on.  If the guy produced a year's worth of past tickets playing the same combination, that would help.  Though maybe he forgot to play that week and washed some old ticket into an illegible lump to make a false claim, but he would also have to count on an unclaimed prize being there at the end. 

If you've ever read about how the U.S. Treasury deals with damaged money claims, there is a lot a lab can do to reconstruct damaged paper in support of a claim. 

I'm not saying the lottery and court should have paid the claim.  I'm saying I'd like to see a good faith effort on their part to find a way to pay rather than a way not to pay, or I'd like to know why paying would be totally unreasonable. 

I'd especially like to know if there was one or more unclaimed prize from that prize tier and when he tried to submit the claim.  Without that the article isn't complete.

BobP

You might be surprised at the number of claims that are made once a ticket goes unclaimed for a while.  A good faith effort by the lottery to find a way to pay out the prize could be made even more complicated by several arguable claims being made. 

Even when tickets have been turn in by persons making a claim, arguable claims for the prizes have been made by others that the ticket was stolen or found after they lost it.

In the end it's just easier for lotteries and courts to resort to the simply rule "no winning ticket, no pay out".

"a good faith attempt to verify the claim was needed by the lottery and court"

You're confused about the role of the court. Their job is to rule on the law, which seems to say that the lottery isn't required to pay *this* claim.

"I'd like to see a good faith effort on their part to find a way to pay rather than a way not to pay"

I agree that the lottery should make a good faith effort, but there's nothing to indicate that they did or didn't do exactly that. In any case, if a claimant can't produce a winning ticket that's in good shape the onus is on them, not the lottery, to support the case for payment. The lottery already has a way to pay: they issue you a ticket to prove your wager. If you lose or damage the ticket the lottery shouldn't have to go to great lengths to find an alternate way to pay you.