A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lance sues for bonus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 21st 04, 11:58 PM
Stewart Fleming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Joseph Hurley wrote:


1. Did Tailwind pay all premiums as and when due?
2. Under the rules in effect at the time of the contest, and as determined
by the Amaury Sports Organization, was Lance Armstrong the winner of the
2004 Tour de France?


There is a 5-year window for the possibility for results to be reversed
now that the UCI has signed up to the WADA code...
Ads
  #32  
Old September 22nd 04, 12:19 AM
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:17:59 GMT, "B. Lafferty" wrote:


"RonSonic" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:10:00 GMT, "B. Lafferty" wrote:


"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Joseph Hurley" wrote in message
...
Again, as an attorney, I have to respond to some of these claims.




Second, what kind of discovery process? What is the insurance company
going to ask for? Medical records, ok. Does ANYONE think that if
Lance
was using banned substances he would be stupid enough to see his
regular
doctor and thereby leave a paper trail lying around in his medical
records? come now. They can't ask for records that don't exist.
Further, if the discovery process devolves into a fishing expedition,
there is a remedy for that -- Armstrong's lawyers can file motions to
quash the interrogatories that are not relevant to the issues in the
case.

Medical records can show many things. The Walsh book notes that Armstrong
may have made an admission to his treating cancer physician that he used
performance enhancing drugs. That admission, if it was made, might well
be
reflected in his medical record. Would the company have issued its poliy
had that been known?


IIUC, that policy has been in place for some years. I'd expect any
contestability period has expired. Besides, what you describe is pure
fishing.
Perhaps he snorted coke at a party in 1990, that's a performance enhancing
drug,
does that mean he didn't just win the tour?

As we know from the tests instituted by the French cycling authorities for
the purpose of "health profiling," certain anomalies indicative of illegal
drug use can be detected. That could well be in his medical record.

If the paper trail doesn't exist, why not provide the medical recods that
he
has, with a confidentiality agreement or order? Seem like an easy way to
collect $5 million.


Seems like an easier way to let a bookie stall and demand that you provide
him
with an excuse welsh on a bet.

More important will be the testimony of Emma O'Reilly, if the insurance
company can convince her to come an testify at an arbitration hearing.
Amrnstrong's joining her in an action in France might have ****ed her off
enough to accept a Texas insurance company's offer of plane tickets hotels
and meals.


Nah, all this is meaningless. He really is the most tested athlete on the
planet
and he's got the jersey. He won the race in accordance with the rules,
including
the doping rules. Unless the insurer wants to claim that this is a fraud
involving Lance, the ICU and promoters, they don't get to invoke a set of
rules
other than those of the race.

Calling this an insurable risk was stupid from the outset and now they're
going
to lose money on it. Tough. They should have stuck to indemnifying risk
rather
than making book without having bets to offset the risk.

Ron


Well, I guess that settles it all. I'll forward your post to the insurance
company.


Please do. I would, but I don't think I could teach them any lessons their $5M
hasn't already bought them.

Ron
  #33  
Old September 22nd 04, 04:41 AM
Rick Hopkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default




Well, I guess that settles it all. I'll forward your post to the insurance
company.


I am sure Brian is on to something, we all know that insurance companies
are held in highest esteem for their business practices (ok when
compared to attorneys) and they would never try and wiggle out of paying
a proper claim.

On a more serious note, I would believe legally, unless a governing body
of the TDF or cycling did set aside Armstrong's victories the Insurance
Company would lack any legal claim.

Gosh, you do think some white-shoed and belted attorney convinced them
to contest it do you?

  #34  
Old September 22nd 04, 06:41 PM
John Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message link.net...
"Joseph Hurley" wrote in message
...
Again, as an attorney, I have to respond to some of these claims.


I'm writing to agree, for the most part, with Mr. Hurley. I'm also an
attorney, specializing in insurance coverage matters. The first rule
in coverage disputes is "the plain meaning of the language used in the
policy controls." So, until someone posts the text of the policy and
the declarations page, we're all just guessing. Here's my guess: A
policy indemnifying Tailwind/U.S. Postal for Lance's bonus in the
event of Tour wins is almost certainly going to be a manuscript policy
(individually drafted as the result of negotions rather than a
pre-printed policy presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis), given
the unique nature of the risk. As a result, terms we see in most
policies we're familiar with may not be present here. The insurer at
issue, SCA Promotions, is well known for funding hole-in-one policies
for golf tournaments, athlete performance bonuses, and such, so
they'll have a fair amount of experience in drafting the terms and
definitions. I think it's highly unlikely either Postal or SCA would
leave a key term like "winning the Tour de France" undefined. If
"win" is defined along the lines of "declared the winner by the
governing body of the sport," then Lance won and the medical records
thing may just be a ploy by the insurer, possibly an attempt to
negotiate down the payment with an implied threat to embarrass
Armstrong by making the request for records public. If so, they're
playing with fire and risking a bad faith suit. However, if there's
an exclusion denying payment for "wins" secured by means of fraud or
cheating, and the exclusion clearly includes the use of performance
enhancing substances, then SCA has a good faith reason to challenge
its obligation to make the payment. I think Postal and Lance's people
would have to be pretty stupid to agree to a policy containing an
exclusion which could open up that particular can of worms.

With regard to arbitration clauses, most policies call for arbitration
in the case of disputes regarding scope of loss, and not for questions
about the existence or non-existence of coverage. In other words, if
my insurance company and I can't agree on how much of my carpet they
need to replace after a flood, that will get submitted to arbitration.
However, if my insurance company says I don't have any coverage for
the flood, that is generally a matter for the courts. Here, where the
insurer is denying an obligation to pay, my guess is it's unlikely
there's an arbitration provision.

In any event, it's all guessing unless someone makes the policy
public.

John H.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Simeoni and Lance situation Ronde Champ Racing 4 July 24th 04 12:21 AM
LANCE ARMSTRONG'S BID FOR COVETED SIXTH TOUR DE FRANCE FOILED Richard Longwood Racing 6 June 28th 04 03:06 AM
Lance comments on Wilson Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer Racing 2 March 2nd 04 03:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.