|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |