Posted on 11/25/2008 3:19:23 PM PST by abb
Duke University is suing its insurance company for refusing to pay any of the settlement costs for the Duke lacrosse case.
In federal court papers filed Monday, Duke is seeking financial relief from National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, an affiliate of insurance giant AIG.
The case stems from gang-rape allegations that an escort service dancer lodged against three players after a lacrosse team party in June 2006.
Before all the facts were gathered and any criminal charges were filed, Duke suspended the lacrosse team's season.
The criminal case against the three players crumbled quickly over the next year.
In April 2007, State Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against the three and declared that there was no evidence of an assault at the party.
In June 2007, Duke entered a settlement agreement with the three players. Neither side has disclosed the terms of the settlement.
"Duke believes that our insurance companies should meet their obligations, and we will pursue all options available to us," Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations at Duke, said in a statement.
"While Duke sought to address this without resorting to a lawsuit, we were not able to reach a satisfactory outcome and thus turn to the courts."
anne.blythe@newsobserver.com or (919) 932-8741
ping
Duke screws up and an insturance company pays the bill? The government should have used this for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“The criminal case against the three players crumbled quickly over the next year.”
They have a different definition of “quickly” than me.
So the insured gets to choose to accept liability, negotiate the price of their liability, then just bill the insurance company. I can see where the insurance company might not be happy about that. On the other hand it is very common for insurance companies to settle with plaintiffs against the wishes of their clients.
Well, we kinda sorta did exactly that. You and I were the insurance company!!! If only I could find the contract I signed where you and I actually AGREED to take on that responsibility.
This case should be interesting. Incompetent liberal institution that spends gov’t dollars vs. nicompetent conservative institution that gets bailed out with gov’t dollars.
BS! Cooper declared them INNOCENT!
I’d suspect that the carrier already sent a reservation of rights letter in the event they agreed to defend Duke in any litigation. but the article says Duke into into the settlement, not the carrier. If AIG wasnt actually part of the settlement agreement, they shouldnt have to pay it.
Make Jesse Jackson open his pockets...
That assumes the carrier did not fail to defend or fail to indemnify.
I have no idea what the policy at issue says, but there often is some sort of libel/slander coverage under a CGL policy.
They sure as hell slandered the Hell out of these boys.
They can defend with a reservation of rights. that is different from indemnifying. And Duke can afford to pay the settlements to the students if they have to.
It would be great to see the Insurance co. decide to drag Duke U. through the courts to prove the ways in which Duke officials slandered the players and in other ways violated the terms of the policy (presuming that the Insurer has good grounds for declining to pay for Duke official malfeasance and incompetence). I hope the Insurer does not settle and fights this all the way!!!
Geesh, the Nando couldn’t get the month of the party correct.
Yes, and that has no bearing on what I said in my post, at all.
It doesn’t work that way.
For duty-to-defend, you look at the 4 corners of the insurance policy and the 4 cornders of the Complaint, and see if there are any covered claims. If one is covered, the carrier defends the whole thing.
For indemnity, you look at the facts. Here, Duke was negligent in its allegations, which is exactly the kind of thing insurance pays for.
I am a business owner in a high-risk buiness. Lots of deaths, blow outs, pollution. I’ve sued (and won) against insurance companies that simply won’t honor their contract.
Now, keep in mind I have no love for Duke or what they did.
I just happen to know that insurance companies don’t make any money paying claims and are in the business of denying claims because that’s how they make money.
I hope so too, the insurance company seems to have a compelling defense.
I love that graphic. That’s just what I was thinking.
They ought to get their Gand of 88 faculty members or thereabouts and let them pay the settlement.
I hope these universities/colleges/schools go under.
If I’m reading the filing correctly, Duke is alleging the insurer won’t even pay for attorney’s fees. And the insurer is probably calling Duke’s bluff because they know Duke wants none of this stuff exposed to discovery.
Interesting..... I certainly don’t know how such policies work — but is there no level of misconduct, deceit, or reckless behavior by senior Duke officials that would void a policy or remove the “duty to pay”?? Or is the most idiotic and slanderous behavior by Duke officials part of what is being insured?
I had assumed that there would be some kinds of behaviors by university officials that could be compared to someone with an auto insurance policy pushing their car off a cliff?? I don’t think GEICO has to pay off someone’s policy if they pushed their car off a cliff? But I don’t know much about how different types of insurance work.....
Fortunately, the biggest insurance issue I’ve dealt with in my life was a minor fender-bender (someone else rear-ended me) in which the other insurance company paid my claim quickly and easily..... so I have not dealt with these issues.
The insurer can deny a claim for non-cooperation by the insured. My guess this is what happened. Duke will never admit fault of any type.
Well put. If you had to pick a side to trust here, you'd pretty much be SOL.
Congratulations to the team. They can now seize the University. LOL! (maybe)
Actually, had the case not quickly fallen apart, then Duke might have a better case that its insurance company should pay. The insurance company on the other hand probably does not think it should pay since Duke affirmatively aided this rather than it being somethig that happened that they could not anticipate.
The insurer should offer the same terms as the students: to dismiss all those faculty, and the school president, who slandered the students.
They would shut up and pay the bill instead of putting their sorry asses on the line for their mistakes.
Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance for Duke University.
Very interesting.
I have to wonder whether insurance investigators have been talking to the plaintiffs' attorneys in this, and the 2 active civil cases.
If not, then I'll bet they've been reading the court filings very closely.
BS! Cooper declared them INNOCENT!In April 2007, State Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against the three and declared that there was no evidence of an assault at the party.
The quote sounds correct, but on further review you are right - he went beyond saying there as "no evidence" to state that they were innocent of the charges. And that is a stronger statement than "no evidence" - it asserts that there is evidence to the contrary.
In April 2007, State Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against the three and declared that there was no evidence of an assault at the party.
BTW, is Mr. Cooper a Republican, and was he affected in any way by the Republican loss in NC Nov. 4?
Oh yes, I remember it well.
It was breathtaking; not only were they NOT GUILTY they were pronounced INNOCENT.
This statement dilutes that EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FACT.
Meanwhile in Feb. 2007 a black youth was accused of raping a white Duke student at an off-campus frat party.
While on bail, he is now accused of having raped a second woman.
Probably you never heard of that case. And none of those who attacked the lacrosse players have had a word to say about this.
Which means, that they never really cared about rape or rape victims at all. And they only used the lacrosse case as a cause to advance their own agendas (and who cared what happened to the accused in that case in the process.)
(And ditto for the media, which covered the lacrosse case, but won’t cover this.)
On the other hand, if the insurer offers to defend, and believes it has a valid defense, and you take a dive on the lawsuit, they could well be off the hook.
(And ditto for the media, which covered the lacrosse case, but won’t cover this.)
Journalism is the promotion of the sensational, the new, the unusual. The Duke Lacrosse case was all of the above. Therefore the story was "too good to check." Therefore it was not only was not checked, you had to have blinders on to not have powerful if not overwhelming suspicion of the motives of Nifong. That is all there is to the case - it played into the motive of journalism to attract attention.That motive, BTW, is proof that journalism is not objective. Not that it is necessary to prove that to justify overturning McCain-Feingold and delegitimate the Fairness Doctrine; under the Constitution the government lacks the authority to declare Associated Press journalism to be objective.
man bites dog vs. dog bites man
Lots of deaths
Huh?
I doubt the Duke University can survive the discovery process that this lawsuit will involve.
If I were the lawyers for National Union Fire Insurance I would demand the backup tapes for the email accounts of the President and his “Gang of 88” as part of my opening salvo.
If there were any sentient beings in leadership positions at Duke, they would drop this lawsuit immediately.
This is going to get a whole lot worse for Duke with only a very limited possibility that it will get better at any time in the distant future.
Roy Cooper is a Democrat, and handily won re-election as AG.
}:-)4
Even though Duke is a private institution, I somehow feel certain that we, the taxpayers of Durham County, are going to end up getting stuck with the bill. The black liberal power structure that runs this town is not going to want to see their ivory-tower friends over at Duke get into too much trouble, and they’ll find a way to help them out on the backs of the citizens of the county.
Then again, this rathole voted for Obama more than any other county in North Carolina (76%), so I guess we deserve it.
}:-)4
No. The insured does not get to do that. That robs the insurer of their right of subrogation, and is explicitly grounds for denying the claim.
On the other hand it is very common for insurance companies to settle with plaintiffs against the wishes of their clients
Not on the other hand; its on the same hand.....the right of subrogation.
The vast majority of insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in as premium. Denying claims is not how they make their money at all.
Insurance companies are acutely aware of the low opinion held of them by the public.
(despite that opinion being based on absolute ignorance)
The overwhelming majority of insurers are anxious to pay claims quickly, and in full; as that is the one occassion they have to be looked upon favorably.
Not well put. It could not have been put more incorrectly.
Denying claims is not at all how insurance companies make their money.
Well I hold Allstate Floridian, State Farm Floridian and others like them in contempt. Those insurance companies have killed the Florida economy. Does anyone know if there are "Californian" companies?
How did they do that?
Does anyone know if there are "Californian" companies? Yes. There are several. Like most states, all standard insurance companies that write business in California must be domiciled there. They also must maintain adequate funds there, as well as pay into several California pools.
I was being sarcastic with my California question as I know that policy holders everywhere share in the loss of the California fires.
LOL.
Sorry. I’ve seen behind the curtain. I had a blowout coverage denied -— in discovery, we got emails saying “we owe it, but if we stall payment, they’ll be financially pressed and settle for pennies.”
I got statutory 18% interest on what I paid and 3 times exemplaries on that one.
We have someone killed probably once a year on a rig.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.