CAS - Cardiff v Nantes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

An almost totally one-sided report, as you'd expect given the source of his information. Interesting note regarding the insurance, though. I've always felt that was the key to this situation. If Sala was properly insured by the club, I'm sure they'd have paid Nantes and claimed on the insurance. However, it seems likely the player wasn't properly insured, so the club are attempting to swerve the fee.

What an unsavoury business.

---

Even if he was insured the club would be under an obligation to mitigate any losses, so wed be having the argument with Nantes anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Insurance companies are rarely wrong in their assessments, risk management is their business and they only employ the best.

---

well when 2 insurance companies take opposing views, one of them is probably wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vindec

3. Abbandonato suggests (but doesn't provide corroboration) that Cardiff City's insurers also believe that Emiliano Sala was a Nantes player at the time of his death and he was not covered by the club's policy.

The above suggests that Cardiff City had insured the player. Isn't that new information? While the insurers have taken the view they have that is meaningless if the Courts rule otherwise.

---

How could the club have insured him if as you say the insurers say he was still a Nantes player? They can’t….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Insurance companies are rarely wrong in their assessments, risk management is their business and they only employ the best.

---

They do try it on sometimes, especially when there's a huge amount of money at stake. The courts do overturn their decisions sometimes.
I think another issue with the insurance is going to be whether we actually added him to the policy or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goats

How could the club have insured him if as you say the insurers say he was still a Nantes player? They can’t….

---

I think both insurers are awaiting the CAS decision on whether Sala was a City player or a Nantes player at the time of the accident. Logic says he was one or the other, and then presumably the relevant club's insurer would pay whatever compensation was underwritten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I think both insurers are awaiting the CAS decision on whether Sala was a City player or a Nantes player at the time of the accident. Logic says he was one or the other, and then presumably the relevant club's insurer would pay whatever compensation was underwritten.

---

...and both could argue that any insurance was invalid due to Sala taking a flight which was illegal. Unless he was taking a scheduled flight (or one with a proper charter company), no insurance policy would cover him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

well when 2 insurance companies take opposing views, one of them is probably wrong

---

It won't be the insurers who made the mistake.