Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

Once upon a time I was a manager of a "high value" team at a life insurance company.

I can assure you that no footballer worth a lot of money, is automatically insured.

Higher value life insurance automatically requires an up-to-date full medical examination, and all relevant paperwork signed by the individual being insured as a minimum.

Sala's medical was completed by the 18th as reported by Wales Online. Possibly completed earlier.
It is not the job of the insurance company to chase the paperwork.

On completion of that medical, given the value of the player, that full medical paperwork should have been signed off by the club doctor, immediately scanned onto a computer, and immediately sent across to the insurer.

At this point, the club should have been contacting the insurer directly to request the application be processed as quickly as possible given the situation.

The insurance company literally could have had a policy in place within the hour if necessary given the high value nature of the case. A medical underwriter would have assessed the medical paperwork immediately upon request, and a decision would have been made at that point.

I daresay that, quite clearly, none of this happened.

Also, for the record, a flight to France in a plane being flown by an unqualified pilot... Would have likely voided the insurance anyway!!

It's all an absolute farce.
Tan has f*cked up royally and should have accepted that and paid up when asked.
Instead, ego and arrogance have cost him probably millions in legal fees, arguing a case he can never win.
As a result, we face a partial embargo and there's no funds for players even if we could sign them.

Oh, and by the way, all Mehmet's "the money's been set aside for the Sala case", was clearly untrue also, as he virtually admitted recently!

I have always queried strongly that component myself.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

I have always queried strongly that component myself.

Not sure. If Sala knowingly risked his life, ie sky diving, climbing the Matterhorn, then possibly, but he got on a plane which in all reason would have expected to be flown by a qualified person and in full working order. I

[blue lewj]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

I just hope this Sala case isn't a condensed version of what he is doing with the club as a whole.

Not being able to swallow his pride and pushing on with anything he thinks will work and ultimately failing while ignoring all advice.

[Undercoverinwurzelland]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

I think the type of policy involved here is personal accident rather than life insurance. I work in commercial insurance, and although sports insurance isn’t my thing I’ve seen a few of the policies that Premier League and EFL clubs have taken out. The way they work is this:

· The policy covers all players the club, via their broker, has told the insurer they want to cover, for the value the club has asked for.

· The policy pays out if a player is killed in an accident or suffers permanent disablement due to accident or illness.

· If the club wants to add a player they tell their broker the player’s name and value, the broker tells the insurer and the insurer confirms when the player has been added.

· All pre-existing medical conditions are excluded unless the insurer has assessed medical records and agreed to cover it.

· Cover might also be dependent on the player being between certain ages (eg 16 and 35) and having passed their medical.

· Anything related to things like drugs/alcohol/suicide would be excluded, but surprisingly, risky activities like flying in small planes usually aren’t.

· You can have automatic cover for new signings during transfer windows under this type of policy, which would give you cover for the transfer fee amount (up to a pre-agreed limit) for a few days. It appears though that the club’s policy didn’t have this, or that they didn’t advise the insurer of the signing within the time limit. (If they’d had this on a policy in the past, and their broker hadn’t told them they didn’t have it any more, that would also be a potential claim against the broker).

So, Sala’s death should have been covered if this is the type of policy the club had at the time and if they had added him to the policy in time. They clearly hadn’t added him in time, but are arguing that their broker, who should be providing them with expert advice, hadn’t warned them that they needed to be adding players from the moment they signed a contract. They’re also saying that they’d added players late before and the broker hadn’t told them this was risky. The broker is arguing that they had warned the club. If the broker has evidence of this (an email, letter, meeting minutes) then Cardiff’s action will fail. If they don’t, Cardiff have a chance in my opinion.

[dml1954]

Re: Rebuffed

If, as I suspect will happen, City have a strong case for negligence against the broker or insurance company for not insuring Sala from the time of his becoming a City player (which has so far been decided by the Courts took place BEFORE he died), then there are going to be a number of people who have contributed to this thread who are made to look pretty stupid and extremely vindictive for making comments about Tan and employees of the club whilst knowing absolutely nothing about the circumstances of the case and the legal arguments. Some of the things stated in this thread are borderline libellous against the club. How anyone can hate an organisation so much whilst at the same time claiming to still be a fan is beyond me. What we are witnessing is an insurance broker and insurance company wriggling and thrashing around trying to do and say anything to get out of coughing up the insurance money (of course they would never do something like that would they !!) yet all certain people do is blame the club, as if they were directly responsible for killing Sala or any of the other circumstances around his death. If you bought a product off someone and it was damaged or destroyed in transit and could never be used, would you pay up for it anyway or not try to get your money back for it - apparently not according to some people.

[blue lewj]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

I think the type of policy involved here is personal accident rather than life insurance. I work in commercial insurance, and although sports insurance isn’t my thing I’ve seen a few of the policies that Premier League and EFL clubs have taken out. The way they work is this:

· The policy covers all players the club, via their broker, has told the insurer they want to cover, for the value the club has asked for.

· The policy pays out if a player is killed in an accident or suffers permanent disablement due to accident or illness.

· If the club wants to add a player they tell their broker the player’s name and value, the broker tells the insurer and the insurer confirms when the player has been added.

· All pre-existing medical conditions are excluded unless the insurer has assessed medical records and agreed to cover it.

· Cover might also be dependent on the player being between certain ages (eg 16 and 35) and having passed their medical.

· Anything related to things like drugs/alcohol/suicide would be excluded, but surprisingly, risky activities like flying in small planes usually aren’t.

· You can have automatic cover for new signings during transfer windows under this type of policy, which would give you cover for the transfer fee amount (up to a pre-agreed limit) for a few days. It appears though that the club’s policy didn’t have this, or that they didn’t advise the insurer of the signing within the time limit. (If they’d had this on a policy in the past, and their broker hadn’t told them they didn’t have it any more, that would also be a potential claim against the broker).

So, Sala’s death should have been covered if this is the type of policy the club had at the time and if they had added him to the policy in time. They clearly hadn’t added him in time, but are arguing that their broker, who should be providing them with expert advice, hadn’t warned them that they needed to be adding players from the moment they signed a contract. They’re also saying that they’d added players late before and the broker hadn’t told them this was risky. The broker is arguing that they had warned the club. If the broker has evidence of this (an email, letter, meeting minutes) then Cardiff’s action will fail. If they don’t, Cardiff have a chance in my opinion.

This is all well and good but falls down on the fact the club were saying until very recently that they had not signed the player.

The arguments they have put forward prior to this have given the insurance broker the vast majority of their argument to defend the case.

Only at Cardiff City.

[blue lewj]

Re: Rebuffed

If, as I suspect will happen, City have a strong case for negligence against the broker or insurance company for not insuring Sala from the time of his becoming a City player (which has so far been decided by the Courts took place BEFORE he died), then there are going to be a number of people who have contributed to this thread who are made to look pretty stupid and extremely vindictive for making comments about Tan and employees of the club whilst knowing absolutely nothing about the circumstances of the case and the legal arguments. Some of the things stated in this thread are borderline libellous against the club. How anyone can hate an organisation so much whilst at the same time claiming to still be a fan is beyond me. What we are witnessing is an insurance broker and insurance company wriggling and thrashing around trying to do and say anything to get out of coughing up the insurance money (of course they would never do something like that would they !!) yet all certain people do is blame the club, as if they were directly responsible for killing Sala or any of the other circumstances around his death. If you bought a product off someone and it was damaged or destroyed in transit and could never be used, would you pay up for it anyway or not try to get your money back for it - apparently not according to some people.

We support the team, not the owners.

Owners come and go. Fans remain.

A few might do well to remember that.

[dml1954]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

Once upon a time I was a manager of a "high value" team at a life insurance company.

I can assure you that no footballer worth a lot of money, is automatically insured.

Higher value life insurance automatically requires an up-to-date full medical examination, and all relevant paperwork signed by the individual being insured as a minimum.

Sala's medical was completed by the 18th as reported by Wales Online. Possibly completed earlier.
It is not the job of the insurance company to chase the paperwork.

On completion of that medical, given the value of the player, that full medical paperwork should have been signed off by the club doctor, immediately scanned onto a computer, and immediately sent across to the insurer.

At this point, the club should have been contacting the insurer directly to request the application be processed as quickly as possible given the situation.

The insurance company literally could have had a policy in place within the hour if necessary given the high value nature of the case. A medical underwriter would have assessed the medical paperwork immediately upon request, and a decision would have been made at that point.

I daresay that, quite clearly, none of this happened.

Also, for the record, a flight to France in a plane being flown by an unqualified pilot... Would have likely voided the insurance anyway!!

It's all an absolute farce.
Tan has f*cked up royally and should have accepted that and paid up when asked.
Instead, ego and arrogance have cost him probably millions in legal fees, arguing a case he can never win.
As a result, we face a partial embargo and there's no funds for players even if we could sign them.

Oh, and by the way, all Mehmet's "the money's been set aside for the Sala case", was clearly untrue also, as he virtually admitted recently!

Ah but did he actually say that the money had been ‘set aside’ or did he say that the fee had been fully accounted for in the clubs accounts. Two totally different matters.

[blue lewj]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

Ah but did he actually say that the money had been ‘set aside’ or did he say that the fee had been fully accounted for in the clubs accounts. Two totally different matters.

Tell us. What did you say?

[dml1954]

Re: Rebuffed

We support the team, not the owners.

Owners come and go. Fans remain.

A few might do well to remember that.

You don't support the team though. You regularly tear them and the manager to sheds and never have anything good to say about them. Do you go to games either ?

[blue lewj]

Re: Rebuffed

You don't support the team though. You regularly tear them and the manager to sheds and never have anything good to say about them. Do you go to games either ?

Oh I do support the team.

What I don't support is a group of people making a pigs ear of running the club. There is a very big difference.

I didn't know who Vincent Tan was before he came and I won't think too much after he's gone.
I'll still support my club.

Who says I don't go to games?
Just because I don't publicise it on here.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Rebuffed

If, as I suspect will happen, City have a strong case for negligence against the broker or insurance company for not insuring Sala from the time of his becoming a City player (which has so far been decided by the Courts took place BEFORE he died), then there are going to be a number of people who have contributed to this thread who are made to look pretty stupid and extremely vindictive for making comments about Tan and employees of the club whilst knowing absolutely nothing about the circumstances of the case and the legal arguments. Some of the things stated in this thread are borderline libellous against the club. How anyone can hate an organisation so much whilst at the same time claiming to still be a fan is beyond me. What we are witnessing is an insurance broker and insurance company wriggling and thrashing around trying to do and say anything to get out of coughing up the insurance money (of course they would never do something like that would they !!) yet all certain people do is blame the club, as if they were directly responsible for killing Sala or any of the other circumstances around his death. If you bought a product off someone and it was damaged or destroyed in transit and could never be used, would you pay up for it anyway or not try to get your money back for it - apparently not according to some people.

More comedy gold from the board’s most consistently funny character. Whoever came up with idea of dml1954 is a genius.

[Dorcus]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

More comedy gold from the board’s most consistently funny character. Whoever came up with idea of dml1954 is a genius.

Now we know what Vincent Tan does in his spare time. He writes weird posts on a football message board.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

Now we know what Vincent Tan does in his spare time. He writes weird posts on a football message board.

dml1954 never says “God willing” and he doesn’t mention Cornelius in every post, so we can rule Vinny out. But whoever is behind the creation of dml1954, he’s a great invention. Far and away the funniest character we’ve had on this board in the 23 years I’ve been using it, and we’ve had a few.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Rebuffed - Sala Insurance arguments

This is all well and good but falls down on the fact the club were saying until very recently that they had not signed the player.

The arguments they have put forward prior to this have given the insurance broker the vast majority of their argument to defend the case.

Only at Cardiff City.

If the case for Sala not being a City player was proven, then there wouldn't have been any need to involve insurance. It's just sequential logic to address each issue in this order.