Deaneus!
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
Gee, I'm hesitant to develop an opinion on this one yet.
FSM Stabby, this is BF, you have to be rabidly for or against the position regardless of the evidence
Best of luck to Sam
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gee, I'm hesitant to develop an opinion on this one yet.
Im glad Rehn did, it was negligent to have placed a disc in the centre of the ground to help umpires to bounce the ball. That is what actually caused his ACL.
Was he under contract, we delisted him and put him on as a rookie as Anus is claiming?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11...haw-retires-due-to-concussion-worries/8009512
Just more Janus fantasy.
He retired on his own volition.
He was contracted for the following season so I assume that was the deal we arranged with him at the timeWas he under contract, we delisted him and put him on as a rookie as Anus is claiming?
The only 'fantasy' is us delisting him.
He signed a 2 year deal in 2015, meaning he was under contract.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/spor...e/news-story/6b1d48106c8c38a0cfc99ae60558eee8
Players can retire of their own free will - even this mentioned his year remaining.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11...haw-retires-due-to-concussion-worries/8009512
So is every civil action brought against an insured defendant just an action "in name only"?This is how you get to the insurance policy. The action enlivens the indemnity.
At amateur levels perhaps everyone will have to start signing disclaimers (maybe they do already)?So what happens now if a sanfl player cops a bad concussion ?
Are they able to sue the sanfl. What about amateurs ?
At what level of footy does the responsibility go back on the player
Isn't this like the druggers suing essendon when they had to sit out a year. more or less an agreed course of action by both players and the club to get some cashloa to smooth things over, paid for by insurance, not out of the clubs coffers.
wouldnt surprise me if this was done in consultation with the club to get the kid some more cash for whatever he's obviously going through.
Yep the assertion that this is an arrangement to get Sam an insurance payout can't be seriousYou can’t agree with another party to extract insurance money. If we’ve done that, our insurance company will come after us. There would be no agreement and our insurance company won’t shelve out any cash that they aren’t forced to.
Good post.I think there's a bit of misunderstanding about insurance and litigation interposed throughout this thread.
1. Maurice Blackburn would be well aware of what insurance policies the defendants (including the AFC) would have. By the way their claims operate they are geared towards obtaining payment from insurers. This is their business model. They particularly understand insurance policies medical professionals have. Put a different way, by operation of the Court's Rules, prior to filing the action Maurice Blackburn are well aware of the insurance policies, and interaction between, of all defendants.
2. Upon making a claim for which we are insured, the AFC insurer has a right of subrogation which it will exercise and effectively becomes the "real" defendant.
3. Contracts of insurance have a duty of utmost good faith. That is, any act which would have the effect of undermining the AFC's insurer, in favour of someone suing us would constitute a breach of the AFC's policy and the AFC would not be indemnified. There would be no acting in concert with Shaw.
It's a tad more nuanced that what people seem to understand in this thread.
You seem like you have your finger on the pulse. What should we do with Selwood?Feel like a scummy money grab to me. What’s more likely, Shaw said to the club “don't feel well, have concussion symptoms” and the club said “**** off and play sanfl you flog” OR a fringe player didn’t fess up to symptoms hoping to play his way into the seniors and a new contract?
I don’t know much about the legal side of things, but I wouldn’t even be surprised that Sam might not even be the instigator of this legal action. It might well be spurred on by his manager and/or some scummy lawyer who has an interest in winning money by helping Sam file a complaint.I think there's a bit of misunderstanding about insurance and litigation interposed throughout this thread.
1. Maurice Blackburn would be well aware of what insurance policies the defendants (including the AFC) would have. By the way their claims operate they are geared towards obtaining payment from insurers. This is their business model. They particularly understand insurance policies medical professionals have. Put a different way, by operation of the Court's Rules, prior to filing the action Maurice Blackburn are well aware of the insurance policies, and interaction between, of all defendants.
2. Upon making a claim for which we are insured, the AFC insurer has a right of subrogation which it will exercise and effectively becomes the "real" defendant.
3. Contracts of insurance have a duty of utmost good faith. That is, any act which would have the effect of undermining the AFC's insurer, in favour of someone suing us would constitute a breach of the AFC's policy and the AFC would not be indemnified. There would be no acting in concert with Shaw.
It's a tad more nuanced that what people seem to understand in this thread.