Sam Shaw legal action against AFC

[Deaneus!]

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

 

[happy_knackers]

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.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Really, Sam has a serious problem that will stay with him for a long time. I do not begrudge him suing just like any worker in any workplace. If I was injured in the workplace I would expect something to cover my lifestyle, family and medical ongoing. He should be actually suing the AFL as well. They set the rules at the time what is allowed and what is not.

 

[marvin]

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.

Absolutely. I slipped on the disc in the centre of Kardinia Park having a post game kick to kick. Completely stupid idea to have that on the playing surface.

 

[marvin]

IIRC the "extra year" is a bit of a furphy. I thought it had to do with allowing him to qualify for more generous post-football support (through a new CBA?) rather than it being a way the club could directly help Sam.

 

[pjcrows]

The first of many.

 

[relapse]

Isn't this the reason why we left him on the list?

I seem to remember that he retired at the end of 2016 and the club re-listed him as a rookie for 2017 so that he had access to claim under the new CBA for his concussion.

 

[ChilliP]

You would think after Scott Stevens our medical department would be one of the most educated about concussions in the league. I could not imagine how any of the medical staff could have possibly have been negligent after we had already had one player retire due to head knocks. It would be incredibly disappointing if it's true and they didn't learn anything from Scott Stephens and would deserve to get taken to the cleaners.

 

[Elite Crow]

Was he under contract, we delisted him and put him on as a rookie as Anus is claiming?

 

[adelaidecrows]

I don't blame any employee for seeking compensation for being injured and mismanaged by a workplace. I don't know the exact details of what care he thinks was mismanaged but AFL clubs not just the Crows has very strict rules to follow these days. The question is whether Sam is comparing his care to the current rules. I do think however, in what is a contact sport, players need to acknowledge a personal risk exists that is beyond the control of the club and the AFL to fix.

 

[jo172]

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.

 

[Next Gen Rookie]

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.

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

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Was he under contract, we delisted him and put him on as a rookie as Anus is claiming?

He was contracted for the following season so I assume that was the deal we arranged with him at the time

He retires/gets delisted, we re-rookie him, doesn't take up a main list spot, we pay him less (I assume) but he qualifies for those health benefits

 

[jo172]

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

That's my point.

The insinuation that we did something insidious or somewhat underhanded doesn't bear out in reality.

 

[mattymac]

This is how you get to the insurance policy. The action enlivens the indemnity.

So is every civil action brought against an insured defendant just an action "in name only"?

Of course the insurer will pay but it's us and our doctors who will suffer reputationally.

Of course, if we did mismanage his treatment he has every right to claim damages. However, if we didn't mismanage his treatment I'm not sure why he would take an action claiming we did.

I can't see at this point how this is equivalent to an aunty sueing her nephew to activate an insurance policy. In this case a finding for the claimant will surely result in reputational damage to the club and its medical professionals.

 

[maxlilly]

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

 

[SaltPeter]

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

At amateur levels perhaps everyone will have to start signing disclaimers (maybe they do already)?

 

[1970crow]

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.

You 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.

 

[CH Jazz]

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?

 

[mattymac]

Peter Jess: the AFL may not be named as co-defendants on the writ because Maurice Blackburn are major sponsors of the AFL

 

[mattymac]

You 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.

Yep the assertion that this is an arrangement to get Sam an insurance payout can't be serious

 

[jo172]

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.

 

[Jack McKraken]

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.

Good post.

Add no. 4: insurers (and their advisors) are inherently commercial. Every action raised will be assessed based on its merits as well as the costs of defending. Where the costs of defending (even with a high chance of success) outweigh the cost of settling, they will generally settle - it’s a numbers game. And Plaintiff lawyers are well aware of this.

 

[GreyCrow]

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?

You seem like you have your finger on the pulse. What should we do with Selwood?

 

[John Who]

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.

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.

It’s going to set a chain reaction of more complaints and I can foresee even more rule changes down the track. Let’s hope in the future, not all footballers are enforced to wear helmets and knee straps!