Lloyd's refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back/ Update: Case Settled

[ivy]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

What do they mean by this?

That Michael did not tell them in 2009 that he went to rehab for prescription painkiller addiction during Dangerous Tour.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

20 years earlier? It's very well known what happened on that tour.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Is this the same insurance that was talked in the AEG trial too?

There were talk about MJ filling in the form in which he replied no to question of past drug addictions?

 

[LastTear]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

I must admit I'm not altogether hopeful of the estate winning this one unfortunately.

 

[ivy]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

20 years earlier? It's very well known what happened on that tour.

Is this the same insurance that was talked in the AEG trial too?

There were talk about MJ filling in the form in which he replied no to question of past drug addictions?

Yes the same insurance. The check up and the form filled with Dr. Slavit. I believe - but did not check - that form might have a question about rehab. I believe on that form Michael said he only saw a dermatologist and he only took antibiotics for a cold/flu. so that's the basis for Lloyds claims that Michael did not disclose them the use of Demerol, Propofol - and opiates and the health conditions of insomnia and eyesight problems / glaucoma.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

This is a good point from the estate about the other artists and drug use. I think Lloyd did not think the estate would go that route. Does it seem that the referee is trying to limit the drug problem question to favor Lloyds, or am I being sensitive?

At first I was thinking this was a no win situation for the estate, but now with this new angle, I am getting interested in what could happen.

 

[passy001]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Some updates

- Lloyds have filed for a summary judgment. They are asking the court to determine in their favor and cancel the insurance policy so they don't have to pay $17.5 Million to MJ Estate.

- Lloyds main argument is that Michael withheld his medical history (prescription drug use of Demerol, Opiates and Propofol and medical conditions of insomnia and failing eyesight and not mentioning going to rehab mid Dangerous tour) from them. They claim if they knew they would never insure Michael for accident and also this withholding voids the insurance policy.

- Estate asked and got an extension to file their reply. Estate states they need time to do discovery and reply to the summary judgment.

- Estate and Lloyds are having disagreements in regards to the discovery.

- The main discovery issue as follow :

--- Estate asked Lloyds for the names of the musical acts they insured between 2005 and 2010 and Lloyds gave 70 names that they insured.
--- Estate states 8 of these names have made public statements about their drug use and/or medical conditions.
--- Estate wants Lloyds to answer when they insured these 8 artists and if they knew their drug / medical issues before they insured them. Lloyds practices of issuing or refusing to issue insurance to artists with known drug or medical issues. If they cancelled any insurance policies after they learned these artists conditions or learned artists withheld information from them.(Ivy's note: Basically if Lloyds insured these artists while knowing about their drug / health conditions, Estate will argue that Michael's drug /health conditions wasn't a factor for denial of insurance)
--- Lloyds refusing to answer these questions citing privilege, violation of privacy, confidentiality and so on .
--- The 8 artists? They are Aerosmith, AC/DC, Britney Spears, George Michael, Johnny Hallyday, Kings of Leon, Van Halen, Whitney Houston.

-A discovery referral made a decision but Estate is challenging the decision of the referee. Because
--- Discovery referee wants to limit/redefine the "drug problem" questions to the drugs Michael used (Demerol, Propofol, Opiates etc). Estate argues that this limitation will not allow them to learn about instances Lloyds issues insurance policies when artists used other prescription drugs or illegal drugs.
--- a very detailed discussion is about what information is considered confidential or not. Estate argues the dates insurance policies were valid, claims paid, performances cancelled is not confidential. Referee / court hasn't really made a decision about what is confidential or not. They first want to hear from Lloyds if the answer to the questions is relevant and they are considering about giving notice to the 8 artists mentioned.

I must admit I never saw that coming. Fantastic lawyering by the Estate. At first i thought the estate did not have a chance, but after reading this, I'm doing a complete U-turn.

Estate lawyers really have a strong point. and Lloyd refusing to answer those basic questions speaks volume. in fact I'm dead convinced that Lloyd covered those artists even with the full knowledge of their drug abuse.

By the way, how much time did the estate ask to respond to the summary judgement.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

intresting argument from the estate but to me the main argument will always be mj withheld information when asked. which invalidates the insurance. did george michael etc with hold information?

 

[soulmum]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

^ Probably other celebs weren't exactly truthful in what they disclosed to the insurance company, difference is none of them made a claim. Like insurance companies all over the world they will find any way possible to avoid paying out. This goes for the average man in the street also, hate them with a vengeance but a necessary evil I think.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Yeah thats true. they never claimed to our knowledge

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

^I guess we don't know if the other celebs made claims or not. It's not just death, it's cancelled concerts.

I must admit I never saw that coming. Fantastic lawyering by the Estate. At first i thought the estate did not have a chance, but after reading this, I'm doing a complete U-turn.

Really? Not sure how it's a winning argument, perhaps imagine it being made by panish on behalf of the jacksons and you might see it differently. Agree with elusive, it's not just the fact lloyds said that they wdn't have insured mj if they knew of his drug probs, but the real get-out for insurers is the withholding of info voids the policy. It's like householders with risks of flooding - they can still get insurance, but it's only valid if they admit on the form they have that risk. And so the insurance can factor in that risk and ask for a higher premium.

 

[passy001]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

^I guess we don't know if the other celebs made claims or not. It's not just death, it's cancelled concerts.


Really? Not sure how it's a winning argument, perhaps imagine it being made by panish on behalf of the jacksons and you might see it differently. Agree with elusive, it's not just the fact lloyds said that they wdn't have insured mj if they knew of his drug probs, but the real get-out for insurers is the withholding of info voids the policy. It's like householders with risks of flooding - they can still get insurance, but it's only valid if they admit on the form they have that risk. And so the insurance can factor in that risk and ask for a higher premium.

Would the knowledge of MJ struggle with drugs have made any difference? in other words, would Lloyd still have covered MJ even with full disclosure? if so, then the information withheld is immaterial. that's what the estate is trying to establish.

Most insurance companies are quick to void insurance policies on this ground i.e the information withheld is significant and as such would have influenced their decision to cover. however if Lloyd has a history of covering artists while having full knowledge of their drug abuse, it would be hard for them to make that argument because disclosure of MJ true conditions would not have had any material impact on their decision to cover him. hence they will be held liable otherwise they will be charged with discriminatory practices, which is even worse.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Would the knowledge of MJ struggle with drugs have made any difference? in other words, would Lloyd still have covered MJ even with full disclosure? if so, then the information withheld is immaterial. that's what the estate is trying to establish.

Taking a wild guess, i'm thinking that if lloyds knew that mj was being put into drug induced coma everynight for months on end in his bedroom by a doctor who was not 'fit and competent' to do this, the chances of lloyds issuing an ins policy to him would be on the low side. Seeing mj died of a propofol o/d, full disclosure wd include mj's prop use.

 

[passy001]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Taking a wild guess, i'm thinking that if lloyds knew that mj was being put into drug induced coma everynight for months on end in his bedroom by a doctor who was not 'fit and competent' to do this, the chances of lloyds issuing an ins policy to him would be on the low side. Seeing mj died of a propofol o/d, full disclosure wd include mj's prop use.

I don't think this kind of disclosure was necessary. If any, all MJ had to do was to admit being dependent on drug as a sleep aid. that should be enough. any other details would have been invasive.

Again, this argument becomes moot if indeed it is not in Lloyd custom to deny insurance to artists who have a history of drug dependency. which is precisely what the estate is trying to establish.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Maybe im viewing it wrongly but even if they can show llyods have covered other artists it doesnt show any precedent interms of paying out on the policy when info has been with held. aeg handed the policy over like a hot potato. id be shocked if the estate got anywhere with this

 

[ivy]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

In this case it always looked like lloyds have a stronger hand with "withholding information voids the insurance policy" argument.

What Estate is arguing now is interesting as a counter point but it is still a long shot and a hard job to do. For example

- First of all they need to be successful in their motion and the court allow them to get the answers to the questions they are asking. As of now Lloyds aren't answering, Estate has filed motions, there are third parties involved and so on. If the court for example determines these information is confidential then this argument would be over.

- Second even if they are allowed to get the answers they don't know if there's something helpful there. For example Britney Spears, she had a very public meltdown, was in psych hold, placed under conservatorship and still under it. she made two tours after these events. So when was the Lloyds insurance? If they insured her before the events, then again Estate's argument is moot. They only have something if Lloyds continued to insure her after her medical condition. For example Steven Tyler of Aerosmith. Apparently in a biography he wrote about his decades of drug abuse. So again the timing becomes crucial. Did Lloyds continue to insure him after this information became public?

- Thirdly even if there's something that are helpful for the Estate - that Lloyds insured these musicians despite knowing their medical and drug problems - still the counter argument of why these people are different situations are possible. For example Lloyds can explain they insured Britney because she was under a conservatorship, or they insured Steven Tyler because he was clean and so on.

So it's not slam dunk, it's something to start but it's not that easy.

And finally even if they can pass this point they would still need to argue about Michael's death. Lloyds have started at the very beginning that they don't consider homicide an accident, Estate replied by saying as there was no intent it is an accident. So there's still that.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

- Second even if they are allowed to get the answers they don't know if there's something helpful there. For example Britney Spears, she had a very public meltdown, was in psych hold, placed under conservatorship and still under it. she made two tours after these events. So when was the Lloyds insurance? If they insured her before the events, then again Estate's argument is moot. They only have something if Lloyds continued to insure her after her medical condition. For example Steven Tyler of Aerosmith. Apparently in a biography he wrote about his decades of drug abuse. So again the timing becomes crucial. Did Lloyds continue to insure him after this information became public?

- Thirdly even if there's something that are helpful for the Estate - that Lloyds insured these musicians despite knowing their medical and drug problems - still the counter argument of why these people are different situations are possible. For example Lloyds can explain they insured Britney because she was under a conservatorship, or they insured Steven Tyler because he was clean and so on.

Sorry, I haven't a clue why lloyds insuring musicians with drug histories is relevant. It wd only help for mj's case if these musicians denied any drug use on their ins form, had need to make a claim on their insurance, the claim was directly related to their drug use, and lloyds still paid out. Pretty unlikely. I agree that Mj wd prob have been able to get insurance if he had mentioned his past pres drug dependency (but i really don't think for having anesthesia every night) but it wd have been a DIFFERENT ins policy to the one he got in spring 09 which was one was for someone with no drug problems. Lloyds wd instead have issued a policy with probably higher premiums, perhaps conditions like having an addiction doctor on call, even drug testing. I don't see how you can claim on the wrong ins policy - obviously you have to have some type of penalty for nondisclosure as noone wd admit anything negative on their forms.

And finally even if they can pass this point they would still need to argue about Michael's death. Lloyds have started at the very beginning that they don't consider homicide an accident, Estate replied by saying as there was no intent it is an accident. So there's still that.

So they're presenting it as an accident and not anything connected to drugs, just the negligence of the doctor. Let's hope lloyds haven't followed the aeg trial.

 

[ivy]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Sorry, I haven't a clue why lloyds insuring musicians with drug histories is relevant.

one of the arguments Lloyds made in their summary judgment is that they would never issue the insurance policy if they knew about Michael's drug use as well as medical conditions - even his glaucoma. So if they are insuring musicians with known drug issues or medical conditions, it would debunk their claim.

So they're presenting it as an accident and not anything connected to drugs, just the negligence of the doctor. Let's hope lloyds haven't followed the aeg trial.

no no no they aren't presenting it as "not anything connected to the drugs". his death is related to Propofol, there's no argument about it. it's just about the nature of the death. Lloyd's argument had been Michael's death is homicide - death in the hands of another - hence it is not an accident. Estate's argument have been it is homicide and the charge has been involuntary manslaughter which means there was no intent - neither Michael nor Murray wanted the death to happen - so it is accidental. It's a matter of how do you define accident.

 

[MIST]

I must admit I'm not altogether hopeful of the estate winning this one unfortunately.

If they don´t win, I can take that.
There are or will be other cases where I'm more concerned that they win

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

one of the arguments Lloyds made in their summary judgment is that they would never issue the insurance policy if they knew about Michael's drug use as well as medical conditions - even his glaucoma. So if they are insuring musicians with known drug issues or medical conditions, it would debunk their claim.

Oh,ok. But in the judgment lloyds were just saying they wdn't insure mj for accident (not blanket refusal to issue insurance) if they knew about the propofol, the presc drugs etc and their key argument remains that witholding pertinent info voids the claim as clearly it would mean there's a new risk they hadn't considered for accident when drawing up the orig ins policy.

no no no they aren't presenting it as "not anything connected to the drugs". his death is related to Propofol, there's no argument about it. it's just about the nature of the death. Lloyd's argument had been Michael's death is homicide - death in the hands of another - hence it is not an accident. Estate's argument have been it is homicide and the charge has been involuntary manslaughter which means there was no intent - neither Michael nor Murray wanted the death to happen - so it is accidental. It's a matter of how do you define accident.

Well both walgren and aeg have called it russian roulette in that bedroom - walgren talking about murray playing it, and putnam talking about mj playing it - so more like an accident waiting to happen.
Have you got a typo in the above para? - both lloyds and estate say it is homicide, you'll mean estate doesn't think it's homicide.

 

[ivy]

I must admit I'm not altogether hopeful of the estate winning this one unfortunately.

If they don´t win, I can take that.
There are or will be other cases where I'm more concerned that they win

I agree that this is not a major case. if Estate wins they get $17.5 M, if they lose they get 0. So yeah I too would be concerned with other cases, especially the ones that would require them to pay significant amounts if they lose. Also I still expect this case to be dismissed or settled before any trial.

Have you got a typo in the above para? - both lloyds and estate say it is homicide, you'll mean estate doesn't think it's homicide.

No there's no typo. Estate doesn't disagree that it's homicide or Michael's death happened due to Murray and Propofol.(and they can't really argue against it, it's the official cause of death) Let me try it with an example

Scenario 1 - John takes out his gun and points and shots and kills Jack.

Scenario 2 - John takes out his gun to clean it, it goes off unexpectedly and it kills Jack.

In both instances Jack's death is a homicide (death at the hands of another person John) and the cause of death is a gun shot. But while the first scenario is an intentional murder the second one is accidental. So while the cause of death is same in these scenarios, the nature of the death is different.

That's the exact same argument Estate is making. They aren't denying Michael's death is homicide and caused by Murray and Propofol. They are arguing as there was no intent, it would be defined as accidental.

edited to add : homicide is defined as act of a human killing another human. and as you can see homicide can be accidental.

 

[jamba]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Taking a wild guess, i'm thinking that if lloyds knew that mj was being put into drug induced coma everynight for months on end in his bedroom by a doctor who was not 'fit and competent' to do this, the chances of lloyds issuing an ins policy to him would be on the low side. Seeing mj died of a propofol o/d, full disclosure wd include mj's prop use.

The physical where he made those statements was in Feb--so there was no propofol at that point. He was seeing nurse Lee for health drinks and IV vitamins at that time. He didn't start with CM until late April early May from all accounts. I don't know if this makes a difference in court, though, but technically he wasn't withholding info re propofol in Feb b/c it wasn't there.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Estate's argument have been it is homicide and the charge has been involuntary manslaughter which means there was no intent - neither Michael nor Murray wanted the death to happen - so it is accidental. It's a matter of how do you define accident.
=======================================

i agree with that as involuntary is basically an accident or not having intent. if it was voluntary m.s then llyods would have an argument. but imo interms of the law it is classed as an accident so to speak because there was no intent to kill.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

That's the exact same argument Estate is making. They aren't denying Michael's death is homicide and caused by Murray and Propofol. They are arguing as there was no intent, it would be defined as accidental.

i agree with that as involuntary is basically an accident or not having intent. if it was voluntary m.s then llyods would have an argument. but imo interms of the law it is classed as an accident so to speak because there was no intent to kill.

That's not right. Not every unintended act is legally termed an 'accident'. If mj's death was accidental then murray wdn't have been charged with involun m/slaughter. Homicide and accident are normally mutually exclusive terms for cause of death. Murray was only charged and convicted because what he did was so reckless and criminally negligent it shd have been foreseeable that it cd lead to death, it wasn't an 'accidental' consequence.

As with proving whether the policy was still valid due to the nondisclosure of significant facts, the definition of accident applying to what happened to mj is just as hard. If even mj fans, who are most willing to give mj the benefit of the doubt, can argue (as they've done in the aeg forum) that mj had full knowledge of how dangerous propofol was from multiple doctors but continued to ask for it, knew that murray wasn't trained to administer it, knew murray was an unethical doctor, knew there was no monitoring equipment, then the estate hasn't got a hope of showing that this event was unforeseeable and unexpected. Didn't notice any criticism of puttnam's description of mj's death as mj playing russian roulette with his own life.

The physical where he made those statements was in Feb--so there was no propofol at that point. He was seeing nurse Lee for health drinks and IV vitamins at that time. He didn't start with CM until late April early May from all accounts. I don't know if this makes a difference in court, though, but technically he wasn't withholding info re propofol in Feb b/c it wasn't there.

That's useful to show that mj wasn't committing fraud, but it's a loophole that every insurance policy on the planet wd foresee and have some clause saying the policy is dependent on info supplied by the client in the policy not changing.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Yeah i get u bonnie. its the word accident which can be interpretated. i was just looking at it interms of the definition of manslaughter ie volountary and involuntary and the intent or lack of it which can then be deemed in one sense to be an accident. i guess as u say its whether a negligent act can be classed as an accident

re puttnam i doubt mj would have agreed to let murray do what he did if he knew how murray was going to act. To act as if mj knew murray was going to act the way he did interms of the none monitoring which would be roulette and still said sure go ahead to me is insulting to mj. he had no reason to think murray wouldnt do his job just like the other drs did. and as mj said my dr says its safe aslong as im monitored

 

[ivy]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

Not every unintended act is legally termed an 'accident'.

the issue is in this case they are not dealing with the legal definition of the accident. They are dealing with what is considered to be an accident according to the insurance policy.

They cite a case example which says whether a death is accidental is determined on case by case basis and the case ruling they cite define accidental as "such injury or death is likely to be covered unless the insured virtually intended his injury or death". They also cite insurance defines accident as "unexpected, unforeseen or undesigned happening or consequence)

So as you can see Estate is not denying Michael's cause of death - Propofol- or that it was determined to be homicide or that Murray was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Their argument as far as the insurance is concerned as there was no intent so it was "an accident" under insurance policy definitions.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

So as you can see Estate is not denying Michael's cause of death - Propofol- or that it was determined to be homicide or that Murray was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Their argument as far as the insurance is concerned as there was no intent so it was "an accident" under insurance policy definitions.

Just had a look at mj's policy, there is no def of accident and there's no settled definition of accident in the insurance industry, just precedents set by case law. The problem with mj's case was that there was an intended act - mj getting murray to administer the propofol. It's whether the term accident covers the unintended consequences - mj's death.

As i said in my post, the arguments wd be whether mj knew or should have known that death was a probable and foreseeable result of his intentionally taking prop in a bedroom setting. Whether a death occurring in these circs wd be unexpected, unanticipated, and unusual. If it's an objective test, then it's game over, no reasonable policy holder would consider taking an anesthetic in a bedroom with no monitoring equipment or a trained doctor in charge as remotely safe. I personally would have thought there might be a slight chance of argument if you had a subjective test, did mj know or should have known that death was a probable outcome. But the testimony in the aeg trial, together with what juror27 said and the consensus of mj fans on the aeg thread who you imagine wd most likely give mj the benefit of the doubt, suggest the estate has little hope. It was claimed and believed that mj was told by many doctors and nurses that prop was dangerous, wrong to prescribe in those conditions, that it needed 2 people to administer for monitoring purposes,etc so mj was on notice that what murray was doing was dangerous, unethical and extremely risky. Unfortunately we don't know what mj thought of the risks, we can only go by the testimony of what these people claim they told him. But it's true to say that aeg experts and lawyers portraying what happened in carolwood as mj playing 'russian roulette' with his own life didn't appear to raise any criticism from mj fans on the aeg forum.

And anyway the above discussion of accident is moot, as the contract asks for the disclosure of preexisting medical conditions that required medical treatment. Mj made no mention of his chronic insomnia and no mention of the need to be put under anesthesia every night - material facts that can void a policy. If lloyds were even banning him from doing meet and greets in case he caught a bug, i guess they would have been more than a little alarmed at him being put into comas.

 

[ivy]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

@Bonnie

if you back and read this thread you will see that many people agree with you that Estate's chances of winning this case isn't looking good. It has been the common perception for some time now.

I also agree that whether or not Michael's death covered under the policy is the last and the least of the issues here. First the case needs to survive the summary judgment and the claim of withholding information voids the policy. Despite Estate's chances being slim, as I mentioned before I don't see this as major case for Estate because the outcome is somewhere between getting $0 if they lose and getting $17.5 Million if they win. and as I mentioned before I still expect either a dismissal or a pre trial settlement.

anyway I was just trying to summarize the recent updates and I hope they are clearer now.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

MJ's People Expose Big Stars as Drug Addicts

Michael Jackson's people have just thrown Britney Spears, George Michael, Van Halen, Aerosmith and other big names under a big tour bus, because MJ's people have just labeled them hard-core drug abusers just to make a point in a lawsuit.

Here's the deal. Lloyds of London has refused to pay benefits under an insurance policy that AEG took out in case MJ was not able perform for the "This Is It" tour. Lloyds rejected the claim on grounds Michael and AEG defrauded the company by failing to fess up that MJ was a drug abuser.

Now the bus. The Michael Jackson Company (MJC) sued Lloyds, demanding payment. MJC claims in public documents -- obtained by TMZ -- that a number of artists, including Britney, George, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Kings of Leon, AC/DC, Johnny Hallyday and Whitney Houston all were known drug addicts and all of them applied for similar insurance to Lloyds.

MJC wants to see how the other rock stars were treated to determine if Michael is being singled out unfairly.

Short story -- to make their case, they're going to tar and feather every other rock star and act in sight.

TMZ
-----------------------------

Did this come out in KJ AEG trial already?

 

[ivy]

Re: Lloyd's of London refuse to pay insurance policy for This is It/ MJ Estate fights back

nope I reported it about a month ago, that's why it probably sounds familiar to you. TMZ is late and partially wrong