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

[LastTear]

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

'just to prove a point in a lawsuit' - TMZ make it sound so flippant, like it's no big deal when it is actually the very foundations of this lawsuit.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Tmz and every ignorant joe on the street have the right to call an insomniac an addict for trying to sleep . However, known hard core drug abusers should not be called what they have admitted publicaly many times.

 

[Bubs]

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

Thanks Ivy. I went back to read AEG trial threads but found nothing there.
No wonder, it was all along in this thread.

TMZ is very late, you had a scoop months earlier

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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.
TMZ

That's just terrible, they're going to be telling us charlie sheen had drug issues next.

@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 only posted in this thread because some posters were saying the estate's chances were looking good.

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.

You make out that losing the case makes no difference and winning the case and $17.5m is just a bonus. The starting point for the lawsuit is that mj's estate is already $17.5million down as they, for reasons that have never been explained, paid out in full aeg/mj's insurance policy on this is it to aeg instead of waiting for lloyds to pay up. So getting lloyds to cough up the $17.5m policy which looks highly unlikely wd just be getting the money back that they paid out in 09 to aeg.

 

[ivy]

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

The starting point for the lawsuit is that mj's estate is already $17.5million down as they, for reasons that have never been explained, paid out in full aeg/mj's insurance policy on this is it to aeg instead of waiting for lloyds to pay up.

well the explanation for that is pretty easy and pretty obvious in my opinion. There were production costs in relation to TII - around $24 M or so (according to the audit Estate did on the costs). The AEG- MJ contract said that MJ was supposed to pay it. Even the filming crew for Michael were paid by AEG. If Estate wanted to release TII movie as soon as possible and capitalize on the high interest at MJ when he died, they were required to pay the production costs to AEG so that they can get the control of the footage quickly to release it as soon as possible. As you can see if they waited for Lloyds to pay up, 4+ years later they would be still waiting. And there was and still is no guarantee that Lloyds will ever pay them.

edited to add: technically they did not pay the "insurance policy" to AEG, they paid production costs. Also mathematically there's no difference in Estate paying the production costs to AEG and later getting reimbursed by Lloyds versus Lloyds paying it directly to AEG.

You make out that losing the case makes no difference and winning the case and $17.5m is just a bonus. So getting lloyds to cough up the $17.5m policy which looks highly unlikely wd just be getting the money back that they paid out in 09 to aeg.

yes to me a win or lose doesn't make much difference. Because yes they might have paid AEG around $24 Million in 2009 but they recovered that from the $300 Million revenues or so they made from TII movie. So they don't have any loss there, they are already in a highly profitable position. So yes an additional $17.5 M is good but I don't think it would have any negative effects if they lose the case. so to me winning this case is just a bonus.

 

[serendipity]

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

Would it matter if they waited? They would still have to pay AEG sooner or later and they decided to do it sooner, like Ivy said, to capitalize on the TII movie.

 

[Tygger]

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

That's just terrible, they're going to be telling us charlie sheen had drug issues next.

Agreed. If this trial was about another celebrity and Michael's name was listed in the manner these celebrities are listed, some fans would be outraged. These celebrities' fans may very well combat Michael's fans and Estate products.

 

[HIStory]

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

Agreed. If this trial was about another celebrity and Michael's name was listed in the manner these celebrities are listed, some fans would be outraged. These celebrities' fans may very well combat Michael's fans and Estate products.

I think Bonnie was sarcastic.

Everything that's stated in the lawsuit is well known. Those artists either talked about their drug addiction themselves publicly or they were in the news for being in rehab (eg. Britney) etc. It's not like the Estate exposed some big secret (despite of TMZ acting that way). Any confidential info would be sealed anyway.

And why would fans of other artists "combat" MJ/Estate products? It's not like MJ's Estate sent out confidential info to tabloid media about other artists to gossip about. They filed a motion in a court case which they have every right to do. If it contained confidential or sensitive info about anyone it would be sealed.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, sarcastic or not, many fans are outraged when Michael is characterized as simply an addict in it’s’ most negative sense. I will safely assume these celebrities’ fans may feel the same as some of Michael’s fans regarding that label.

Michael also discussed his issues publicly just like the celebrities mentioned and it did not remove the negative implication of the label for some of his fans.

 

[ivy]

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

characterized as simply an addict

Estate's court filing doesn't characterize anyone as an addict. That's all TMZ's spin.

 

[Tygger]

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

Ivy, would you like to restate what Michael and the other artists mentioned have in common?

 

[Victory22]

Michael never starred in his own reality show where his drug addiction was publically highlighted nor was he ever arrested for drug possession,had his kids taken by the court and filmed out of control while intoxicated on narcotics. Nice try but Michael Jackson should not be listed in the same category as the stars listed by TMZ. No matter how many times the media and Michael’s family try to place him on that level it does not fit. Forget about what the other celebrity fans may feel. All they have to do is research the facts. Their idols can never match Michael in brilliance, originality, talent, class, dignity, creativity, compassion, sincerity, genius and integrity. I don't care what they say.

 

[Tygger]

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

Nice try but Michael Jackson should not be listed in the same category as the stars listed by TMZ.

A refresher below:

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.

 

[Petrarose]

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

Estate's court filing doesn't characterize anyone as an addict. That's all TMZ's spin.

Thanks for that reminder. I think some of us may have to do a refresher and re-read some of the earlier pages in the thread.

 

[HIStory]

Respect77, sarcastic or not, many fans are outraged when Michael is characterized as simply an addict in it’s’ most negative sense. I will safely assume these celebrities’ fans may feel the same as some of Michael’s fans regarding that label.

Michael also discussed his issues publicly just like the celebrities mentioned and it did not remove the negative implication of the label for some of his fans.

I don't get what your problem is. The Estate does not mention other artist's drug problems to "throw them under the bus" (as TMZ claims) but because Lloyds claimed they would not have insured MJ had they known about his r drug problems. The Estate simply points out: but you have insured all these artists while they are known to have had drug problems.

If someone else brought up in a lawsuit MJ's 1993 rehab in a similar manner or something I would have no problem with it as it's simply a fact that is public knowledge. And like Ivy said the Estate did NOT charatierize these people "as an addict in its most negative sense".

 

[Tygger]

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

I don't get what your problem is.

I do not support double standards even if semantics are used to do so.

I was not aware it was a "problem" to express a different point of view.

 

[HIStory]

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

I do not support double standards even if semantics are used to do so.

I was not aware it was a "problem" to express a different point of view.

What double standards? And who said it was a problem to express a different POV? Please don't twist what I said.

 

[Victory22]

A refresher below:

Refresh yourself please; I’m not impressed with what Lloyds has to say. Michael Jackson had no traces of the drugs Opium or Demural in his system at time of autopsy unlike the other celebrates who died of drug addiction. Michael’s children were not taken away from him because of very public displays of addiction and out of control behavior so again all anyone can do is speculate about his addiction. None of the experts can definitively say for sure. Michal died not from any forms of opioid. He died because he was not monitored during the administration of anesthesia.

 

[Petrarose]

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

Oh dear, I hope that all the legal threads like this one will not be filled with that circular back & forth we had in the AEG thread, causing the main points of the legal arguments to be lost. This thread has gone a straight course from its inception in 6/6/2011,and I was hoping that in November 2013, it would continue in that vein.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, you asked me what my “problem” was and I replied. If others in the thread do not see a double standard, far be it from me to express it as the expected reply will be in disagreement.

Victory22, it is the estate making the comments, not Lloyd’s.

 

[HIStory]

Respect77, you asked me what my “problem” was and I replied. If others in the thread do not see a double standard, far be it from me to express it as the expected reply will be in disagreement.

I said I did not get what your problem was - with the Estate's lawsuit, that is clear from the context. How is that saying it's a problem you expressed a different opinion? Sorry, but you are twisting my words.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

some ppl have a problem with the estate no matter what they do or dont do... its very tiring

 

[Victory22]

Respect77, you asked me what my “problem” was and I replied. If others in the thread do not see a double standard, far be it from me to express it as the expected reply will be in disagreement.

Victory22, it is the estate making the comments, not Lloyd’s.

You were the one who gave me almost an entire page on what Lloyds is alleging about Michael as if it were irrefutable fact. All I did was respond.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, I replied I do not support double standards which is my issue with this claim in this lawsuit. Your first sentence did seem to imply a bit more to me. If that was not your intention, forgive me.

Victory22, yes, you did respond and again, those comments were made by the estate not Lloyd’s.

 

[LastTear]

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

Although I still feel this will be a hard one to win, I feel the estate is right to ask those questions regarding drug/health issues of other artists they have insured. The wording on the tmz article is twisted, but we expect that - right?

 

[ivy]

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

For the sake of discussion - and saving me the trouble of cleaning the thread - just ignore the side topics and focus on the discussion about the case.

 

[marc_vivien]

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

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/michael-jackson-company-singer-fit-668200
[h=2]The late singer's company demands that insurers be held to a $17.5 million "accident" policy issued before the "This Is It" concert tour.[/h]

​

​

Michael Jackson

Ever since Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, there's been almost nonstop action in courts. Last year, Katherine Jackson and the rest of the singer's family pursued AEG Live on the theory that the concert promoter had pushed the King of Pop to the edge. The effort was unsuccessful, but get ready for another possible trial examining the circumstances surrounding the performer's death.


This one puts the handlers for the Jackson estate on the same side as AEG Live. Together, they are defending a lawsuit brought by underwriters at Lloyd's of London wishing to get out of paying a $17.5 million insurance policy on the "This Is It" tour.
Here, the Michael Jackson Company presents the singer in fine condition.
"As to the issue of Mr. Jackson's fitness to perform, that is conclusively proved by the footage of Mr. Jackson rehearsing on June 23 and 24, 2009, immediately prior to his death," says court papers filed on Dec. 31 by the Michael Jackson Company (an entity set up by the singer and now controlled by executors of his estate). "This footage, which was compiled into the motion picture This Is It clearly shows that Mr. Jackson was not only fit to perform in concert, but that he could still do so brilliantly."
In the lawsuit, Lloyd's of London asserts it was misled about the singer's health. The insurance underwriters point to some of the same AEG Live internal emails that were presented to a jury by Jackson's family last year. Those e-mails allegedly show that AEG tried to hide his deteriorating health. The insurer says it would have refused an "accident" policy had the singer's true condition been revealed.
A trial is tentatively scheduled for February. First, a judge considers the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and the defendants' opposition.
According to documents in the case, AEG looked to secure cancelation insurance in January, 2009. The concert promoter went to a London-based insurance broker, which allegedly knew about the "almost daily" press about Jackson and so recommended the singer be examined by a doctor.
On February 4, Jackson was examined by Dr. David Slavit, a New York-based ear, nose and throat doctor who found the singer to be in "good health" and "excellent condition."

The insurance broker then presented the This Is It risk to insurers in the Lloyd's market and provided details about the planned concerts as well as a history of Jackson's touring (including past concerts given and canceled by the singer).
Several underwriters responded. The insurers agreed to "accident" coverage but not "illness" coverage until Jackson could be examined by another doctor. An in-depth medical examination was scheduled to take place in early July, 2009. Of course, Jackson died first.
A day after the singer's death, an executive at one of the underwriters wrote in e-mail that an employee handling the coverage application "had taken a good decision on this risk in my view as he hadn't believed the medicals."
But the Michael Jackson Company believes that nothing about the "illness" coverage holdup did anything to negate the "accident" coverage. Further, the defendant says "the record shows that there is no evidence establishing that MJC made false representations to Underwriters."
The only representations made by Michael Jackson, says his company, were to Dr. Slavit, retained by the broker, not the underwriter. According to the defendant's legal papers, "Putting aside the issues of whether Underwriters in fact relied on the Slavit exam and whether it was material to the issuance of 'accident' coverage, there is no evidence that the purported representations about Michael Jackson being in good health and fit to perform were false. All of the evidence in fact proves them true."
The Michael Jackson Company points to other evidence, including personal trainer LouFerrigno's testimony that the singer "looked great," the Los Angeles Coroner's Office conclusion that Jackson's general health was "excellent" prior to his death, and This Is Itdirector Kenny Ortega's testimony that the singer was fit to perform.

And as for Jackson's reported drug addiction? From the court papers:

"MJC acknowledges that negative press, speculation and rumors have abounded about Mr. Jackson both before and after his death. Media speculation, rumors and opinions cannot be the evidentiary basis for a finding that Michael Jackson was abusing drugs in Feb. 2009 when he appeared for the Slavit exam, or in April 2009 when the Policy issued."
On Friday, Katherine Jackson is due back in court in a motion for a new trial in her case against AEG Live. No matter what happens tomorrow, however, it won't be the end of the legal fussing over Jackson's death. Next comes a Jan. 15 summary judgment hearing in the insurance dispute.
In other words, right after one judge decides whether Jackson's family gets another shot to prove AEG negligently hired and supervised Dr. Conrad Murray for administering him a fatal dose of propofol, Jackson's estate will attempt to persuade a different judge that insurers have failed in demonstrating any wrongdoing by those preparing the This Is Ittour.
Or, as the estate puts it, "Michael Jackson's death was an 'accident' under the policy."

 

[ivy]

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

Document here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/195349714/MJ-Estate-Opposition-in-Lloyds-case

[scribd]195349714[/scribd]

 

[Petrarose]

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

I love the way it starts with that comment on "Gossip." Now let me take my time and read the whole thing.

 

[passy001]

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

Very impressed by the Estate arguments. Really impressed. and for this reason it's hard to see LLoyd avoiding trial. we'll know for sure on January 15.