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

[ivy]

and is it really an issue if they bring it up in a nice or not nice way?

uhm you are the one that brought it up claiming they said it on a less accusatory way and did not make fraud claims and so on. If it doesn't matter then why did you brought it up? and if you bring it up please don't backtrack

You seriously think that an insurance policy that goes into detail about the crane on the o2 stage to make sure it's safe for mj to use, and has a clause preventing mj from doing meet and greets in case he catches a cold, is going to just blithely insure mj's use of propofol every night to help him sleep with murray doing his makeshift drip routine??

I did not say that. I also wouldn't expect them to insure people who are doing recreational drugs but they do. So there's no way to say for sure who they would insure or not. their past does show however that drug use isn't a reason for them to not insure people. That's my point.

And so what if some illegal drug taking artist gets insurance, they'll have exactly the same obstacles to face in getting a payout if they die of a drug related death and have specifically failed to disclose their drug issues in their policy.

and this is where you lost the plot. payment is a totally different issue. We aren't discussing whether they would pay or not , whether the policies have exceptions. however "so what if some illegal drug taking artist gets insurance" is the actual topic here. If you read the complaint you would see that Lloyds claimed if they knew drug issues they wouldn't insure MJ at all. However they insured MJ (back in 1997) and other musicians when they knew their drug issues. Hence they were lying IMO.

Context was achieved.

actually thank you for that. Unfortunately juror#27's posts are kept repeating without the full content/context (outside MJJC too). So I'm thankful that you posted it full.

That one was rude and wholly unnecessary. I'm at a loss to figure out what other spirit could be sought from being pleased this was settled.

just wow but don't take it personally. At times people argue just to argue or reject approval or compliments just to be on the opposite side.

They settled amicably so what is the point of debating and arguing past that _ Just for the sake of arguing??

none actually. the only thing I can see is comparisons with other trials and an excuse to pick on members for whatever reason.

 

[Tygger]

Serendipity, Michael’s mother did not need to see her son speak on his issues publicly like a non-family member would to know they existed. The plaintiffs stated they would not deny Michael had these issues which is the same stance the estate took with Lloyds'.

Serendipity, Soundmind, the main point of the AEG civil trial was if AEG was liable for negligent hiring, supervision or retention of the doctor who killed him. AEG successfully deflected attention from that to their portrayal of Michael as a “secretive addict.” That has nothing to do with anyone’s perspective of Michael's family members past actions; it was all AEG.

Yes, for which he sought treatment. My point being is that as the family, plus others were all over the media giving interviews on Michaels drug addiction it is hardly surprising that Lloyd's (or AEG) would use that information to help their case.

AEG's defense was a reaction to Jacksons action to sue them. AEG had the right to defend themselves and it worked for them.

Interesting. The family is responsible for AEG’s reactions and now Lloyds’. Is anyone accountable for their own past actions and/or reactions when a Jackson is around?

Last Tear, context is only needed when a statement(s) is confusing. It was extremely clear what Juror#27 said. There is no need for anyone to re-interpreted or attempt to re-explain his comment. If Juror#27 was to find AEG liable, he was comfortable with assigning Michael 99% responsibility for his passing. Simple.

Last Tear, if we are being truly honest with each other, many were against AEG being found liable simply for fear of what Katherine would do with the monies she may have received through damages. I did not and do not have that fear; that is why I have no issue with Michael’s beneficiaries, which includes Michael’s mother, receiving the monies they deserve for the lost of their lost loved one. If you indeed share that spirit, then accept my apologies. If you do not share it, then I am correct and you should take no offense.

Why were posters so eager to make excuses for aeg having to trash mj's rep to defend themselves in a case, but get all snippy about lloyds bringing up the undisputed fact that mj died of a sleep treatment that hadnt been disclosed to them?

Simple, double standards.

Michael's Children reap the benefits of the policy, so their is no reason for us to be stressed further IMO

Michael’s mother is also a beneficiary. She will reap the benefits as well.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

Last Tear, context is only needed when a statement(s) is confusing. It was extremely clear what Juror#27 said. There is no need for anyone to re-interpreted or attempt to re-explain his comment. If Juror#27 was to find AEG liable, he was comfortable with assigning Michael 99% responsibility for his passing. Simple.

Context is always important especially when someone is answering a hypothetical question and is pressed to do so. Around and about our words have been taken out of context and selective edits to show this forum in a bad light, there is even a whole section of a certain blog dedicated to the juror where only selective posts of his are shown and the whole picture is not provided to its readers. I have issues with people who, in order to boost their beliefs, will take a small section and run with it. I do not suggest that was your intention on posting the 99% quote but I wanted to put it in context for anyone who hadn't followed the other threads, especially as this is not the AEG v KJ thread.

Last Tear, if we are being truly honest with each other, many were against AEG being found liable simply for fear of what Katherine would do with the monies she may have received through damages. I did not and do not have that fear; that is why I have no issue with Michael’s beneficiaries, which includes Michael’s mother, receiving the monies they deserve for the lost of their lost loved one. If you indeed share that spirit, then accept my apologies. If you do not share it, then I am correct and you should take no offense.

This isn't the AEG thread. My happiness for this settlement is two-fold, I do believe that this would have been a very messy trial and I'm glad Michaels memory is spared that ordeal. Secondly, I'm happy that this settlement will be added to Michaels estate in order to benefit all of Michaels beneficiaries and charities, Michael wanted his mother provided for and I have no doubt about that.

 

[ivy]

Actually this trial thread is becoming more and more about the AEG trial, I think I need to remind everyone that we have a thread for that.

 

[serendipity]

My happiness for this settlement is two-fold, I do believe that this would have been a very messy trial and I'm glad Michaels memory is spared that ordeal. Secondly, I'm happy that this settlement will be added to Michaels estate in order to benefit all of Michaels beneficiaries and charities, Michael wanted his mother provided for and I have no doubt about that.

Michael's memory and reputation being spared yet another dragging through the mud is the main reason why I'm happy with this settlement. This is the important thing for me, not if Katherine or even the kids will get money. They will never be in need of money, MJ made sure of that.

I'm also glad the money goes to the Estate and not directly to Katherine.

 

[marebear]

I am glad that Michael was protected here. I don't need Michael's business or what people think was his business all over the place for once. It's all people want to focus on. Michael was more than his issues in the past. Everyone has problems and things but it doesn't take away all the good he did, kind of person he was and all the joy he brought to people with his work. I am not ignoring anything it's just I want him to rest in peace.

 

[Petrarose]

Actually this trial thread is becoming more and more about the AEG trial, I think I need to remind everyone that we have a thread for that.

You know I was going to post the same thing some pages back, but changed my mind. I am glad someone noticed that.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, if you would like to continue with context, Juror#27 was never pressed to give answers; he gave them freely and was for the most part praised by those who supported AEG being held not liable. His response that Michael was 99% responsible for his own passing compared to Panish’s 20% went largely unnoticed by those supporting AEG being held not liable because it was not an answer that was favored for obvious reasons. If you are continuing with context, you will see I was the only poster who highlighted that response in the appropriate thread.

Lloyds’ also believed Michael was responsible for his own passing due to the negative stereotypes most harbor against addicts as AEG did in their defense. If the estate did not take the settlement - as it was previously believed by most here that those with strong cases do not take settlements - the estate could have shown that Michael was not participating in his addiction in 2009 and it could not be successfully proven he was addicted to propofol. This is what Panish did in the civil trial and Walgren did in the criminal trial.

I'm also glad the money goes to the Estate and not directly to Katherine.

Serendipity, thanks again for proving my point. Last Tear, I am also inclined to believe you should take no offense as we do not share the same spirit or fear about the beneficiaries’ spending monies they deserve for the lost of their loved one.

Actually this trial is becoming more and more about AEG trial, I think I need to remind everyone that we have a thread for that.

Ivy, it seems many who supported AEG being held not liable are uncomfortable with the similarities between Lloyds’ and AEG’s positions and the estate and the plaintiffs’ positions which is an uncomfortable double standard. The principles are similar but, the players are different. Monies go the same place regardless.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, it seems many who supported AEG being held not liable are uncomfortable with the similarities between Lloyds’ and AEG’s positions and the estate and the plaintiffs’ positions which is an uncomfortable double standard. The principles are similar but, the players are different. Monies go the same place regardless.

one major difference: who filed the lawsuit? Jacksons in AEG trial and Lloyds in this case. Who settled the case before trial Estate.

As far as I'm concerned people complained how Jacksons case allowed MJ to be dragged through mud (by AEG duh). People also mentioned AEG's right to defend themselves. In this instance Lloyds filed the lawsuit with the intention to drag MJ through mud. Estate defending themselves would be acceptable but they settled before Lloyds can do that. As I mentioned before the nature of the cases is also totally different.

also "monies go to the same place regardless" isn't technically true. In AEG case if she won Katherine would get the full amount quickly and directly and could done whatever she wanted with the money. However in Lloyds case money goes to Estate. As far as Katherine goes whether to give her anything will be under Estate's control as the will says they should be paying for KJ's expenses as they see fit. Kids will eventually get their share but that would be years to decades. So there's really no similarity in that regard either.

So I see no double standard and I think only you and one more poster seems to be uncomfortable about what is going in. To me this is very much like comparing apples to oranges and some looking to the orange and saying "no it's an apple". Also let's remember that It's over, it's moot.

ps:

it could not be successfully proven he was addicted to propofol.

this is the part about which I said " As I mentioned before the nature of the cases is also totally different.
". Whether he is addicted to Propofol or any other medicine is irrelevant. The insurance case is about if he knowingly held information from insurers and if he willingly take part in an activity he knew most probably cause death - aka the determination of accident or not.

I might provide some sample cases later tonight to demonstrate how does that accident / not accident thing work

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

Last Tear, if you would like to continue with context, Juror#27 was never pressed to give answers; he gave them freely and was for the most part praised by those who supported AEG being held not liable. His response that Michael was 99% responsible for his own passing compared to Panish’s 20% went largely unnoticed by those supporting AEG being held not liable because it was not an answer that was favored for obvious reasons. If you are continuing with context, you will see I was the only poster who highlighted that response in the appropriate thread.

What is the point in the above? You are giving your opinion not adding context. I don't know why you have got so hot under the collar because I posted the complete quote.

 

[bobmoo79]

An example:
If I take out an insurance policy when I go on holiday and don't plan to try base jumping, I won't tell the insurance company that I'm going to base jump. Of course my insurance premiums will be calculated with lower risk, and the insurance won't cover that dangerous activity.
If I decide to base jump but dont tell the insurance company and die during the activity, then they do not have to pay out because they were not aware of the dangerous activity, and so I was not adequately insured.
If while I'm on holiday I decide to try base jumping then I am required by the insurance policy's terms and conditions to tell them BEFORE I start base jumping. This provides them an opportunity to reassess the risk and increase the premium accordingly. I WOULD then be insured and the insurance company would pay out if I died.
Of course, when being informed of the base jumping, the insurance company also have the right to decline insurance in which case I would need to find a different insurance company willing to take on the risk.
In Mj's case he may not have told Lloyds about the use of Propofol, and if the policy was set up before he started taking Propofol then he wouldn't be required to tell them. The policy premium would be set up on that basis.
However, upon using propofol for sleep issues he would be required to tell Lloyds about both issues at which point they would have either increased the premiums significantly or cancel the policy. Similarly, if MJ had not detailed all the medical details they requested, including previous drug use, health problems etc then they could refuse to pay out on the basis that he witheld information that would have affected the risk.
When I last took out life assurance I was asked to provide ALL details of every visit to the hospital, doctor etc for the previous 5 years. I was also asked to sign a form allowing the insurance company to access all my medical records. The policy also stated that I needed to make them aware of any changes to those details between filling out the forms and the policy starting. To prevent making a mistake I requested all my medical records for the 5 year period and used them to fill out the form. If I have made a mistake or have not kept them fully informed then if I die (or get a 'critical' illness) then I fully expect the insurance company to refuse payment.
IMO any payment made by Lloyds would have been a token gesture (certainly

 

[passy001]

An example:

IMO any payment made by Lloyds would have been a token gesture (certainly

 

[ivy]

This is the logic behind such insurance lawsuits

1 . Is the death (loss) accidental?

2. Did the injury cause the loss?

3. Does an exclusion apply to loss?

Most of the time accident isn't defined in the insurance policies. If that’s the case it might be required to be determined at court. Most of the times the court will focus on foreseeability.

Some quotes:

An “accident” is generally understood as an unfortunate consequence that befalls an individual through his inattention, carelessness, or perhaps for no explicable reason at all.

Individuals sometimes voluntarily subject themselves to dangers that may result in death or injury and still be covered under an accident policy. The intentional or unnecessary exposure to risks, as well as the negligent creation of risks to one’s own safety, does not necessarily prevent the result from being “accidental” within the meaning of an accident insurance policy. It is only when the consequences of the act are so natural and probable that it can be said that the insured, in effect, intended the result and it was therefore not accidental. The burden of proving the loss was an “accident” falls on the insured or beneficiary.

The legal framework that courts use to analyze the situation :

1. Was death accidental?

Court would look to see if accident is defined in the insurance policy. Most courts also look to see if there’s a clear cut evidence of self-destructive intent. Courts will also consider if the event was “unexpected, unintended, and unforeseen”. They will also consider what the decedent knew and/or believed prior to death (such as previous overdose could show that the decent knew the risk of an overdose). Also cause of death and explanations by both parties are evaluated.

2. Was death intentional?

Courts would start by looking to the insurance policy to see if and how intentional/suicide is defined. Court would consider if there were any evidence self-destructive behavior before death such as suicidal words, action, use of more pills than prescribed, past treatment with mental health professionals

3. Was the death consequence of a medical/surgical treatment or sickness? (generally such excluded)

4. Was event the “direct cause of the loss” and/or “independent of all other causes” of death?

5. Was the death drug related?

Examine to see if the policy makes a distinction in prescription and nonprescription drugs. Examine to see if the policy makes a distinction between prescription drugs taken as prescribed and not taken as prescribed. Examine how the drug “use” is defined, if it includes intentional as well as accidental use. If multiple drugs were in the system were they all prescribed? Were they taken at prescribed dosages?

Example cases

Flores v. Monumental Life Insurance Company, 620 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir.2010)

Insured were prescribed medicine for hypertension, falls and breaks her arm and then dies at rehab center due to toxicity of hypertension medicine. Insurer tried to cancel the policy based on non-accidental death and medical/surgical treatment exclusions. Court found that her overdose of prescription meds was an “injury” under policy since it was “unexpected, unintended and unforeseen and was, therefore, accidental under the policy. Court decided that the medical condition put the insured in the position to be exposed to unexpected event (the fall) and unexpected events was considered to be an accident were covered.

Pilcher v. New York Life Insurance Company, 25 Cal.App.3d 717 (1972)


Insured died because of a heroin overdose. Death certificate listed is as accidental overdose. Policy did not have a definition of accident. Court determined that the decedent intended to administer the drug, but there is no evidence of “intent to die” so the overdose has to be considered an accident. Policy also did not have an exclusion for drug usage so the court said they should have included such exclusion.

Jessen v. Cigna Group Insurance, 812 F.Supp.2d 805 (E.D. Mich. 2011)

Insured found dead of a heroin overdose while overseas. Decedent was found with needle marks, sleeves rolled up, evidence of volitional ingestion of heroin, but no evidence of intent to kill himself, merely shoot up. Insurer argued non-accidental death. Court determined that accident wasn’t defined and there was no exclusion for use of non-prescribed illegal drugs. Court saw no evidence of intent to commit suicide. Coroner concluded that the evidence showed that insured was only trying to get high but not injure himself. Medical history showed that the insured had been an addict in the past and built up tolerance to heroin which diminished when he was clean. Court concluded that it would be easy to overdose if the tolerance had diminished while clean. Court decided that the insured would not conclude use of heroin would cause death or injury. Ruled the death as accidental.

Gerdes v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 199 F.Supp.2d 861 (C.D. Ill. 2001)

Coroner determined insured die due to opiates and cocaine aka speedball. There was no evidence of suicide. Insurer argued that the death was intentional as the insured took the drugs voluntarily. Court found out that the policy did not define accident, suicide or injury. Court determined that insured likely expected to survive doing speedball however court also determined that the dangers of speedball was widely known hence determined the cause was intentional self-inflicted injury and excluded from coverage.

Arredondo v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, 2012 WL948979 (S.D.Tex.)

Insured died from combined effects of drugs and alcohol which court described as “synergistic”: a mix of medicine at prescribed dosages and alcohol. Court determined that the insured misused methadone and took it in combination with alcohol, which violates doctor’s orders. The Court took note of the fact that the insured was warned by doctors not to take alcohol while on these meds and did so anyway. - Yet, even if he accidentally took more than intended, he contravened doctor’s advice by drinking alcohol so the Court felt that the exclusion applies. It was ruled in insurer’s favor.

Edwards v. Monumental Life Insurance Company, 812 F.Supp.2d 1263 (D. Kan. 2011)

Insured died and had been taking Oxycodone for joint issues prior to her death. Cause of death was listed as “Oxycodone toxicity” and referred to the death as an “accident.” 17 Oxycodone pills were unaccounted for at the time of her death. Concentration of Oxycodone in insured’s blood was 2.5 times what was expected – much higher than expected, given her dosage. Doctor opined that insured did not take her medication as prescribed. On summary judgment, insurer argued “suicide” and “medical treatment” exclusions and that because pills were missing, beneficiary cannot establish whether death was accidental or intentional, so coverage is not proven. Beneficiary argued that there was no evidence of intentional overdosage, so death was accidental. Court examined whether death was “accident” or “suicide”. Burden is on the insurer to provide that exemption is applicable. Though there was evidence of insured being depressed, no evidence that it rose to the level of seeking therapy or medication, or that insured had considered suicide. Insurer did not overcome the presumption against suicide which exists within Kansas law. Here, evidence of accident v. suicide was evenly balanced so Court concluded that presumption had not been overcome and that death was accidental.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I stated the players were different. The players are the reason for the double standard and I find there may be others who are upset that two members admitted there is a double standard instead of ignoring it.

I will assume it is known the trials were not the same particularly as one was a wrongful death trial, however; I maintain stances held by Lloyds were held by AEG and those stances were previously supported when AEG was defending themselves against the Jacksons. However, those same stances are being rejected now that the estate has to defend itself with similar stances that were previously rejected when the Jacksons held them. That is a double standard.

As for the monies, the same people get it no matter the route. I simply do not share the fear some have of what Katherine would do with any monies. I also do not fear what the children will do. The beneficiaries receive monies daily in the most unenviable method available. I believe they would prefer to have their son/father back than any monies that has and will continue to be given to them from the passing of their lost loved one.

Whether he is addicted to Propofol or any other medicine is irrelevant. The insurance case is about if he knowingly held information from insurers and if he willingly take part in an activity he knew most probably cause death - aka the determination of accident or not.

Most of the times the court will focus on foreseeability.

Individuals sometimes voluntarily subject themselves to dangers that may result in death or injury and still be covered under an accident policy. The intentional or unnecessary exposure to risks, as well as the negligent creation of risks to one’s own safety, does not necessarily prevent the result from being “accidental” within the meaning of an accident insurance policy. It is only when the consequences of the act are so natural and probable that it can be said that the insured, in effect, intended the result and it was therefore not accidental. The burden of proving the loss was an “accident” falls on the insured or beneficiary.

Your own post negate your response to me regarding similarities and Michael possibly being addicted to propofol. Lloyds did as AEG did. They wanted to portray Michael to be an addict that was secretive about his addictions. How often has it been said during the AEG civil trial that AEG was not aware of propofol?! The assumption always will be that Michael was an addict who most likely was addicted to propofol and that he told people, just not AEG and Lloyds.

I maintain if the estate did not accept the settlement, they should do as Panish and Walgren did. However, I agree with Bobmoo79 and I am glad it is settled. This should be a profitable year for the estate. Michael will only have one five year anniversary of his passing so I hope they will not make the mistakes they did with Michael and Bad25 projects. I am wishing them success as Michael deserves it.

Last Tear, are you suggesting my views are: Juror#27 was never pressured to give answers, he gave them freely, he was praised by those who supported AEG being held not liable, his response that he was comfortable with assigning Michael 99% responsibility for his own passing compared to Panish’s 20% went largely unnoticed by those supporting AEG being held not liable, and I was the only poster who highlighted that response in the appropriate thread?

No, it is not my view; it is fact that I had time to put into context. I do not appreciate anyone trying to suggest that I twisted Juror#27 words or any poster’s words for my benefit. While there may be some that do so, I do not feel the need to.

By accepting a settlement the MJ Estate are able to prevent dragging MJ's medical records through the media again, focusing on negative aspects of MJ's life in a year when they want to launch a new album and no doubt commemorate the 5th anniversary of his death. This year has the potential to be a big earner for the MJ Estate. By pursuing the court case the MJ Estate would have paid millions in lawyers fees with the possibility of losing, and the negativity around the case filtering into the media could have damaged their income streams.

Lloyds is all about risk. they will have assessed how much they think a court case would cost them and the chance of winning/losing, versus the convenience of making this issue go away quickly. A settlement was the best option for both sides.

Agreed.

 

[krikzil]

" he was praised by those who supported AEG being held not liable, his response that he was comfortable with assigning Michael 99% responsibility for his own passing compared to Panish’s 20% went largely unnoticed by those supporting AEG being held not liable, and I was the only poster who highlighted that response in the appropriate thread?" -- Tygger

I was simply grateful to the juror for taking the time to share with us. It was interesting to hear about his opinions and the deliberations, and would have been so for me whichever way the verdict went.

FYI, simply because we don't harp on a point, doesn't mean we didn't notice. His statement about the apportionment of responsibility is exactly why I (and others, I believe) dreaded the trial in the first place. Whether AEG was deemed liable for hiring and supervising by the jury, I fully expected them to assign Michael -- you know, since KJ didn't see fit to include his actual killer -- a huge portion of the blame because he did have the history of using the Propofol.

 

[LastTear]

Last Tear, are you suggesting my views are: Juror#27 was never pressured to give answers, he gave them freely, he was praised by those who supported AEG being held not liable, his response that he was comfortable with assigning Michael 99% responsibility for his own passing compared to Panish’s 20% went largely unnoticed by those supporting AEG being held not liable, and I was the only poster who highlighted that response in the appropriate thread?

No, it is not my view; it is fact that I had time to put into context. I do not appreciate anyone trying to suggest that I twisted Juror#27 words or any poster’s words for my benefit. While there may be some that do so, I do not feel the need to.

^^^^ Did you just want to repeat it all over again? Yes you were the only one, we know, you tell us this many times. But......the jurors response was 'on that pie chart I would have to unfortunately etc' he also said the real pie chart should include Murray, that, to me, does not appear a comfortable assignment. Btw There really is no need to make such a big deal about a complete quote being posted.

 

[serendipity]

FYI, simply because we don't harp on a point, doesn't mean we didn't notice. His statement about the apportionment of responsibility is exactly why I (and others, I believe) dreaded the trial in the first place. Whether AEG was deemed liable for hiring and supervising by the jury, I fully expected them to assign Michael -- you know, since KJ didn't see fit to include his actual killer -- a huge portion of the blame because he did have the history of using the Propofol.

I've said it before too, but I'm almost certain MJ would've gotten the bigger percentage of blame if Katherine won. Though I'm also sure some of her supporters wouldn't have cared much about that.......

 

[Tygger]

you know, since KJ didn't see fit to include his actual killer

This made me laugh. Thanks.

LastTear, I repeated it because you stated it was all my opinion when it was all fact. For context, my response regarding the “real” pie chart at that time:

The "real pie chart" had Michael at 20% and AEG at 80%. One can agree or disagree with those percentages however, one cannot add parties to it. Juror27 clearly stated Michael would be at 99-100% and many posters disagreed with me when I said Michael was at 100% with the verdict rendered.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ckson-vs-AEG?p=3916340&viewfull=1#post3916340

Serendipity, the higher the percentage of blame to Michael, the less monies would be recovered.

 

[Member Service]

Closed for review: This thread continues to veer off topic. The off topic arguments are just going in circles now. Please take the AEG trial discussions to the correct thread. Not sure its even possible to clean this to get it back on track. Please stay on topic in these threads. It getting very annoying trying to moderate with all the derails.