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

[Annita]

Quote from AP-Article:
The settlement of Jackson’s estate also remains pending, with claims by the singer’s former manager yet to be ruled upon.


What does this mean?

 

[Bubs]

Annita, see Anthony's tweets

@TheMJAP There's still pending claims in Jackson's estate, including Tohme Tohme's and Wade Robson's, so estate case isn't closed.

Anthony McCartney ?@mccartneyAP 12h
Re: Lloyd's case @TheMJAP: @mccartneyAP Not sure what the final paragraph relates to - 'the settlement of Jackson's estate remains pending'?


I personally don't think he meant Tohme case is pending settlement, but there are still cases that are being worked before the estate (or estate is out of probate) is closed.


Ivy, what do you think it means?

 

[ivy]

^^

That's what I think too. I think he was trying to say "settlement of MJ Probate is pending due to the ongoing lawsuits"

 

[ivy]

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

Ivy you remember the IRS had included the full 17 million in the tax liability showing that the estate had this as income. The estate had responded that they did not recover the money from Lloyds or words to that effect. Now maybe we can tell how much Lloyds paid out if we see some new millions added to the next accounting?

Yeah you are right. The settlement number should show up on the IRS trial docs (if it happens) and on the Estate accounting. But it might not be the third accounting but the fourth one. so yeah we can perhaps learn the amount for settlement but it will probably take some time. I'll check to see the court documents if they would have any info about settlement.

because Lloyd could not prove that MJ committed fraud when he answered his question on the form. that is why they settle. because in order to do so, they would have to prove that 1) MJ knew that he was on drugs as in illegal drugs when he was filling in the form in April 2009, which is impossible. 2)moreover they would have to prove that MJ was using Propofol in April 2009,which is also impossible.
worse, the estate could easily proven that Lloyd had engaged several times in dodgy insurance practices, even covering those artists (e.g Aerosmith) they knew was on drugs, then undercutting their very own claim that they would not have covered MJ if they knew he was a drug addict.

The Estate settling was pretty much the plan since day one given that they had already settled with two other U.S insurance firms. so settling with Lloyd was just another formality.

Lloyd was acting in bad faith and got caught really badly. They had to give in in the end.

Actually a little correction : Dr. Slavit examined Michael in February 2009.

Michael was seeing Klein very rarely at that time (Jan 14, Feb 5, Feb 10, March 12 and so on) but regardless he disclosed it to Slavit and the insurers that he was seeing a dermatologist.

But as you said there's no evidence that Michael was getting Propofol at February. By all accounts he didn't ask Murray/Adams to become his doctors/for Propofol until March and Murray did not order stuff until late March/April. And Murray's police interview saying he gave Propofol for last 60 days puts his start of Propofol to late April.

So I believe you are right that there's no evidence that Michael was on drugs - mainly Propofol- at Feb, 2009 and withhold that information. He disclosed Klein's treatment. So there goes Lloyd's claims of fraud and Michael hid his medical history/drug information.

 

[Petrarose]

Good news just keep coming

Next on the line - Tohme

Here is my happy dance too:




Yeah we Won!!

 

[Petrarose]

Ivy didn't the estate say to the judge that they needed another year before they could close probate? I thought I saw that in the last statements we had around the time of the last accounting.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

It's quite safe to assume they paid at least half i.e $8.75m

because Lloyd could not prove that MJ committed fraud when he answered his question on the form. that is why they settle. because in order to do so, they would have to prove that 1) MJ knew that he was on drugs as in illegal drugs when he was filling in the form in April 2009, which is impossible. 2)moreover they would have to prove that MJ was using Propofol in April 2009,which is also impossible.

Completely disagree. Because the estate made good arguments that mj didn't commit fraud in the insurance document that somehow means lloyds was under some obligation to settle? Just because someone doesn't commit fraud in filling out an ins policy doesn't mean they automatically get a pay out from an ins company when they make a claim. Mj might not have been using prop in april when the ins was taken out but he was obv using it in june as he died of it. You really think it would be easy in a trial to argue that mj's death from prop shd be classed as an 'accident' under this ins policy? - i find that really surprising coming from you as you claim in other threads that mj was playing russian roulette with his own life in using murray to administer prop. Russian roulette is a text book example of what is not classed as an 'accident'. I've no idea how much the settlement wd be, but i would say the estate wd be lucky to get the premium back.

worse, the estate could easily proven that Lloyd had engaged several times in dodgy insurance practices, even covering those artists (e.g Aerosmith) they knew was on drugs, then undercutting their very own claim that they would not have covered MJ if they knew he was a drug addict.

Lloyd was acting in bad faith and got caught really badly. They had to give in in the end.

What 'dodgy practises' and 'dirty dealings' are you trying to suggest lloyds get up to - are insurance companies not allowed to cover artists who have drug issues.

 

[Soundmind]

So MJ did not lie and gave Dr.Slavit accurate information? how come ? :smilerolleyes:

I swear some members here were so invested in proving he lied to everyone including the insurers thus his estate had no chance. What a change of heart !

Was it hard to know he was not lying in February ? Did we really need the estate to state that in their arguments to know he was not lying? No , the information was out there for years. However, some ignored it intentionally while insisting he was lying to prove their point.

 

[ivy]

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

Ivy didn't the estate say to the judge that they needed another year before they could close probate? I thought I saw that in the last statements we had around the time of the last accounting.

yes and that means they would file a third accounting. It might or might not be the last accounting. The last time we got accounting in 2012 and it covered until December 2011. So even we get the third accounting it will probably not include 2014 in it.

Mj might not have been using prop in april when the ins was taken out but he was obv using it in june as he died of it. You really think it would be easy in a trial to argue that mj's death from prop shd be classed as an 'accident' under this ins policy? - i find that really surprising coming from you as you claim in other threads that mj was playing russian roulette with his own life in using murray to administer prop. Russian roulette is a text book example of what is not classed as an 'accident'.

Bonnie, I believe you need to read definition of accident under CA insurance law

A policy that insures against "accidental death" requires only "that the insured's death was not designed or anticipated by the insured". Accidental death is unintended and undesigned result even if caused by the insured's voluntary act.

As you can see from this definition as long as it's not a suicide and as long as the person did not want and plan to die as far as insurance is concerned it is an accidental death.

In other words Michael could have voluntarily taken Propofol (voluntary act) but if he believed he'll be okay as long as Murray look after him and never intended to die , it is considered an accident.

Also if you read Estate's documents you'll see that Lloyds agree there's no evidence to suggest MJ intentionally killed himself. and the original insurer Bob Taylor during deposition said that based on his experience MJ's death was an accident.


As a rule of thumb: when we are dealing with lawsuits, it's not about our own definitions or what we believe to be true or false. we all need to approach these cases based on legal definitions and evidence available.

 

[serendipity]

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

What 'dodgy practises' and 'dirty dealings' are you trying to suggest lloyds get up to - are insurance companies not allowed to cover artists who have drug issues.

I believe Lloyds themselves said they would not have covered MJ if they knew his drug issues, yet as the Estate showed, they have covered artists with known drug issues like Whitney, Aerosmith, Britney, etc.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

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.

Re mj's estate paying out all the prod costs, actually over $35m not $24m, to aeg without waiting for the insurance policy taken out by mj/aeg to pay out, i just don't understand your argument which isn't 'easy' or 'obvious' at all. Why on earth would the tii documentary if mj estate be held up for 4 yrs if mj's estate hadn't paid all the costs upfront - randy phillips and aeg were the ones who were desperately trying to get the footage made into a film as they saw the $$$ that could be made. All their post 25june statements were making it clear that they were the ones who owned the footage and randy phillips and gongaware were made producers on the doc. Where did the $60m go that sony paid for the doc? It's clear that aeg weren't relinquishing their rights to this footage, they saw it rightly as incredibly valuable. As far as i can see aeg were claiming after mj's death that they owned all the footage of tii made on their cameras, that mj owed them for all the productions costs to date on tii and that they were a party to mj/aeg's $17.5m insurance policy. I suppose that you can only admire their determination not to let mj's death prevent them from cleaning up.

 

[ivy]

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

As far as i can see aeg were claiming after mj's death that they owned all the footage of tii made on their cameras, that mj owed them for all the productions costs to date on tii and that they were a party to mj/aeg's $17.5m insurance policy.

the answer is here. yep that's exactly what they claimed and that's why Estate had to reimburse them to get the control/ownership of the footage. Everything else was 90-10% split between MJ Estate - AEG per MJ/AEG contract. And as AEG was reimbursed they no longer had any claim on the insurance policy.

So to me it is obvious and easy that rather than paying for 4.5 years for insurance settlement, Estate choose to reimburse AEG to get access/control to the footage quickly.

edited to add: you are right that the $24 Million number I wrote was wrong. The actual amount MJ Estate reimbursed AEG is $34,199,688. Crowe Horwath did the audit.

 

[Justthefacts]

It would just kill some to give the estate some credit

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

Bonnie, I believe you need to read definition of accident under CA insurance law

A policy that insures against "accidental death" requires only "that the insured's death was not designed or anticipated by the insured". Accidental death is unintended and undesigned result even if caused by the insured's voluntary act.

Where does this 'def of accident under ca insurance law' come from? - it's not from the lloyds's contract - I thought 'accident' was determined on a case by case basis, dealing with precedents. The issue of whether unintended acts arising out of intended acts are covered by the term accident is open to interpretation. What you quote is an incredibly wide definition and even dealing with this def, it leads to issues such as what test is used to show that the death wasn't designed or anticipated - an objective one or subjective one? Objective, no chance, you'd never find someone believing being put under anesthetic everynight in one's bedroom is danger free; subjective - unfortunately you have the evidence of all the doctors who claim that they told mj of the dangers, of mj's efforts to try and get another doctor to assist murray as he knew it was too much for one person, of his knowledge there was no monitoring equipment.

And then you have the issue of wd lloyds agree to accident ins if they knew mj was being put into comas every night by his gp, it's a material fact. If they were all worried about a crane on the stage and wanted extra reassurances about it then i think they wd have had something to say about propofol use in his bedroom every night. I just think that all of a sudden suggesting that the estate had a great case is rather odd.

 

[ivy]

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

What definition? Where does this 'def of accident under ca insurance law' come from, it's not from the lloyds's contract

As I said it comes from California law and not Lloyds contract. Here are the sources with cases

Courts in California have defined an accidental death as one where "the death of the insured was objectively unexpected, unintended, and happened out of the usual course of events." (citing Bornstein v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 946 F.Supp. 814 (C.D.Cal.1996)).

A policy that insures against "accidental death," requires only "that the insured's death was not designed or anticipated by the insured, i.e., accidental death is an unintended and undesigned result even if caused by the insured's voluntary act." (citing Weil, 7 Cal.4th at 134-135, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 316, 866 P.2d 774).

"Policies requiring only that there be proof of accidental death are construed broadly, such that the injury or death is likely to be covered unless the insured virtually intended his injury or death." Weil, 7 Cal.4th at 140, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 316, 866 P.2d 774 (emphasis added; internal quotes omitted). See e.g. Pilcher v. New York Life Ins. Co., 25 Cal.App.3d 717, 102 Cal.Rptr. 82 (1972) (holding that death by self-administered heroin overdose was accidental in policy covering "accidental death").

As you can see from the above examples even a self administered heroin overdose is considered to be accidental as the person did not intend his/her death. and it's not about dangers or being danger free. It's about if the person intended/wanted to die or not.

I just think that all of a sudden suggesting that the estate had a great case is odd.

Well isn't it normal that opinions change as we get more information? When this case initially was filed and all we had Lloyd's side majority thought Lloyds had a strong case. When one month or so ago Estate filed their response and included depositions, laws and so on it looked like they had a decent claim (at least to me).I don't know if Estate would won the lawsuit or not but it looked like they had a chance. So it wasn't "all of a sudden", it was based on information newly available. Why can't we modify or change our opinion as we learn more and get access to more information?

 

[Bonnie Blue]

the answer is here. yep that's exactly what they claimed and that's why Estate had to reimburse them to get the control/ownership of the footage. Everything else was 90-10% split between MJ Estate - AEG per MJ/AEG contract. And as AEG was reimbursed they no longer had any claim on the insurance policy.

So to me it is obvious and easy that rather than paying for 4.5 years for insurance settlement, Estate choose to reimburse AEG to get access/control to the footage quickly.

Well both aeg and mj estate seemed to have access/control to tii footage - the sony deal seemed to have been done with both aeg/mj estate. The 90/10% split between mj estate/aeg of tii profits was only after tii exceeded $200m. Fortunately it did exceed that figure, $260+m, but only by becoming the biggest selling documentary of all time.

I understand why aeg didn't have a claim on mj's ins policy but they didn't formally relinquish their rights to it until 2012 and then only because lloyds forced them to.

As I said it comes from California law and not Lloyds contract. Here are the sources with cases

And lloyds can come back with different cases which show a more restrictive view of what constitutes an accidental death. And they can show depositions that shore up their pov. That's what lawyers do. Mj's death by propofol was an incredibly unusual death, to have it included under accidental insurance would really be widening the parameters of the type of things insurance companies cover.

Why can't we modify or change our opinion as we learn more and get access to more information?

Because i find it odd when there are some who change their opinion on the facts of a case depending on who is making the argument, for the aeg trial mj bears some responsibility for his death as he knew of the dangers and was warned aboaut them, but here the estate can successfully argue it was an accident and mj wasn't aware of the dangers.

 

[Justthefacts]

The case is over I don't understand the going back and fourth about who had a stronger case. We should all be happy that Michael's business won't be put in the street like it was thanks to his family last time

 

[ivy]

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

And lloyds can come back with different cases which show a more restrictive view of what constitutes an accidental death. And they can show depositions that shore up their pov. That's what lawyers do. Mj's death by propofol was an incredibly unusual death, to have it included under accidental insurance would really be widening the parameters of the type of things insurance companies cover.

that ain't going to happen as Lloyds have settled. Why? Ask them. But as they settled it doesn't seem like they believed they could do all the things you wrote and could win the case by not paying a dime to MJ Estate. and yeah justthefacts is right. The case is settled, who had the stronger case and who would have won are moot points right now. MJ Estate got more than $0 and Lloyds paid less than $17.5 M. I believe both parties probably think that everyone involved has won.

Because i find it odd when there are some who change their opinion on the facts of a case depending on who is making the argument, for the aeg trial mj bears some responsibility for his death as he knew of the dangers and was warned aboaut them, but here the estate can successfully argue it was an accident and mj wasn't aware of the dangers.

I think that's probably because you are confused about the types of cases and the related laws surrounding them. this was a lawsuit about voiding an insurance claim and it's governed by insurance law. it's not about determining who is responsible for MJ's death. It's not about being aware of the dangers. It's about determining whether the death was accident or not.

Refer back to the one of the examples I provided : court deciding even a self administered heroin overdose to be an accident as the person did not intend or plan to die. Was using heroin dangerous? Of course. did that person knew that using heroin was dangerous? Most probably. Did that person had responsibility for their death? Absolutely 100% as it was self administered. But did they want or plan to die? No hence it was an accident.

So if you approach to MJ's death similarly you can see that the similar things can be said. MJ using propofol could be a voluntary act, something he wanted and something that is dangerous and he was warned to be dangerous. Responsibility for his death could be divided between MJ, Murray and even AEG based on what we think. But none of those change the fact that no one - especially Michael - did not plan or want to die hence his death being an accident. Even Murray was charged with IVM - which means he did not intend to kill Michael.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

The case is over I don't understand the going back and fourth about who had a stronger case. We should all be happy that Michael's business won't be put in the street like it was thanks to his family last time

I was just discussing the case as i'm interested in things like this. If you're not interested, don't read. I'm assuming your other post about some not giving credit to the estate referred to me because i'm not joining in with the consensus that the estate has just won some huge payout from lloyds. Seriously, can you not accept that there might be people with different opinions about a legal case without getting into some boring pro-estate/anti-estate mindset. My questions about the case have nothing to do with the competence of the estate but were about the facts of the case and how strong it was, and why the estate was the one left holding this hard to win insurance policy instead of estate/aeg. I don't appreciate anyone telling me what i should and should not post about.

I think that's probably because you are confused about the types of cases and the related laws surrounding them. this was a lawsuit about voiding an insurance claim and it's governed by insurance law. it's not about determining who is responsible for MJ's death. It's not about being aware of the dangers. It's about determining whether the death was accident or not.

I'm not confused at all. The law on what consitutes accidental death is dominated by issues relating to foreseeability, of what people knew or should have known, of awareness or not of dangers. I dont personally know that one heroin case, so can't extrapolate from that a principle that will apply to all other cases, as i know that all cases have a multitude of facts that allow a judge to come to a partic decision.

Oh and thanks for discussing the case, and not being ridiculously defensive like some on here.

 

[passy001]

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

Completely disagree. Because the estate made good arguments that mj didn't commit fraud in the insurance document that somehow means lloyds was under some obligation to settle? Just because someone doesn't commit fraud in filling out an ins policy doesn't mean they automatically get a pay out from an ins company when they make a claim. Mj might not have been using prop in april when the ins was taken out but he was obv using it in june as he died of it. You really think it would be easy in a trial to argue that mj's death from prop shd be classed as an 'accident' under this ins policy? - i find that really surprising coming from you as you claim in other threads that mj was playing russian roulette with his own life in using murray to administer prop. Russian roulette is a text book example of what is not classed as an 'accident'. I've no idea how much the settlement wd be, but i would say the estate wd be lucky to get the premium back.

The idea that MJ committed fraud is quite laughable. At the time MJ filled in the questionnaire he was not on crack nor was he even using propofol. also Mj was using propofol for medical reasons and that's hardly an abuse. the fact someone takes propofol does not automatically mean he's abusing drugs.

The bottom line is Lloyd realized they could win and so had to give in.

What 'dodgy practises' and 'dirty dealings' are you trying to suggest lloyds get up to - are insurance companies not allowed to cover artists who have drug issues.

Covering artists that are abusing drugs, yet claiming that they don't cover artists who abuse drugs. that's dodgy.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

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

The idea that MJ committed fraud is quite laughable. At the time MJ filled in the questionnaire he was not on crack nor was he even using propofol. also Mj was using propofol for medical reasons and that's hardly an abuse. the fact someone takes propofol does not automatically mean he's abusing drugs.

I certainly have never said mj committed fraud (?), my issue was with your assumption that as mj wasn't defrauding them on the policy doc re the drug issue, that meant that lloyds suddenly had to pay up on the policy adn that's why they settled. That's not the case - there's the issue of non-disclosure of mj's issues, eg insomnia and no disclosure of the risk of being put in a coma every night for presumably months on end. In insurance you just don't have a situation where you can say certain things on a ins policy, but afterwards do the exact opposite and still expect ins coverage for those things you decide to do after signing a doc - insurance doesn't work like that.

The bottom line is Lloyd realized they could win and so had to give in.

All sorts of reasons why settlements are made in civil cases.

Covering artists that are abusing drugs, yet claiming that they don't cover artists who abuse drugs. that's dodgy.

Where did lloyds say they didn't cover artists who abuse drugs? - i missed that. I'm pretty sure that they would have covered mj if he had disclosed his pres drug history, his issues seemed known to lloyds anyway, but that they might have asked for a higher premium and maybe included some conditions - like having one of their docs on the tour like the dangerous tour. But I'm also pretty sure they would't have covered propofol use, and in the highly unlikely event they would then they would include tons of safeguards.

 

[Justthefacts]

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

I certainly have never said mj committed fraud (?), my issue was with your assumption that as mj wasn't defrauding them on the policy doc re the drug issue, that meant that lloyds suddenly had to pay up on the policy adn that's why they settled. That's not the case - there's the issue of non-disclosure of mj's issues, eg insomnia and no disclosure of the risk of being put in a coma every night for presumably months on end. In insurance you just don't have a situation where you can say certain things on a ins policy, but afterwards do the exact opposite and still expect ins coverage for those things you decide to do after signing a doc - insurance doesn't work like that.


All sorts of reasons why settlements are made in civil cases.


Where did lloyds say they didn't cover artists who abuse drugs? - i missed that. I'm pretty sure that they would have covered mj if he had disclosed his pres drug history, his issues seemed known to lloyds anyway, but that they might have asked for a higher premium and maybe included some conditions - like having one of their docs on the tour like the dangerous tour. But I'm also pretty sure they would't have covered propofol use, and in the highly unlikely event they would then they would include tons of safeguards.

When Michael filed out the policy there was not an ounce of proof he was getting propofol for sleep issues. LOL assumed he was just like they assumed he was a hard core drug addict, they were wrong. LOL messed up IMO when they said Michael hid things from them, the estate was able to provethat Michael had worked with LOL before and they were well aware of his issues. They tried to scare the estate into backing off look no further than hiring Michael Biden to offer his useless opinion of how Michael's lungs were damaged. They tried it they failed they settled

 

[twinklEE]

Where did lloyds say they didn't cover artists who abuse drugs

they said they wouldnt have covered him if they knew he was abusing drugs implying they dont cover artist who abuse drugs. Yet they are on records for decades for covering hardcore substance abuser's. That is why the estate filled the motion about Aerosmiith, Britney Jean etc

 

[ivy]

FYI

I was looking to the exhibits attached to Estate's reply ( a few months back)

production expenses /costs that Estate reimbursed AEG is $34,199,688

However Estate received 90% of retained ticketing income which is $4,158,634.50

which makes Estate's net loss $30,041,053.50

 

[marebear]

Michael hardly had any privacy and so much of his private business has been out there these last few years. I am glad the estate found a way to deal with this so Michael could have some privacy. With all these legal cases they really are on top of things and really look after Michael's best interests.

 

[ivy]

brief comment from Weitzman

Michael Jackson estate settles "This Is It" tour lawsuit
print
Comments
1
Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson announces his "This Is It" comeback tour in 2009. (Joel Ryan / AP / March 5, 2009)
By Jeff Gottlieb
January 15, 2014, 4:55 p.m.
Michael Jackson’s estate and Lloyd’s of London have settled their lawsuit in which the insurer claimed it shouldn't have to pay $17.5 million on a tour cancellation policy after the singer died in June 2009.

Jackson’s estate countersued for breach of contract. Terms of the settlement are secret.

“The estate, and, I’m sure Lloyd’s, are glad the matter is resolved,” said Howard Weitzman, an attorney for the Jackson side.

Lloyd’s claimed it did not have to pay because the singer did not reveal his drug use.

Jackson died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol administered at his home by Dr. Conrad Murray, as he was about to embark on a comeback series of concerts in London.

The singer’s mother and children sued concert promoter and producer AEG Live, saying the company had negligently hired and supervised Murray.

Following a five-month trial, a Superior Court jury found AEG Live not liable in Jackson’s death.

Testimony in the case showed that Jackson’s estate repaid AEG the advance of more than $30 million the company gave Jackson during rehearsals.

Jackson’s use of prescription painkillers became well known after his “Dangerous” tour came to an abrupt early end in 1993 when Elizabeth Taylor flew to Mexico City to take the singer to a rehab facility in London.

Paul Schrieffer, the attorney for Lloyd's, could not be reached for comment.

 

[passy001]

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

I certainly have never said mj committed fraud (?), my issue was with your assumption that as mj wasn't defrauding them on the policy doc re the drug issue, that meant that lloyds suddenly had to pay up on the policy adn that's why they settled. That's not the case - there's the issue of non-disclosure of mj's issues, eg insomnia and no disclosure of the risk of being put in a coma every night for presumably months on end. In insurance you just don't have a situation where you can say certain things on a ins policy, but afterwards do the exact opposite and still expect ins coverage for those things you decide to do after signing a doc - insurance doesn't work like that.

Do you seriously expect a layman to make that kind of disclosure when filling out a questionnaire of this nature? since when does the notion of taking out propofol constitute "drug abuse"? if i ask you whether you take drugs, what will be the first thing that comes into your mind? your meds or heroin? most laymen when they speak of drugs they think of heroin and cocaine. they don't think of meds or anesthesia substance. so it's a bit of a stretch to expect MJ, who was not a medical expert, to think differently. beside MJ filled out that questionnaire way before he was using propofol to cure his sleeping problems. so technically he did not withhold any information.

All sorts of reasons why settlements are made in civil cases.

yes, but in this case the motif is too obvious.

Where did lloyds say they didn't cover artists who abuse drugs? - i missed that. I'm pretty sure that they would have covered mj if he had disclosed his pres drug history, his issues seemed known to lloyds anyway, but that they might have asked for a higher premium and maybe included some conditions - like having one of their docs on the tour like the dangerous tour. But I'm also pretty sure they would't have covered propofol use, and in the highly unlikely event they would then they would include tons of safeguards.

Please go back and read their complaint. one of their claims/arguments is that MJ kept information about his drug use. and had they known about it, they would not have offered him that policy. it was the estate that countered that claim with proof that such information was immaterial as it would have had little impact on their decision since they've covered MJ before in the past knowing very well of his conditions. also, Lloyd had covered several other artists (e.g Areosmith) in the past even though they've publicly admitted to abusing drugs. worse Lloyd had no evidence that MJ was abusing drugs other than tabloids reports, which are not admissible evidence in the court of law because they represent hearsay.

In short their case had a lot of holes which the estate demonstrated in compelling fashion in their reply brief opposing lloyd motion for summary judgement.

Lloyd was simply acting in bad faith by refusing to pay out MJ estate.

 

[Petrarose]

Passy good points ^^. I would like to add that we all forget the cases and mix them up at times, but it is a good idea, if we want to do some good debating in a thread, to really follow the case as it progresses. There are several factual documents, so we do ourselves a disservice when we don't take advantage of the information.

 

[serendipity]

FYI

I was looking to the exhibits attached to Estate's reply ( a few months back)

production expenses /costs that Estate reimbursed AEG is $34,199,688

However Estate received 90% of retained ticketing income which is $4,158,634.50

which makes Estate's net loss $30,041,053.50

Ivy, is this about the profit from the unreturned tickets? I know some have claimed that AEG likely made a profit from tickets that people kept as souvenirs, so it seems like that's not the case.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, is this about the profit from the unreturned tickets? I know some have claimed that AEG likely made a profit from tickets that people kept as souvenirs, so it seems like that's not the case.

I read that "retained ticketing" as the income from the souvenir tickets. So I'll say yes. but that's my personal interpretation.