[Archived] Dahlin Insurance Setback

[AussieinUk]

The original judgement was I believe in favour of upholding Rovers' claim for £4m payout under the insurance policy for Dahlin plus £500K costs.

If Rovers win the Dahlin case, they will immediately claim for Peacock as well- reported to be worth something over £1m in potential payout.

Obviously if there is a non-disclosed settlement, Rovers cannot pretend not to know what it is even the rest of the world is kept in the dark. Therefore, it is inevitable that in any out-of-court settlement both parties will want to wrap the Peacock case into the agreement otherwise the Rovers would go straight back to Court and start to chase that settlement using the knowledge gained from fighting the Dahlin case.

The Insurance Industry is probably far more worried about stting an exploitable precedent for the rest of pro sports to make successful claims under than they are about whether they pay the Rovers something over £5m or not.

As Revidge I think pointed out, the Appeal did not so much over-turn the original verdict as held there were other factors to be brought into consideration in determining the quantum to be paid out. It therefore invited both sides to settle or go to trial.

So long as the Rovers convince the Insurance Industry that they have the determination and cash to go to trial (where the Walker Trust parent comes in), the Insurance Industry will be very nervous about fighting such a case in open Court which could set highly expensive precedents against it. I suspect and hope the Rovers will be able to drive a very beneficial but utterly secretive out-of-court settlement.

The give away would be a brief statement presented to the court that both sides have agreed and the case is withdrawn.

Thanks Philip

The amounts will appear in in this years financial accounts? Yes?

[philipl]

If it is settled this year- yes.

If the Rovers want to honour a confidentiality agreement with the Insurance industry in any settlement, there are a few captions in the published accounts where even quite a large number could be "lost" under.

[AussieinUk]

If it is settled this year- yes.

If the Rovers want to honour a confidentiality agreement with the Insurance industry in any settlement, there are a few captions in the published accounts where even quite a large number could be "lost" under.

I understand... "sundry" or "misc."

[Alan75]

Always thought he was a good bloke after that.

So did I, after seeing him at Old Trafford.

He wasnt in the squad, and sat with the fans.

What made me think of him as a good bloke was that he wore his Rovers shirt, name and number. Classic.

[philipl]

Well £xm "other" would be a give-away but the players' account is usually well over £10m of income and expenditure.

Plus the amount could legitimately be split into the component elements the insurance could be argued as providing cover for (loss of gate income, loss of club winnings, medical fees, wages spent on an unavailable player etc.) then the club could also put a monetary amount on time and expenses involved in pursuing the claim and allocate a proportion against that.

Lets hope the club is in the happy position of receiving a sufficiently large sum that disguising it in the accounts is a problem.

[FourLaneBlue]

Plus the amount could legitimately be split into the component elements the insurance could be argued as providing cover for (loss of gate income, loss of club winnings, medical fees, wages spent on an unavailable player etc.) then the club could also put a monetary amount on time and expenses involved in pursuing the claim and allocate a proportion against that.

philip - are you suggesting that the insurance companies could maybe pay Rovers a large amount for them to drop the case? Possibly "over £10m of income" maybe, to keep Rovers from setting a precedent in this type of case?

Edited April 28, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[Bazzathegreat]

Im sorry but i dont see rovers getting anything from this, if rovers win premiums would go throgh the roof probably 10 times what they are now, think of all the clubs to jump on the bandwagon, everyone would be knocking on the insurers door, lloyds who insure the insurers would go bump, because all sports teams would try this and imagine if a pro baseball ,nhl star had a simalr complaint youd be talkin 100 mill+

[philipl]

Bazza - the Rovers will receive a pay-out. The amount is the issue.

FLB- the Rovers will not receive more than the the original award. That sort of extortion is not exactly legal!

Anyway, all the information as far as we have it is on the thread.

[Bazzathegreat]

We will get an out of court agreement for definite or is this just wishful thinking

[philipl]

LONDON, April 20 (Reuters)

Britain’s Court of Appeal said on Wednesday“wear and tear” could be considered a contributory factor in a soccer injury claim, dampening a Premier League team’s hopes of a multi-million pound payout.

Blackburn Rovers have fought for seven years to get insurers to pay out £4 million after Swedish international striker Martin Dahlin suffered a career-ending back injury.

In November, the club won a preliminary ruling that a pre-existing back problem did not, as the insurers argued, contribute to Dahlin’s more serious injury sustained during a practice match in October 1997.

The High Court had ruled it amounted to ordinary wear and tear, experienced by most sportsmen. But the appeal court overturned that ruling on Wednesday and said the impact of Dahlin’s earlier back condition could not be disregarded.

Standard insurance policies include a get-out clause which means insurers do not have to pay out if a player’s career ends through injury caused by degenerative conditions like arthritis.

Insurers Avon Insurance, Eagle Star, AGF Insurance and IC Insurance, have refused to pay. In the absence of a settlement, the case will go to trial to establish the contribution of Dahlin’s existing back problem.

The Swede scored four goals in 26 appearances for Blackburn, 13 of which were as a substitute. He also scored 28 goals in 60 appearances for his country.

An out of court settlement is not a foregone conclusion but I would be surprised if one is not reached.

The cost to the insurance industry of the trial upholding the original verdict is too great for them to risk it is my guess.

[Ricky]

It's all gone back to court this week. Should have a decision on either Thursday or Friday.

4 million would certainly go nicely towards a decent centre forward to partner Bellers

[Presty On Tour]

4 million

happy days indeed!!!

[cn174]

4 million   

happy days indeed!!!

385471[/snapback]

Don't be celebrating just yet, we don't have the money yet!

[AussieinUk]

It's all gone back to court this week. Should have a decision on either Thursday or Friday.

4 million would certainly go nicely towards a decent centre forward to partner Bellers

385464[/snapback]

Nice one Ricky!

I wondered when news on this, was going to re-surface..

We wont win

[Sparky Marky]

Didnt I read somewhere that Martin Dahlin was working for us in some way now...?

[Uddersfelt Blue]

What about Malcolm Darling?

Much better value for Rovers in the 70's

[Robin]

Didnt I read somewhere that Martin Dahlin was working for us in some way now...?

385538[/snapback]

i dont know if he has worked with rovers but if im not wrong he was Nils Eric Johanssons agent!

[allan]

I distinctly remember Dahlin was discarded by Roma because he was deemed unfit and a back problem caused him to miss the start of the 97/98 season so I don't see hoe Rovers can win the case on the facts.

[stuwilky]

I distinctly remember Dahlin was discarded by Roma because he was deemed unfit and a back problem caused him to miss the start of the 97/98 season so I don't see hoe Rovers can win the case on the facts.

385679[/snapback]

They won it once already.

[thenodrog]

I distinctly remember Dahlin was discarded by Roma because he was deemed unfit and a back problem caused him to miss the start of the 97/98 season so I don't see hoe Rovers can win the case on the facts.

385679[/snapback]

I assume that the insurers did indeed cash the cheque that we supplied to provide insurance cover for him? If so then they must 'stand on' and stop whining.

[Hughesy]

Any news on this yet?

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Is today not supposed to be the day - come on somebody must know

However - as this case has huge ramifications for football insurance - I wouldn't be surprised to see the results of the case plastered across a number of web sites when the hearing is completed

The case is far bigger than just a few extra quid for Mark Hughes' transfer budget

Edited February 24, 2006 by DavidMailsTightPerm

[Dr Gonzo]

Back to the top.

So where's all the news on this?

[stuwilky]

Back to the top.

So where's all the news on this?

387122[/snapback]

I checked earlier and it was still listed as "part heard"

[Dr Gonzo]

Ah right thanks.

So I guess we'll know in the week...