" CARDIFF CITY REACH SETTLEMENT WITH SALA INSURERS "

Cardiff City Football Club Limited and Miller Insurance Services LLP are pleased to confirm that they have agreed terms to resolve Cardiff City’s High Court claim against Miller in connection with the tragic death of Emiliano Sala in January 2019.

The terms of the settlement will remain confidential between the parties.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

Complete guesswork but considering Tan has a history of making it very clear when something hasn’t gone his way, I can only assume this has been a positive development?

Complete guesswork but considering Tan has a history of making it very clear when something hasn’t gone his way, I can only assume this has been a positive development?

Agree

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

My guess is they might of actually paid out most of the money.

Guess it justifies Tans decision to pursue them …..

This is positive

I can only speculate that the insurers have paid out something... How much? We will need to wait for the annual accounts.

The settlement would not come as a suprise to the club, so must have played a part in this summers transfer business.
It will be interesting to see the case against Nantes, if the insurance company has paid a significant sum, the claim against Nantes would be reduced?

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

I really hope I’m wrong Wez but until we get some official confirmation I’m not holding my breath

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

I really hope I’m wrong Wez but until we get some official confirmation I’m not holding my breath

We wouldn't settle for a token amount as it is basically the same as withdrawing our claim. Court costs have been avoided which would probably be taken into account in any settlement.

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

I really hope I’m wrong Wez but until we get some official confirmation I’m not holding my breath

Paul Abbandonato has said that the insurance claim is highly significant and that the club gas received a very large sum of money.Doesn't seem like a token payment to me.

Miller Insurance are part of a giant in the world wide insurance booking world £10m is not a large amount for them The bad publicity of a court case would cost them more.
It would not surprise me if we got a very sizeable payment

This is positive

I can only speculate that the insurers have paid out something... How much? We will need to wait for the annual accounts.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. If its sizeable, the accounts will have to disclose it. If its not, the absence of the disclosure will speak volumes.

If it’s as big as some believe / think, then it will be in the Accounts.

But something is better than nothing.

It does sound positive for sure and it also appears to show that Sala was insured despite some saying he was not, otherwise there would be no out of court settlement.

So if they have finally paid up, why has it taken 4 years?

So if they have finally paid up, why has it taken 4 years?

My guess is they were waiting to see if City withdrew the case. Once they knew that wouldn't happen, they decided to settle it out of court as it would damage their brand - as mentioned by someone earlier in the topic.

Who knows if they would have won in front of a judge, but not a good look if an insurance company are in court.

Perhaps the club have been advised to drop the case or lose even more money.

It could be that they've not received anything as part of this settlement.

I guess the only way to know will be when the accounts are published.

I have copied and pasted this from Mikes site, it is Keiths post and I find him very good with his statements

We sent a note out to our members this evening but it is not possible to say how much the settlement figure was as only the club senior officials and the brokers (plus both sides` lawyers) know the actual figure as it is confidential between the parties. If anyone quotes a figure other than those parties they are either guessing or just pretending to be ITK.

What is clear is that any money received benefits the club`s accounts and that pursuing the matter was the right thing to do.

Keith

It does sound positive for sure and it also appears to show that Sala was insured despite some saying he was not, otherwise there would be no out of court settlement.

I'm not an expert on this matter but I believe Sala was not insured at the time of his death. I believe the club said that the insurance broker had advised them a player was automatically insured the moment he signed, but this was proven not to be the case. I assume the club's claim therefore had more to do with incorrect information received from the insurance broker than the actuality of Sala being insured. Anyone know if this is correct ?

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

Wez, it's in the OP (quote) 'undisclosex settlement", so any guesstimates on here are exactly that...guesstimates...!

For me, this is superb news that further allows our beloved club to move on and forward...!

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

Wez, it's in the OP (quote) 'undisclosex settlement", so any guesstimates on here are exactly that...guesstimates...!

For me, this is superb news that further allows our beloved club to move on and forward...!

Chris, I'm only quoting the club statement.

I do believe that anyone revealing the settlement would be in breach of the confidentiality agreement.

As others have said, the true amount will be clear in the accounts.

I do agree that this is good for the club.

Perhaps the club have been advised to drop the case or lose even more money.

It could be that they've not received anything as part of this settlement.

I guess the only way to know will be when the accounts are published.

You think Vincent Tan would quietly accept that?

I think the absence of any passive aggression or whinging in the statement is as much evidence that we need to know that the club has more or less got what it wanted.

It does sound positive for sure and it also appears to show that Sala was insured despite some saying he was not, otherwise there would be no out of court settlement.

I'm not an expert on this matter but I believe Sala was not insured at the time of his death. I believe the club said that the insurance broker had advised them a player was automatically insured the moment he signed, but this was proven not to be the case. I assume the club's claim therefore had more to do with incorrect information received from the insurance broker than the actuality of Sala being insured. Anyone know if this is correct ?

None of us are experts or ITK but I've always thought it bizarre for a £15M player to be simply not insured plus insurance firms are notorious for trying to negate any claim.
I think the fact that the club has made a statement on this and not remained silent tells a story too which to me says we were right in pursuing the case and again suggests that we were adamant that he was insured. Whatever the detail and out of court settlement figure, it's positive news as it's clear that there was a case to be answered and the broker has buckled as opposed to wanting to go to high court, which also kinda suggests that the settlement was not insignificant, as those legal costs are sky high and especially if you lose. Hopefully we will see that in the next accounts.

Cardiff City Football Club has reached a settlement with Miller Insurance Services LLP in a legal challenge surrounding the death of Emiliano Sala.

The financial terms of the High Court settlement have not been disclosed.

But the agreement will mean a cash input onto the Championship football club's balance sheet.

Cardiff were suing Miller for more than £10m alleging a "failure to act with the reasonable skill and care expected of an insurance broker".

Sala died in a plane crash over the English Channel on his way to Cardiff in January 2019 after completing a £15m transfer from French club Nantes.

A Cardiff statement read: "Cardiff City Football Club Limited and Miller Insurance Services LLP are pleased to confirm they have agreed terms to resolve CCFC's High Court claim in connection with the tragic death of Emiliano Sala, in January 2019.

"The terms of the settlement will remain confidential between the parties."

Cardiff had claimed Miller had failed to properly communicate the process for immediately insuring new players.

The club believed it was the broker's responsibility to tell Cardiff it would not be insured for a new player's death until its policy was amended to cover that new signing.

Club bosses said they would have requested £20m worth of coverage for Sala two days before the fatal crash if they had known.

The club said it was not told about the risks of not immediately notifying the insurance company about a new player following a transfer deal, or about how it could reduce or eliminate these risks.

Business flight organiser David Henderson hired an unqualified pilot, David Ibbotson, to fly the plane from Nantes to Cardiff Airport.
Henderson, of Hotham, East Riding of Yorkshire, was in November 2021 jailed for 18 months for recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft and trying to arrange a flight for a passenger without permission or authorisation.

Mr Ibbotson's body has never been found.

In July 2023 Cardiff paid Nantes the remainder of the transfer fee owed on Sala after the club was ordered by world football's governing body Fifa to complete payments to selling club Nantes.

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

Wez, it's in the OP (quote) 'undisclosex settlement", so any guesstimates on here are exactly that...guesstimates...!

For me, this is superb news that further allows our beloved club to move on and forward...!

Chris, I'm only quoting the club statement.

I do believe that anyone revealing the settlement would be in breach of the confidentiality agreement.

As others have said, the true amount will be clear in the accounts.

I do agree that this is good for the club.

Ned, in no way was that aimed at you, mate. It's the guesstimators stating fiction as fact that I was meaning...

It does sound positive for sure and it also appears to show that Sala was insured despite some saying he was not, otherwise there would be no out of court settlement.

I'm not an expert on this matter but I believe Sala was not insured at the time of his death. I believe the club said that the insurance broker had advised them a player was automatically insured the moment he signed, but this was proven not to be the case. I assume the club's claim therefore had more to do with incorrect information received from the insurance broker than the actuality of Sala being insured. Anyone know if this is correct ?

None of us are experts or ITK but I've always thought it bizarre for a £15M player to be simply not insured plus insurance firms are notorious for trying to negate any claim.
I think the fact that the club has made a statement on this and not remained silent tells a story too which to me says we were right in pursuing the case and again suggests that we were adamant that he was insured. Whatever the detail and out of court settlement figure, it's positive news as it's clear that there was a case to be answered and the broker has buckled as opposed to wanting to go to high court, which also kinda suggests that the settlement was not insignificant, as those legal costs are sky high and especially if you lose. Hopefully we will see that in the next accounts.

Spot on, Paul...

I can’t believe for a minute this would be anything more than a “token” payment to prevent a costly court case

Why ? .they were suing them for a lot of money

Wez, it's in the OP (quote) 'undisclosex settlement", so any guesstimates on here are exactly that...guesstimates...!

For me, this is superb news that further allows our beloved club to move on and forward...!

Excellent news Chris.
And going by the information that was released the settlement was with the Insurance broker not the insurance company, as Sala was not insured, and city were suing the broker because they did not inform City that Sala would not be automatically insured when he signed for us.
I personally believe that the settlement would be very substantial but not anywhere near Sala's value, as city were not suing for that amount.
This does not affect the amount of money city are suing Nantes for which would be Sala's actual value.
Whether this improves our chance in the case against Nantes, is anyones guess?

Apart from having a legal background, working for insurers and for law firms, I am not ITK about what has been paid out but perhaps I can offer some input so that the situation may appear clearer.

Firstly, prior to his death, CCFC would have wanted to insure ES against death or personal injury. I would assume that the level of cover would have been around £15m - similar to the purchase price. Whilst I do not know the intricacies of the cover here most policies would provide a payout upon death and cover salary if injured.

So the first port of call is getting the person insured. An Insurance Company (Miller Group) provides the cover and an Intermediary (broker) acts as an agent for the Insurance Company. CCFC would deal with the intermediary.

It is quite possible (although only a guess) that Miller Group might be the insurers and the broker Miller Insurance Services - 2 legally different entities.

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/breaking-news/miller-faces-10-million-lawsuit-over-emiliano-salas-death-430404.aspx

Now the situation here is similar to Car Insurance. If a broker told you that you were covered for your new car some would accept in good faith. Here CCFC appear to have been misinformed that a player will be covered once signed.

This is Professional Negligence and each Insurance Company and each Insurance Broker legally has to have Professional Negligence Cover (With a different Insurer - via a Professional Indemnity Policy).

My assessment of what has been written above is that CCFC appears to have been misinformed and that the Professional Indemnity insurer has taken the view to accept CCFC position and to either instruct the broker/insurer to pay out or they will pay out under the Professional Indemnity Insurance (Note: It is not suitable for an insurer to have a huge claim on their professional indemnity insurance) - some firms have closed as a result of not being able to get professional indemnity cover!

So I suspect there has been a significant payout. If I were to guess I would suspect at least £5m but could very well be as high as the full £15m. I suggest £5m because knowing insurers as I do they would probably argue his value was over-emphasised so a value of £10m with potential 50/50 type arguments would suggest £5m. But like I said it could well be more and next year's accounts would be interesting to read.

Is that the end of it - NO not in my opinion

This is certainly good news but this really does only cover the value of the player and any salary loss.

We still have the case against Nantes

In that case, I believe we were suing for:
a) The loss of an asset in the sum of £15m
b) The potential loss of revenue which figures of between £80m to £200m have been quoted.

As the insurer has paid out (a) is no longer a loss and I suspect that the club could remove this item from the claim against Nantes (unless insurers want Nantes to repay them)

The 2nd head of claim still applies. It is correct that through someone else's negligence, the club failed to stay in the Premier League by one point and that it is "reasonably foreseeable" (Important words) that ES would have scored at least two goals to keep Cardiff in the Premier League.

Accordingly, history tells us that Brighton remained in the Premier League and are being welcomed by Man Utd today whilst we have lost revenue by dropping into the Championship, and rather than playing Utd, we are at home to some West Wales team.

Long and short of it. Glad that the pursuit of the asset loss has been settled in our favour. And there is the possibility of more - if we win our case against Nantes for loss of revenue.

I hope this helps and, as always, happy to answer any questions.