" CARDIFF CITY MAKE STATEMENT ON INSURANCE CLAIMS "

CARDIFF CITY STATEMENT:

There has been selective reporting today of the defence filed against the claim the Club has brought against its insurance brokers for doing their job negligently.

The Club did not try to insure Emiliano after the plane crash.

All Cardiff City Football Club staff understood from its broker that all players were insured from the moment they were signed, and the case arises from learning they were not.

It will reply to the allegations made in the defence that are untrue, or portrayed out of context, in the court proceedings and will not litigate this case in the media.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=231734

Anybody who has ever had to deal with an insurance company over a claim will know that they will wriggle & squirm their way out of it if at all possible & then make a low offer of payment if that fails. I'm sure they've made millions from CCFC over the years & now they want to deny a claim. No surprises either way.

Funny how there isnt any replies on this thread.

My thoughts exactly


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=231734

Funny how there isnt any replies on this thread.

From who exactly...?


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=231734

I recall a report was put out stating that the club were litigating against their insurers after finding out their new player was not accepted on the insurance at the point of the incident that took his life

Just found it and it came from Media Wales...

https://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/view ... e#p2371831

If you read the club statement, the club are indeed litigating against the insurance broker, who they believe had previously led them to believe 'all players' were insured once signed

Now that last bit has been legally confirmed, let's see what occurs next, as the insurer (or their agent) will be investigated to see if the 'all players' comment was correct or not and/or they only brought it to light after a potential claim might be made?

I don't know the answer to that but I do know the OP of the original thread wasn't too far off...

Funny how there isnt any replies on this thread.

From who exactly...?

I recall a report was put out stating that the club were litigating against their insurers after finding out their new player was not accepted on the insurance at the point of the incident that took his life

Just found it and it came from Media Wales...

https://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/view ... e#p2371831

If you read the club statement, the club are indeed litigating against the insurance broker, who they believe had previously led them to believe 'all players' were insured once signed

Now that last bit has been legally confirmed, let's see what occurs next, as the insurer (or their agent) will be investigated to see if the 'all players' comment was correct or not and/or they only brought it to light after a potential claim might be made?

I don't know the answer to that but I do know the OP of the original thread wasn't too far off...

Well the bbc article was posted and all hell broke loose the club release a statement confirming its bullshit and nobody got anything to say. I agree things are shocking at the moment but i do think people cant wait to put another boot into the club. It really isnt helping things on or off the pitch is it

Funny how there isnt any replies on this thread.

From who exactly...?

I recall a report was put out stating that the club were litigating against their insurers after finding out their new player was not accepted on the insurance at the point of the incident that took his life

Just found it and it came from Media Wales...

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=231009&p=2371831&hilit=Insurance#p2371831

If you read the club statement, the club are indeed litigating against the insurance broker, who they believe had previously led them to believe 'all players' were insured once signed

Now that last bit has been legally confirmed, let's see what occurs next, as the insurer (or their agent) will be investigated to see if the 'all players' comment was correct or not and/or they only brought it to light after a potential claim might be made?

I don't know the answer to that but I do know the OP of the original thread wasn't too far off...

Well the bbc article was posted and all hell broke loose the club release a statement confirming its bullshit and nobody got anything to say. I agree things are shocking at the moment but i do think people cant wait to put another boot into the club. It really isnt helping things on or off the pitch is it

With the last bit, I agree. It can't be helping...

However, the BBC reported it and we (as a Forum) put it out in good faith...

As with all the other legalities, time will tell and the club will have to live with the outcome (positive or negative)

Very bizarre if you have to insure every player individually or register them after signing, surely if you are getting insurance for your players the expectation is that they are automatically on the policy when they sign very similar to employer liability insurance.

I've read in the past. All Cardiff players are automatically insured under the same company Lloyds insurance but circumstances surrounding the accident and the fact Cardiff started claiming he wasn't their player causes argument of invalidation.

I've read in the past. All Cardiff players are automatically insured under the same company Lloyds insurance but circumstances surrounding the accident and the fact Cardiff started claiming he wasn't their player causes argument of invalidation.

Yeah they kinda fked up claiming he never signed despite releasing pictures of him signing, at our stadium holding a shirt. Now they are, but i guess lossing the court case helps Cardiff?

I've read in the past. All Cardiff players are automatically insured under the same company Lloyds insurance but circumstances surrounding the accident and the fact Cardiff started claiming he wasn't their player causes argument of invalidation.

Yeah they kinda fked up claiming he never signed despite releasing pictures of him signing, at our stadium holding a shirt. Now they are, but i guess lossing the court case helps Cardiff?

I believe that was one of the reasons for the court cases in the first place, as he wasn't recognised as our player by the premier league the insurers were using that as a way to get out of paying and why we had to go through this whole process.
I may be wrong but it makes sense

I've read in the past. All Cardiff players are automatically insured under the same company Lloyds insurance but circumstances surrounding the accident and the fact Cardiff started claiming he wasn't their player causes argument of invalidation.

So now Cardiff's claims have been found to be false by every court available. Are the insurers claims of invalidation now also false.

We cannot be WRONG in the courts eyes and RIGHT in the eyes of the insurer.

I've read in the past. All Cardiff players are automatically insured under the same company Lloyds insurance but circumstances surrounding the accident and the fact Cardiff started claiming he wasn't their player causes argument of invalidation.

Yeah they kinda fked up claiming he never signed despite releasing pictures of him signing, at our stadium holding a shirt. Now they are, but i guess lossing the court case helps Cardiff?

I believe that was one of the reasons for the court cases in the first place, as he wasn't recognised as our player by the premier league the insurers were using that as a way to get out of paying and why we had to go through this whole process.
I may be wrong but it makes sense

If it turns out that way it's a bit of a bomb shell to say the least.Yet another twist

I've read in the past. All Cardiff players are automatically insured under the same company Lloyds insurance but circumstances surrounding the accident and the fact Cardiff started claiming he wasn't their player causes argument of invalidation.

Yeah they kinda fked up claiming he never signed despite releasing pictures of him signing, at our stadium holding a shirt. Now they are, but i guess lossing the court case helps Cardiff?

I believe that was one of the reasons for the court cases in the first place, as he wasn't recognised as our player by the premier league the insurers were using that as a way to get out of paying and why we had to go through this whole process.
I may be wrong but it makes sense

If it turns out that way it's a bit of a bomb shell to say the least.Yet another twist

I believe 1980 is spot on here.

The claim by the Mail that Cardiff tried to insure Sala a day after the plane crash was just so unbelievable it was well stupid to believe it. I'm not sure how the club insurance is set up but I would expect it to be that all new players are covered after they have signed on the dotted line.

It does seem to me our insurers are trying to get out of this using the argument that the Premier league did not recognise Sala as our player. Now the courts have said he was our player this has opened the door for the club to go and claim from the insurers. Our trusted journalist Paul Keevil explained this well before any court conclusion was made.

The only thing left to say is that there will be a settlement between the club and the insurers but it will have a None Disclosure thing attached to it resulting in even more assumptions.

Must admit I think the reporting from BBC and ITV on this has been disappointing at best.

We sue the brokers and hardly a mention, the brokers file a defence and suddenly it’s headline news and the gospel truth !!

It’s a civil case that will be decided by a judge with many years of legal experience. Let’s leave it to them !!

I've read in the past. All Cardiff players are automatically insured under the same company Lloyds insurance but circumstances surrounding the accident and the fact Cardiff started claiming he wasn't their player causes argument of invalidation.

Yeah they kinda fked up claiming he never signed despite releasing pictures of him signing, at our stadium holding a shirt. Now they are, but i guess lossing the court case helps Cardiff?

I believe that was one of the reasons for the court cases in the first place, as he wasn't recognised as our player by the premier league the insurers were using that as a way to get out of paying and why we had to go through this whole process.
I may be wrong but it makes sense

If it turns out that way it's a bit of a bomb shell to say the least.Yet another twist

I believe 1980 is spot on here.

The claim by the Mail that Cardiff tried to insure Sala a day after the plane crash was just so unbelievable it was well stupid to believe it. I'm not sure how the club insurance is set up but I would expect it to be that all new players are covered after they have signed on the dotted line.

It does seem to me our insurers are trying to get out of this using the argument that the Premier league did not recognise Sala as our player. Now the courts have said he was our player this has opened the door for the club to go and claim from the insurers. Our trusted journalist Paul Keevil explained this well before any court conclusion was made.

The only thing left to say is that there will be a settlement between the club and the insurers but it will have a None Disclosure thing attached to it resulting in even more assumptions.

My take on it too .

I saw a mention on another thread about the PFA not accepting ES was our player and therefore not covered by their scheme too. Does anyone know if that is actually the case with the PFA. Ta

Reply:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=231734