Very interested in fans views on this:

As you read yesterday, yet again another court case to come due to NO insurance for Emiliano Sala after 3yrs ??

This time Tan / The Hierarchy are suing an insurance broker:

Tan / CCFC have now been ordered for the 3rd time to pay the Sala fee to Nantes FC and court costs , interest etc , apparently it’s all risen to as high as £25mill.


What’s your feelings / opinions on Tan now 3yrs later, is suing the insurance Broker for £10mill?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226




Any insurance would of been void on that flight, unlicensed pilot and unfit plane it would be like getting in a car with someone with no licence or an MOT failure the insurance will not pay out there needs to be a qualified driver/pilot and a vehicle that's fit for purpose.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

BELOW IS TANS / DALMAN / CHOO’S SIDE OF THE CASE / WE HAVE NOT HEARD THE BROKERS SIDE YET?

I personally can’t say who is in the right yet, because as we have seen before the Hierarchy make out they are always in the right and end up losing after we hear the other sides.

I hope we are 100% in the right on this and we get £10mill towards the £25mill owing.

But let’s start sorting out the payment to Nantes FC please:






The club said Miller Insurance Services LLP should pay more than £10 million for its failure to act with the reasonable skill and care expected of an insurance broker.

Representatives for the Welsh soccer club and Millers Insurance Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Cardiff City Football Club is represented by David Phillips KC of Wilberforce Chambers and Tom Cleaver of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Céline Jones of Capital Law Ltd.

Millers Insurance is represented by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

The case is Cardiff City Football Club Ltd. v. Miller Insurance Services LLP, case number CL-2022-000604, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales."


Law360, London (December 8, 2022, 10:48 PM GMT)

Cardiff City Football Club Ltd. has sued insurance broker Miller Insurance Services LLP claiming it owes more than £10 million ($12.2 million) over the death of Emiliano Sala, a player who was set to transfer to the club but died in a plane crash en route.

The football club said the insurance broker failed to communicate that not timely informing it of new players to be added to the club's policy would risk it not having coverage for those players, according to a High Court claim filed Nov. 21, which has now been made public

Cardiff City, which is known as the Bluebirds, plays in the second-tier of English soccer despite being based in the Welsh capital. It noted there was a "material delay" between acquiring an "insurable interest" in players and notifying the broker on "numerous occasions," according to the claim.

It was the broker's responsibility to communicate that this would mean the club would not be insured for a player's death until its policy was amended, the soccer club said. If it had known this, Cardiff City would have requested £20 million coverage for Sala on Jan. 19, 2019, two days before the fatal plane crash.

As such, the insurance broker failed to act with reasonable skill and care and breached its obligations as a broker, according to the claim.

Miller Insurance failed to properly explain the concept of an "insurable interest" for football player transfers and the requirement of a "prompt" notification of the transfer in order to secure coverage, the football club said.

The broker also did not let the Bluebirds know about the risks of delaying this notification of an interest, or the steps that might be taken to reduce or eliminate the risks, according to the Welsh club.

As such, the insurance broker failed to act with reasonable skill and care and breached its obligations as a broker, according to the claim.

Miller Insurance failed to properly explain the concept of an "insurable interest" for football player transfers and the requirement of a "prompt" notification of the transfer in order to secure coverage, the football club said.

The broker also did not let the Bluebirds know about the risks of delaying this notification of an interest, or the steps that might be taken to reduce or eliminate the risks, according to the Welsh club.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

This is not being pedantic, as this is a serious situation deveoping for the club, but did the club believe all contracted players were covered on one single policy, a bit like a motor traders policy; or id each player insured as a single entity?

Either way, there has been a huge balls up and seemingly not the first time the club have fallen foul of the requirement to set up a policy or inform of any changes to an existing one

I can only see one outcome for this and it isn't a positive one for the club, if it is pursued

I'm not sure what it is with Mr Tan but he does seem to prefer an expensive and oft futile legal fight rather than seeing the bigger picture at timed

He's done good and bad, and I would put him in the same bracket as Sam Hammam.

He's made mistakes, and it appears that he may have lost interest in the club; although it's hard to decipher without an official announcement, it's all rumors. He continues to invest a lot of money into the club and has brought us two promotions to the Premier League and a Carling Cup final.

Regarding what is going on now with these court cases, fans who aren't lawyers seem to think we're dealing with monopoly money. While it is easy for us to say "pay the money," it's not our money to spend and we don't have all the facts, so I understand his position.

That said, while I am not anti nor pro-Tan at this point, it could be best for all involved if he sold up.

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

This is not being pedantic, as this is a serious situation deveoping for the club, but did the club believe all contracted players were covered on one single policy, a bit like a motor traders policy; or id each player insured as a single entity?

Either way, there has been a huge balls up and seemingly not the first time the club have fallen foul of the requirement to set up a policy or inform of any changes to an existing one

I can only see one outcome for this and it isn't a positive one for the club, if it is pursued

I'm not sure what it is with Mr Tan but he does seem to prefer an expensive and oft futile legal fight rather than seeing the bigger picture at timed

Chris what i will say is that in law it is the insureance compay that is deemed to know the law on insurance better than the customer that takes out the insurance, so there is a good possibility that we could win this, time will tell!

passed caring now, we are a laughing stock and no self respecting business would want to believe any of our board to do business anymore.

what else is in the closet, what will appear next that is crippling this club we all have loved for 40+ years?

somehow we need to rid ourselves of horrendous owners and hangers on, but as others have said, when you have owners, ceo, directors and board who are not interested in football or know anything about football, you reap what you sow!

He's done good and bad, and I would put him in the same bracket as Sam Hammam.

He's made mistakes, and it appears that he may have lost interest in the club; although it's hard to decipher without an official announcement, it's all rumors. He continues to invest a lot of money into the club and has brought us two promotions to the Premier League and a Carling Cup final.

Regarding what is going on now with these court cases, fans who aren't lawyers seem to think we're dealing with monopoly money. While it is easy for us to say "pay the money," it's not our money to spend and we don't have all the facts, so I understand his position.

That said, while I am not anti nor pro-Tan at this point, it could be best for all involved if he sold up.

Really sensible post mate.

He's done good and bad, and I would put him in the same bracket as Sam Hammam.

He's made mistakes, and it appears that he may have lost interest in the club; although it's hard to decipher without an official announcement, it's all rumors. He continues to invest a lot of money into the club and has brought us two promotions to the Premier League and a Carling Cup final.

Regarding what is going on now with these court cases, fans who aren't lawyers seem to think we're dealing with monopoly money. While it is easy for us to say "pay the money," it's not our money to spend and we don't have all the facts, so I understand his position.

That said, while I am not anti nor pro-Tan at this point, it could be best for all involved if he sold up.

Very sensible post and to the point. Indeed, it’s very easy for someone to say “pay up” when it’s not their money. I wonder how many of these people on here that seem to slag off our club at every opportunity would actually “just pay up” if they were in this situation, I could fathom a guess and say ‘zilch’

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

This is not being pedantic, as this is a serious situation deveoping for the club, but did the club believe all contracted players were covered on one single policy, a bit like a motor traders policy; or id each player insured as a single entity?

Either way, there has been a huge balls up and seemingly not the first time the club have fallen foul of the requirement to set up a policy or inform of any changes to an existing one

I can only see one outcome for this and it isn't a positive one for the club, if it is pursued

I'm not sure what it is with Mr Tan but he does seem to prefer an expensive and oft futile legal fight rather than seeing the bigger picture at timed

Chris what i will say is that in law it is the insureance compay that is deemed to know the law on insurance better than the customer that takes out the insurance, so there is a good possibility that we could win this, time will tell!

Rog, I'm getting to the point where little surprises me and I know you have an ear to the ground in certain areas, so hopefully there is a reason to chase the insurer up...

The question still remains 'was the player actually insured or not?' and maybe there is still some way to go before we find out the true answer

Never a dull moment no matter who is in chage of our club, eh?

Reply Twitter:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

BBC


Cardiff City are suing an insurance company for more than £10m over the death of Emiliano Sala.

The club said Miller Insurance failed to act with the reasonable skill and care expected of an insurance broker in its bid to the High Court. (@BBCSportWales)



Miller Insurances LLP declined to comment.

Cardiff lose appeal in Sala payment dispute

'A tragic plane crash; a stain on football's reputation'

Sala family's three-year wait for justice

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

Why are you copying and pasting a post made on the other site, only your own comments should be put into a post.Just wondering that's all.

Perhaps the lesson to be learnt from this whole desperately sad fiasco is that our CEO should spend more time actually at the club doing the job he is paid to do rather than selling cars.

If the club was run more professionally we wouldn’t be in this situation

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

Why are you copying and pasting a post made on the other site, only your own comments should be put into a post.Just wondering that's all.

I agree, he/she always does it

In the early days of this situation the club stated that there were issues thatsome of the paperwork needed to be redrafted and ccf claimed that Sala was still a Nantes player on paper, now if that was the case the insurance would not have technically been able to be kicked in until all the appropriate registration had been completed, this could be the issue at the heart of it. But again pure speculation

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

Why are you copying and pasting a post made on the other site, only your own comments should be put into a post.Just wondering that's all.

Oh no not again (from Ninian27)

So, if I am understanding correctly, we should have registered Emiliano Sala on the insurance policy immediately upon signing in order to secure his insurance. However, we did not and the club are arguing that it had not been made clear that this was the requirement, and on "numerous occasions" previously the club had not immediately registered a player.


So we are suing the insurer for £10 million in way of negligence as we did not actually have insurance. Am I correct? If so, then good grief.

That smacks of desperation on the face of it. You'd think that insurance would be a standard part of the transfer of a multi-million pound footballer.

Why are you copying and pasting a post made on the other site, only your own comments should be put into a post.Just wondering that's all.

Oh no not again (from Ninian27)

This repeated copying by Ninian27 and another multi has been noted on the other board, it just makes the two of them look like clowns with no ideas of their own.

In the ‘eyes’ of the law ignorance is no defence at all ! Also there is nothing surer in law than the cost !!!

Maybe this is what they will be suing on
A test of fainess in a contract

A standard term is unfair 'if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it
causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising
under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'– Regulation 5(1).
Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
The requirement of 'good' faith embodies a general 'principle of fair and
open dealing'.1 It means that terms should be expressed fully, clearly and
legibly and that terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given
appropriate prominence – see below. However transparency is not enough
on its own, as good faith relates to the substance of terms as well as the
way they are expressed and used. It requires a supplier not to take
advantage of consumers' weaker bargaining position, or lack of experience,
in deciding what their rights and obligations shall be. Contracts should be
drawn up in a way that respects consumers' legitimate interests.
In assessing fairness, we take note of how a term could be used. A term is
open to challenge if it is drafted so widely that it could cause consumer
detriment. It may be considered unfair if it could have an unfair effect, even
if it is not at present being used unfairly in practice and there is no current

“This is not being pedantic, as this is a serious situation deveoping for the club, but did the club believe all contracted players were covered on one single policy, a bit like a motor traders policy; or id each player insured as a single entity?”

In answer to this question Sven. A trader traditionally has to notify the broker/insurer when they add or dispose of a vehicle.

Remember, the last three years the Hierarchy have claimed Sala was not our player as they said the forms to the Premiership were not filled in yet even though the forms to the Welsh FA where you register your player we’re correct, The premier is a competition we enter, anyway we fought for three years on this and now we are saying to the insurance broker hang on yes Sala was our player as we insured.


What I am reading is and now hearing he wasn’t registered properly with the insurance company? Surely that’s our CEO job Ken Choo who should of checked and over seen the paper work, plus our secretary??
We are talking about an very expensive player.

I hate all this still after 3 years, Tann really needs help his head is gone he talks total bollocks everytime he does an interview he is a very unpleasant man and all this not a thought of the players family or the supporters taking our club to the lowest.

The more this goes on the more it is clear that as much as City were not at fault for the plane and the terrible accident and the person who is in jail but it looks clear our team of owners Tan Dalman and Choo do not now what they are doing with a football club they maybe good with other business but football clearly not.

This stinks

The Club / Tan are fully entitled to do this - as is anyone to take anyone else to court etc.
Company law - I Think - ditcates that Directors must do what uis in the best (as in financial) interests of the company.

If 15 million is the penalty then any normal business person would investiogate to look for reasons where else liability will fall.

As an aside to all this - abnout a previously Sala was etimated to worth 1 Million , a year later the agemnt involved values him with a price tag of 15 million - something serioously incorrect with that price tag.

The Club / Tan are fully entitled to do this - as is anyone to take anyone else to court etc.
Company law - I Think - ditcates that Directors must do what uis in the best (as in financial) interests of the company.

If 15 million is the penalty then any normal business person would investiogate to look for reasons where else liability will fall.

As an aside to all this - abnout a previously Sala was etimated to worth 1 Million , a year later the agemnt involved values him with a price tag of 15 million - something serioously incorrect with that price tag.

And that I believe is down to agents and a certain manager.

The Club / Tan are fully entitled to do this - as is anyone to take anyone else to court etc.
Company law - I Think - ditcates that Directors must do what uis in the best (as in financial) interests of the company.

If 15 million is the penalty then any normal business person would investiogate to look for reasons where else liability will fall.

As an aside to all this - abnout a previously Sala was etimated to worth 1 Million , a year later the agemnt involved values him with a price tag of 15 million - something serioously incorrect with that price tag.

I agree. If there is no liability for insurance brokers then why bother having them, you may as well just go to “Go Compare”, etc.

The club would have paid the broker for their advice, if their advice was wrong and caused them loss due to the broker’s negligence/incompetence that that is a pretty interesting case !!

I don’t know whether we’ll win this (I still think there are other insurers who may find themselves liable), but it will be a very interesting case.

On this one I think we’ll know very quickly whether there is any validity to the claim as I would think that it will be pretty clear to a judge, just on the papers, whether is merit to the claim or whether he should dismiss by way of a summary judgment without going to trial.

This is far from over.

The Club / Tan are fully entitled to do this - as is anyone to take anyone else to court etc.
Company law - I Think - ditcates that Directors must do what uis in the best (as in financial) interests of the company.

If 15 million is the penalty then any normal business person would investiogate to look for reasons where else liability will fall.

As an aside to all this - abnout a previously Sala was etimated to worth 1 Million , a year later the agemnt involved values him with a price tag of 15 million - something serioously incorrect with that price tag.

And that I believe is down to agents and a certain manager.

I just re read what I wrote - and I really to wear my reading glasses.....
I think what is happening now - is like rats fighting in a sack. No one wants to be left holding that over vallued liability.
The asset wasnt worth the valuation anyway. But that was the amount agreed - so let the buyer beware I guess.
If the club solicitiors can pin this on someone else and sue - then they will go after everyone - including the agent - who will simply transfer his assets to how wife and declare themself bankrupt..

If Nantes would agree - then Im sure city would pay 1 Mil to Nante and 1 Mil to the players estate - and everyone would just walk away. The alternative is this will go on for years and years. And whoever has the deepest pockets will prevail.

The only thing clear to me is the club has stopped the leaks, so only the inner circle knows what's happening and the rationale behind the decisions. Everyone else is just guessing.

The Club / Tan are fully entitled to do this - as is anyone to take anyone else to court etc.
Company law - I Think - ditcates that Directors must do what uis in the best (as in financial) interests of the company.

If 15 million is the penalty then any normal business person would investiogate to look for reasons where else liability will fall.

As an aside to all this - abnout a previously Sala was etimated to worth 1 Million , a year later the agemnt involved values him with a price tag of 15 million - something serioously incorrect with that price tag.

And that I believe is down to agents and a certain manager.

I just re read what I wrote - and I really to wear my reading glasses.....
I think what is happening now - is like rats fighting in a sack. No one wants to be left holding that over vallued liability.
The asset wasnt worth the valuation anyway. But that was the amount agreed - so let the buyer beware I guess.
If the club solicitiors can pin this on someone else and sue - then they will go after everyone - including the agent - who will simply transfer his assets to how wife and declare themself bankrupt..

If Nantes would agree - then Im sure city would pay 1 Mil to Nante and 1 Mil to the players estate - and everyone would just walk away. The alternative is this will go on for years and years. And whoever has the deepest pockets will prevail.

Piaster,

Nantes are not going to agree to pay 1mill, after Cardiff had agreed and signed to it 15mill, why should they when all three courts say Cardiff owe 15mill plus interest , plus penalties and costs.
Would Cardiff ??

I certainly would not.


Nantes have won all three cases including the Supreme Court.

The only thing clear to me is the club has stopped the leaks, so only the inner circle knows what's happening and the rationale behind the decisions. Everyone else is just guessing.

Guessing?

The facts are there all three court cases went against us and rightfully so, Emiliano Sala was a registered Cardiff City player and shameful our hierarchy tried to deny it.