Hirdy loses cases against insurance coy

Remove this Banner Ad

Adelaide Hawk said:
Yep, I've made this point several times. All Essendon had to do was cooperate with the investigation. Essendon knew they had AFL in their corner, they would have copped a fine, players would have had minimal penalty, a few peoples' reputations would have been bruised but not destroyed, this would have been all over years ago and it would be business as usual at Essendon.

Forcing WADA's hand was the most incredibly stupid thing they could have ever done. The moment that happened, Essendon were screwed. I'm with you, insurers are good at finding any reason not to pay out, so I can't see why they would feel obligated to pay in these circumstances.

Essendon's legal battles may not be over yet.
Click to expand...
I think they were going to cooperate.

It was when the AFL asked for Hird's head on a plate that things changed.


Why did they change? Well, I think that's a question that probably holds the answer to the biggest question in this whole saga.

What did Hird know? And why did they risk $35m to stand in his corner all of a sudden?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

matt_kcd said:
It only looks broke looking up at it from as far down as you are.
Click to expand...

images
 
SBYM said:
He was a good guy, Elias.

But Berenger's Barnes was bloody brilliant.

There's some alliterationz for ya...
Click to expand...
what about the guy from Entourage Johnny Drama who was in the My Lai part in Stone's Platoon. have you seen how crazy Oli Stone's son is. I think it was the Dillon brother, he has the ponytail in Platoon no? And he kills a few villagers
 
blackcat said:
what about the guy from Entourage Johnny Drama who was in the My Lai part in Stone's Platoon. have you seen how crazy Oli Stone's son is. I think it was the Dillon brother, he has the ponytail in Platoon no? And he kills a few villagers
Click to expand...

Aye. His name is Bunny...cracks open a head with the button of his shotgun and then rapes someone...(or watches)...intense movie.
 
blackcat said:
1462749822757.jpg
Click to expand...
SBYM sorry to bump Wally, but I have had to include Todd Sampson in my new avatar, with a shout out to evo . I recorded this polaroid for prosperity cos he will never ever be seen without a humorous sans humour t-shit[sic]
edit: JWH typo malaprop prosperity actually works much more mellifluous than posterity
todd-sampson-poses-with-the-logie-award-for-best-entertainment-gruen-picture-id529099630
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

blackcat said:
@Sheldin_Wolin

inverted totalitarianism, sort of final stages corporatism.

i am not sure who would be less subject to corporate interests, no doubt the clintons still have a few non-fiat debts to pay to the major backers, but it is folly to think Trump would not be a banner waver of corporatism too, even given his liberal and democrat flirtations...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Click to expand...
It might be folly to think so but their is still hope. They hope he won't be a corporate interest because of his personal wealth. They must think a little bit that he can't be bought and sold like the others. It's all they got. I have never heard of inverted totalitarianism. Mustn't be very good.
 
armpit said:
It might be folly to think so but their is still hope. They hope he won't be a corporate interest because of his personal wealth. They must think a little bit that he can't be bought and sold like the others. It's all they got. I have never heard of inverted totalitarianism. Mustn't be very good.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Wolin
Sheldon Wolin preeminent theorist over the last half century
 
blackcat said:
SBYM sorry to bump Wally, but I have had to include Todd Sampson in my new avatar, with a shout out to evo . I recorded this polaroid for prosperity cos he will never ever be seen without a humorous sans humour t-shit[sic]
edit: JWH typo malaprop prosperity actually works much more mellifluous than posterity
todd-sampson-poses-with-the-logie-award-for-best-entertainment-gruen-picture-id529099630
Click to expand...
severely lacking politcally aware t-shirt
 
blackcat said:
I am gunna have to take credit as i was handing out the how-to-vote cards on the figbooty, the afterparty was a bit of an anti-climax, the halal alcohol and blow just did not have the same zip
Click to expand...

Shisha pipe, hash and smoking cap (or Fez for the savant sorts that use words like "mellifluous") FTW

SBYM said:
He was a good guy, Elias.
Click to expand...

Good old Backdoor Benny.
 
blackcat said:
oriental school at london university
Click to expand...

Got a good mate who did SOAS. Is probably MI6, still, a good bloke and getting me tickets to the Euro championship in a few weeks.
 
Another summary/ interpretation here.
Mostly over my head, though appears to reference Hird's challenge as high risk and a relatively common action for aggressive defence, one that insurers deliberately set out to exclude?

If so, harks back to earlier threads discussing the merits of the various advisors, that keep putting Mr Hird up for these high-risk plays.

http://blogs.dlapiper.com/mediaands...defence-costs-coverage-in-regulatory-actions/

"...
The judgment helpfully summarises and applies well-established principles of contract/policy interpretation. One of the key findings made was that neither the interview notice issued to Hird, nor the joint investigation of which it formed part, was a demand or formal proceeding against Hird for a Wrongful Act. It was also held the definition of Legal Representation Expenses in the policy meant reasonable Defence Costs (not costs incurred in relation to administrative and regulatory processes that could lead to adverse outcomes, as more broadly contended by Hird).

Whilst the decision considered some scenarios where the costs of offensive action by an insured under a D&O policy may be covered, Hird’s case was not one of them. Hird’s motive for offensive action against ASADA was fear of damage to his reputation and economic interests. This motive did not establish the necessary causal link under the policy between his participation in the joint investigation and his decision to commence the Federal Court proceeding.

An important aspect of this case in practice, is that many insureds want to “take on the regulator” and seek orders restraining the regulator from taking action against them. If successful, arguably such offensive action would save an insurer a considerable amount of defence costs. Insureds often argue “I was doing this to save you money” and therefore the insurer should pay. The problem is that these actions rarely succeed and greatly escalate the risk. As such, insurers typically write policies to only cover the cost of defending the allegations, not trying to stop them altogether."
 
NoAFLinmycomp said:
Another summary/ interpretation here.
Mostly over my head, though appears to reference Hird's challenge as high risk and a relatively common action for aggressive defence, one that insurers deliberately set out to exclude?

If so, harks back to earlier threads discussing the merits of the various advisors, that keep putting Mr Hird up for these high-risk plays.

http://blogs.dlapiper.com/mediaands...defence-costs-coverage-in-regulatory-actions/

"...
The judgment helpfully summarises and applies well-established principles of contract/policy interpretation. One of the key findings made was that neither the interview notice issued to Hird, nor the joint investigation of which it formed part, was a demand or formal proceeding against Hird for a Wrongful Act. It was also held the definition of Legal Representation Expenses in the policy meant reasonable Defence Costs (not costs incurred in relation to administrative and regulatory processes that could lead to adverse outcomes, as more broadly contended by Hird).

Whilst the decision considered some scenarios where the costs of offensive action by an insured under a D&O policy may be covered, Hird’s case was not one of them. Hird’s motive for offensive action against ASADA was fear of damage to his reputation and economic interests. This motive did not establish the necessary causal link under the policy between his participation in the joint investigation and his decision to commence the Federal Court proceeding.

An important aspect of this case in practice, is that many insureds want to “take on the regulator” and seek orders restraining the regulator from taking action against them. If successful, arguably such offensive action would save an insurer a considerable amount of defence costs. Insureds often argue “I was doing this to save you money” and therefore the insurer should pay. The problem is that these actions rarely succeed and greatly escalate the risk. As such, insurers typically write policies to only cover the cost of defending the allegations, not trying to stop them altogether."
Click to expand...

does this not make you ask a different question.

the litigious strategy from Lance's playbook, had a different aim. to scare off other suitors.

like MaddAdam said wrt Charters, note, gotta have the "s" on Charter, so much more aristocratic as a plural...

this is where Charters got the most recent plata o plomo transaction regarding his true advice and sourcing and supply to Hird in the 90s and early 2000s

and obviously Lance derived such gambit from business and politics where the real boys play
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Hirdy loses cases against insurance coy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top