PDA

View Full Version : Insurer sues Broncos over former players' compensation claims



TXBRONC
06-13-2011, 07:54 AM
Insurer sues Broncos over former players' compensation claims
By John Ingold
The Denver Post
Posted: 06/13/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

So in 2008, Little took advantage of a not commonly known provision in California law to file for workers' compensation in that state, arguing that his football career had left him with a legacy of pain after suffering two broken collarbones, broken ribs, multiple concussions and other injuries too numerous to recall.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18261266

Interesting little story I encourage you all to take a look.

Juriga72
06-13-2011, 07:58 AM
The company says the policies it sold the Broncos covered only claims in New Mexico and didn't apply to football players. St. Paul Fire and Marine is hoping the suit will prompt a federal judge to declare the company doesn't have to pay.



WTF???? WHEN did we play IN New Mexico?

horsepig
06-13-2011, 10:45 AM
Shouldn't insurance actually insure? Did you have a flood rider, well, I don't know. I just paid throught he ******* teeth for 25 years for "INSURANCE".

Nuclear war rider?

How about a meteriorite rider?

Insurance is one of the rottenest industries out there. "Yeah, we insured you guys for games played in the ******* Congo, hahahahah!".

horsepig
06-13-2011, 10:47 AM
"Sure, Elmer, we insured you for falling off the barn, but not for hitting the ground!".

Lonestar
06-13-2011, 10:54 AM
Looks like something the NFLpa should be handling.

Whoops all they are interested in is seeing the owners books.

Lonestar
06-13-2011, 10:56 AM
Let me add they (insurance) would have covered it If they would have been hurt in NM. Like we have played more than one game there over the years.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
06-13-2011, 10:59 AM
Isn't that why the NFL has a retirement fund?

TXBRONC
06-13-2011, 11:34 AM
The company says the policies it sold the Broncos covered only claims in New Mexico and didn't apply to football players. St. Paul Fire and Marine is hoping the suit will prompt a federal judge to declare the company doesn't have to pay.



WTF???? WHEN did we play IN New Mexico?

It sounds like fraud to me because there aint no way in hell that the Broncos bought a policy that only applies in New Mexico. :mad:

Juriga72
06-13-2011, 11:41 AM
Only a moron would say "Golly...those poor owners getting all screwed on this".... Nope, lets take a billion or two off the top...pretend like head injuries dont exist, and THEN claim "We dont make any money"


WOW.... how slow do you have to be to side with these owners?

Juriga72
06-13-2011, 11:42 AM
Isn't that why the NFL has a retirement fund?

Different thing IMHO.... Does not cover these issue's, which is why people are struggling.

LordTrychon
06-13-2011, 11:51 AM
Only a moron would say "Golly...those poor owners getting all screwed on this".... Nope, lets take a billion or two off the top...pretend like head injuries dont exist, and THEN claim "We dont make any money"


WOW.... how slow do you have to be to side with these owners?

About as slow as me, apparently. :salute:

Lonestar
06-13-2011, 12:02 PM
Isn't that why the NFL has a retirement fund?

Yes it is but it has been severely underfunded by agreement if the CBAs that the NFLpa have agreed to in the past.

Line my pockets now screw the old timers.

When Elway got his first contract it was for 7 mil. 5 or 6 years IIRC. He was called the 7million dollar man. And opposing defense made sure he earned every dime of it.

Lots of those old timers never made much more than 60k A year

The current nplayers need to kick in a lot more money to fund the retirees.
My old phyiscal Ed coach was a OT for the broncos that was how he made money to live on in the offseason.

Juriga72
06-13-2011, 01:10 PM
About as slow as me, apparently. :salute:

So you have no problem with denying repeated head trauma causes early death? Because thats the position of these owners.

Owners also "Claim" that they make no money.....Open the books and see what really is going on. When 42 different Mcaskey's get money from the Chicago Bears each year...BEFORE they do the corporate taxes.

JUST as in the case of G.E., you can "make a BILLION" and write off each penny as a "expense".

Sorry..... but you really think guys who are billionares would somehow not figure out how to squeeze out each penny...no matter what harm it causes?

I have to side with the guy's who end up with the spit buckets hung around their necks at age 45...

LordTrychon
06-13-2011, 02:08 PM
So you have no problem with denying repeated head trauma causes early death? Because thats the position of these owners.

Owners also "Claim" that they make no money.....Open the books and see what really is going on. When 42 different Mcaskey's get money from the Chicago Bears each year...BEFORE they do the corporate taxes.

JUST as in the case of G.E., you can "make a BILLION" and write off each penny as a "expense".

Sorry..... but you really think guys who are billionares would somehow not figure out how to squeeze out each penny...no matter what harm it causes?

I have to side with the guy's who end up with the spit buckets hung around their necks at age 45...

Pretty sure it's the players that complain the most when protective rules are put into place.

You also may want to check out this thread.

http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254639

The current NFL players don't care about the retired players. The NFL has offered quite a bit on this front, only to be turned down repeatedly because the NFLPA is more concerned about the current players not giving up a dime.

As for the financial situation of the league, you can believe what you want, and I won't even call you slow for it. I'm just going to quote something I wrote for another site. I'll take Forbes' view of it over yours. Thanks.


If you're not going to read this all, at least read the bold quote.

The majority of arguments against the Owner's stance that the current system is unsustainable seem to stem soley from the fact that revenues have increased and there's no way that profit could decrease in that case. No offense, but it seems to be based soley on personal opinion from that... and if you have the personal opinion that it is plausible that profits are declining, you must be naive.

I've posted articles before that showed that it was plausible indeed, but never really got responses. If I post another, with arguments from both sides, will someone respond? This is from Forbes... who knows more than any of us about the true nature of the NFL as a business.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html



The article I previously posted had 8 teams dropping in value (the first time in the history of the tracking that any team had dropped in value). This was the first time the average value dropped. 21/32 teams seeing a drop in value... though admittedly partially due to demand.



I don't exactly understand this when they go on to show profitability problems later... but there you have it. Forbes does think that the league has strong profitability.



Other articles have shown the Packer's operating profit dropping from $30+ million in 2006 to just under $5 million last year.



Obviously, nobody thinks that ALL the teams are hurting. We know that there are teams that are thriving. The article talks about the league becoming tiered. Yikes. So yes, there are definitely some teams that are doing very well for themselves. No doubt.

The problem is that even a few teams doing badly is bad for the entire league in the long run... unless you favor contraction.

The article gives more details about the Redskins and Patriots... the next best teams for profit.

Here's where it gets scary.

I've said all along, as have others that nobody is claiming that teams are losing money... just that the profit is trending down, and the owners are within their rights to try to protect themselves from getting to the point where they do in fact see losses.



Ok... that's a bit scary, but partially their own fault for sucking.... but moving on...



:eek:

Is it still implausible that the owners have reason for seeing a new balance in the revenue sharing between clubs and teams? Am I out of mind for believing that?

Last note - regarding the talk about how teams don't even pay for the stadiums...

LordTrychon
06-13-2011, 02:09 PM
So you have no problem with denying repeated head trauma causes early death? Because thats the position of these owners.

Owners also "Claim" that they make no money.....Open the books and see what really is going on. When 42 different Mcaskey's get money from the Chicago Bears each year...BEFORE they do the corporate taxes.

JUST as in the case of G.E., you can "make a BILLION" and write off each penny as a "expense".

Sorry..... but you really think guys who are billionares would somehow not figure out how to squeeze out each penny...no matter what harm it causes?

I have to side with the guy's who end up with the spit buckets hung around their necks at age 45...

Pretty sure it's the players that complain the most when protective rules are put into place.

You also may want to check out this thread.

http://broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254639

The current NFL players don't care about the retired players. The NFL has offered quite a bit on this front, only to be turned down repeatedly because the NFLPA is more concerned about the current players not giving up a dime.

As for the financial situation of the league, you can believe what you want, and I won't even call you slow for it. I'm just going to quote something I wrote for another site. I'll take Forbes' view of it over yours. Thanks.


If you're not going to read this all, at least read the bold quote.

The majority of arguments against the Owner's stance that the current system is unsustainable seem to stem soley from the fact that revenues have increased and there's no way that profit could decrease in that case. No offense, but it seems to be based soley on personal opinion from that... and if you have the personal opinion that it is plausible that profits are declining, you must be naive.

I've posted articles before that showed that it was plausible indeed, but never really got responses. If I post another, with arguments from both sides, will someone respond? This is from Forbes... who knows more than any of us about the true nature of the NFL as a business.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html


Last year proved that even the blue chip National Football League has not been immune to the recession.

NFL team values fell 2% last season to an average of $1.02 billion, the first decline since Forbes began tracking the league's finances in 1998, with 21 of the league's 32 teams seeing their worths drop. (Note: Our valuations are enterprise values, and include revenue from stadiums but not the value of the real estate.) Team values slipped because the bad economy has reduced demand (there are fewer people with the cash to buy a team, and borrowing has become more difficult) and less nonbroadcasting revenue for many teams.

The article I previously posted had 8 teams dropping in value (the first time in the history of the tracking that any team had dropped in value). This was the first time the average value dropped. 21/32 teams seeing a drop in value... though admittedly partially due to demand.


But thanks to long-term television contracts negotiated before the recession, the NFL's profitability has never been stronger.

I don't exactly understand this when they go on to show profitability problems later... but there you have it. Forbes does think that the league has strong profitability.


The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

Other articles have shown the Packer's operating profit dropping from $30+ million in 2006 to just under $5 million last year.


The most valuable NFL team is the Dallas Cowboys: Its value increased a league high 9%, to $1.8 billion. The team, worth more than any other sports franchise in the world, save soccer club Manchester United ($1.84 billion), moved into its new $1.25 billion stadium last season and sold out every regular season game with the league's highest average ticket price, $160.

Obviously, nobody thinks that ALL the teams are hurting. We know that there are teams that are thriving. The article talks about the league becoming tiered. Yikes. So yes, there are definitely some teams that are doing very well for themselves. No doubt.

The problem is that even a few teams doing badly is bad for the entire league in the long run... unless you favor contraction.

The article gives more details about the Redskins and Patriots... the next best teams for profit.

Here's where it gets scary.

I've said all along, as have others that nobody is claiming that teams are losing money... just that the profit is trending down, and the owners are within their rights to try to protect themselves from getting to the point where they do in fact see losses.


At the other end of the scale, the NFL's low-revenue teams are struggling to keep pace with their big-market competition. The NFL's 10 least valuable teams all declined in value over the past year, led by the Jacksonville Jaguars, which fell 16% to $725 million. The Jags lost 17,000 season ticket holders following a disappointing 5-win, 11-loss season in 2008. The poor support forced the Jaguars to have all but one of its games blacked out locally on TV. The Jags boosted their season ticket base for the upcoming season, but did it with heavily discounted tickets.

Ok... that's a bit scary, but partially their own fault for sucking.... but moving on...


The Detroit Lions (owned by auto scion William Clay Ford) are one of only two teams to lose money ($2.9 million) last season on an operating basis (the Miami Dolphins lost $7.7 million). This marks the third time in four years the Lions have posted an operating loss.

:eek:

Is it still implausible that the owners have reason for seeing a new balance in the revenue sharing between clubs and teams? Am I out of mind for believing that?

Last note - regarding the talk about how teams don't even pay for the stadiums...


The team is burdened with a hefty debt load of $350 million thanks to the Lions' contribution to the $440 million Ford Field, which opened in 2002. The Lions have struggled to sell tickets since becoming the first NFL team to ever finish winless in a 16-game season in 2008. The Lions had half of its eight home games blacked out last year as it failed to sell out 72 hours before kickoff. The team cut ticket prices on 19,000 seats for this season in hopes of boosting attendance.

Juriga72
06-13-2011, 02:23 PM
I will agree that today's player has NO TOUCH of reality with the older ones......


BUT.
WHO should have that "touch"? Owners. IMHO

You buy a company, you have to pay into the retired fund of people who never worked for you.

YOU buy a NFL team... same thing IMHO.

There's 12 BILLION (NFL,ABC,ESPN,CBS,FOX tv revenue) each year.......alone. Not counting merchandise/crapola sales...... and they cant come up with some set break?


really?

LordTrychon
06-13-2011, 02:47 PM
I will agree that today's player has NO TOUCH of reality with the older ones......


BUT.
WHO should have that "touch"? Owners. IMHO

You buy a company, you have to pay into the retired fund of people who never worked for you.

YOU buy a NFL team... same thing IMHO.

There's 12 BILLION (NFL,ABC,ESPN,CBS,FOX tv revenue) each year.......alone. Not counting merchandise/crapola sales...... and they cant come up with some set break?


really?

That's what they're working on now... a good split of the money. They just don't agree what it should be, for obvious reasons.

The players threatened strike until the owners bended in 2006 to get the % they were at up to this point. It was too much, and the owners are trying to dial it back somewhere closer to where it was when it worked better as a whole, as is their right.

I understand players not understanding the plight of those that came before them, but the NFLPA is in place largely for those issues, yet he won't even meet with the NFLAA (alumni assoc.)? The Alumni are more mad with the NFLPA than the owners. That says something.

Yes, the owners should understand and agree to more medical benefits (which they already have)... but a union representing players should also be looking out for the best interests of the players past and present, not just their current pocket books.

LordTrychon
06-13-2011, 03:04 PM
That all said, I do think that billionaires can be scheisters, especially when you're talking about a group of them. Easier to be a nice guy individually than as a group. Bill Gates would make a great owner.

I just think that the owners aren't incorrect in their claims that the line was pushed too far this last time. They're probably trying to get more back than they absolutely need, but oh well.

That said... going back to the original point of the thread, the real scheister here is this insurance company that is claiming that the Denver Broncos bought a policy... but only for claims in New Mexico, and to not cover Football Players.

Right....

Juriga72
06-13-2011, 03:07 PM
That all said, I do think that billionaires can be scheisters, especially when you're talking about a group of them. Easier to be a nice guy individually than as a group. Bill Gates would make a great owner.

I just think that the owners aren't incorrect in their claims that the line was pushed too far this last time. They're probably trying to get more back than they absolutely need, but oh well.

That said... going back to the original point of the thread, the real scheister here is this insurance company that is claiming that the Denver Broncos bought a policy... but only for claims in New Mexico, and to not cover Football Players.

Right....

IF Pat signed on for this.... shame on his "Pre-Alzheimer's" arse..... "New Mexico" my arse....

LordTrychon
06-13-2011, 03:09 PM
IF Pat signed on for this.... shame on his "Pre-Alzheimer's" arse..... "New Mexico" my arse....

Yeah... seems weird that the team would just now be made aware of this... lol.

The Glue Factory
06-13-2011, 05:29 PM
That all said, I do think that billionaires can be scheisters, especially when you're talking about a group of them. Easier to be a nice guy individually than as a group. Bill Gates would make a great owner.

I just think that the owners aren't incorrect in their claims that the line was pushed too far this last time. They're probably trying to get more back than they absolutely need, but oh well.

That said... going back to the original point of the thread, the real scheister here is this insurance company that is claiming that the Denver Broncos bought a policy... but only for claims in New Mexico, and to not cover Football Players.

Right....

The article mentioned Little. If that's Floyd Little, then it was WAY before Bowlen and Kaiser (the previous owner.)

Dzone
06-13-2011, 07:33 PM
Rick Upchurch is in the lawsuit also, for years 1976-1984. He has some disabling injuries from pro football and they arent giving squat to help.

TXBRONC
06-13-2011, 08:54 PM
Rick Upchurch is in the lawsuit also, for years 1976-1984. He has some disabling injuries from pro football and they arent giving squat to help.

If I recall correctly Upchurch had to retire because of a neck injury.

Juriga72
06-13-2011, 10:10 PM
The article mentioned Little. If that's Floyd Little, then it was WAY before Bowlen and Kaiser (the previous owner.)

Meck was tho...... and so were some of the others.

IMHO..... BOTH the NFL and NFLPA should be paying for these guy's med bills/disabilities.

LordTrychon
06-14-2011, 07:04 AM
The article mentioned Little. If that's Floyd Little, then it was WAY before Bowlen and Kaiser (the previous owner.)


Rick Upchurch is in the lawsuit also, for years 1976-1984. He has some disabling injuries from pro football and they arent giving squat to help.

Yeah, I wonder about the time line on this too.

I don't think they are suing due to claims made back in those days though. I think the claims are more recent, and this insurer was expected to cover all workman's comp for them. Then the odd law in CA (surprise) has given rise to these older players seeking workmans comp.

Dzone
06-14-2011, 10:46 AM
I was mistaken about Rick Upchurch being a party to this suit. He does have a work comp claim pending with a California law firm, but it must be a different firm. The lawyer is a former NFL player and I cant remember his name. Rick has a lot of spinal disk degeneration in his neck. The result of a football injury. He was working as a host of a Vegas Casino last I heard. A very classy person, great personality and very selfless. He ran a summer football camp for kids that was really popular. I was able to meet him and his wife. Two of the nicest folks you could ever meet. Hope he and his wife are doing well.

Dzone
06-20-2011, 09:45 PM
Mel Owens is the former nfl player turned attorney who is representing several players. This says the settlements are in a lump sum from $60,000 to $100,000. Probably not enough to cover joint replacements and years of medical care.
http://www.tbilaw.com/blog/2010/04/ex-football-players-now-lawyers-defend-peers-in-workman%E2%80%99s-comp-cases-in-california.html

TXBRONC
06-20-2011, 11:25 PM
Mel Owens is the former nfl player turned attorney who is representing several players. This says the settlements are in a lump sum from $60,000 to $100,000. Probably not enough to cover joint replacements and years of medical care.
http://www.tbilaw.com/blog/2010/04/ex-football-players-now-lawyers-defend-peers-in-workman%E2%80%99s-comp-cases-in-california.html

$60,000 would more than cover a couple joint replacements but that's about it.