Astros Getting Double-Dicked over Bagwell

[Limey]

The company that insured Bagwell's contract has denied (two weeks ago) that Jeff is unable to play.  The link.

Nice.

Astros are going to sue.

As someone who works in the insurance bidness, can I just say that this is example #27486310647236464 of which I'm aware of a purveyor of speciality products refusing to pay a claim that the policy was specifically taken out to cover.  Property and Casualty insurers are much more open to actually paying claims (honest, they are), but these speciality clowns write odd policies and expect never to have to pay.

What they do is deny the claim in the hope of negotiating a settlement lower than the claim actually deserves.  It's crooked, and I've nearly come to blows in a settlement meeting with similar tossers.

[astro pete]

Quote:
The company that insured Bagwell's contract has denied (two weeks ago) that Jeff is unable to play.  The link.

Nice.

Astros are going to sue.

As someone who works in the insurance bidness, can I just say that this is example #27486310647236464 of which I'm aware of a purveyor of speciality products refusing to pay a claim that the policy was specifically taken out to cover.  Property and Casualty insurers are much more open to actually paying claims (honest, they are), but these speciality clowns write odd policies and expect never to have to pay.

What they do is deny the claim in the hope of negotiating a settlement lower than the claim actually deserves.  It's crooked, and I've nearly come to blows in a settlement meeting with similar tossers.

"For a lawyer who has 45 years of experience in this kind of thing -- big, gigantic shock, an insurance company doesn't want to pay," Fisher said.

[MusicMan]

I need to work "tossers" into my everyday conversations.

[Fredia]

did the astros lawyers go to the same schoolof thought as the astros medical staff? i say this zone has some top notch ones that need to be considered by the astros.

[Arky Vaughan]

"He was throwing the ball at 35 mph at what distance he could throw."

If you ever watched the speed pitch machine at the Dome, Little Leaguers were hitting 35 all the time.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
"He was throwing the ball at 35 mph at what distance he could throw."

If you ever watched the speed pitch machine at the Dome, Little Leaguers were hitting 35 all the time.

6-year olds are hitting 35 mph.  So in a nutshell, Bagwell was throwing like a 6-year old, only not as far.

[Browneye]

A great player, loyal player and a stand up guy, and this is how he is going to go out... What a shame.

[Mr. Happy]

The country club prisons are chock full of clowns who ran insurance companies that took in premiums but that didn't pay claims.

[Texifornia]

Seems as though they're hanging their hat on the fact that Bags was on the W.S. roster and that he is no worse off now than then.

Certainly "los tossers" would use something else if Bags had not made the W.S. roster, but the policy does not seem to use the words "full time starting NL player" and only says "player, non-pitcher", which presumably includes for pinch-hitting only.

Anyway, this kind of shit can drive you crazy.

[tophfar]

Quote:
I need to work "tossers" into my everyday conversations.

a friend of mine has a lake house on lake travis, and we were out there one day and the weather wasn't that great so we were just screwing around on their boat dock.  

as generally happens, we bored, half drunk males of the group started screwing around and invented a game to amuse ourselves, which involved life jackets worn upside down, one of those tubes pulled behind a boat, a ball, and someone in the water to toss said ball, and as much jumping, flipping and spinning off the dock.

one of the guys there happened to be from N. Ireland, and we couldnt figure out why he would spend 30 minutes rolling around on the ground crying with laughter every time we asked who wanted to be the next tosser.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
The company that insured Bagwell's contract has denied (two weeks ago) that Jeff is unable to play.  The link.

Nice.

Astros are going to sue.

As someone who works in the insurance bidness, can I just say that this is example #27486310647236464 of which I'm aware of a purveyor of speciality products refusing to pay a claim that the policy was specifically taken out to cover.  Property and Casualty insurers are much more open to actually paying claims (honest, they are), but these speciality clowns write odd policies and expect never to have to pay.

What they do is deny the claim in the hope of negotiating a settlement lower than the claim actually deserves.  It's crooked, and I've nearly come to blows in a settlement meeting with similar tossers.

"For a lawyer who has 45 years of experience in this kind of thing -- big, gigantic shock, an insurance company doesn't want to pay," Fisher said.

Just wanted to point out that the quote from Fisher has now been edited out of every online article.  Very peculiar.  Having a wife in disability insurancy and Life and Disability Insurance consulting for 10 yrs and having heard the stories, the man speaks the truth.

[Arky Vaughan]

I wonder who represented McLane in writing the policy in the first place, though.  It does not sound as if it was well thought out.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:
I wonder who represented McLane in writing the policy in the first place, though.  It does not sound as if it was well thought out.

My wife, the former disability insurance consultant, informed me that disability contracts boil down to 2 issues.  First, defining the requirements of the occupation in question.  Second, defining "disabled" in the context of the requirements of the occupation being insured.  

The language in this type of contract, according to her, is usually worded to not cover ALL contingencies, as no one can afford the premium of that level of insurance.  And even if they could write a contract for every contingency, insurance companies are in the business to make money so none would offer to insure against disability if it were convenient and simple to be declared "disabled".  

I'm currently not on speaking terms with my wife, as she insists Connecticut General (aka Cigna) has a case given Bagwell's at-bats during the WS and that, theoretically speaking, he could continue to hit only and not play defense.  As this appears to be an all or nothing contract, if Bagwell is not entirely disabled the Astros get nothing in compensation.  She was willing to concede that given the expert opinions (i.e. the doctors who've assessed Bagwell's shoulder) Cigna faces a stiff challenge to their claim that Bagwell is not totally disabled.  I'm sure I'll start talking to her again, as soon as she comes around to the right side of this debate!!  

Not that it's of any direct relevance but Cigna is one of my wife's former employers.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
I wonder who represented McLane in writing the policy in the first place, though.  It does not sound as if it was well thought out.

My wife, the former disability insurance consultant, informed me that disability contracts boil down to 2 issues.  First, defining the requirements of the occupation in question.  Second, defining "disabled" in the context of the requirements of the occupation being insured.  

The language in this type of contract, according to her, is usually worded to not cover ALL contingencies, as no one can afford the premium of that level of insurance.  And even if they could write a contract for every contingency, insurance companies are in the business to make money so none would offer to insure against disability if it were convenient and simple to be declared "disabled".  

I'm currently not on speaking terms with my wife, as she insists Connecticut General (aka Cigna) has a case given Bagwell's at-bats during the WS and that, theoretically speaking, he could continue to hit only and not play defense.  As this appears to be an all or nothing contract, if Bagwell is not entirely disabled the Astros get nothing in compensation.  She was willing to concede that given the expert opinions (i.e. the doctors who've assessed Bagwell's shoulder) Cigna faces a stiff challenge to their claim that Bagwell is not totally disabled.  I'm sure I'll start talking to her again, as soon as she comes around to the right side of this debate!!  

Not that it's of any direct relevance but Cigna is one of my wife's former employers.

Defining "disability" would be perhaps the primary task involved in drafting the policy in the first place.  Even if not every contingency can be covered, a National League team would surely want to make sure the definition included Bagwell's disability to field his position.

I suspect, as Limey says above, they will eventually settle.  Neither the Astros nor Connecticut General likely wants to litigate all the way to a verdict.

[Limey]

Quote:
Defining "disability" would be perhaps the primary task involved in drafting the policy in the first place.  Even if not every contingency can be covered, a National League team would surely want to make sure the definition included Bagwell's disability to field his position.

I suspect, as Limey says above, they will eventually settle.  Neither the Astros nor Connecticut General likely wants to litigate all the way to a verdict.

With apologies for parsing (but this is insurance and it's an occupational hazard) the word at issue is "total".  There's no doubt that he's disabled, but the company will weasel on the totality of the disability.

[EasTexAstro]

Quote:
Not that it's of any direct relevance but Cigna is one of my wife's former employers.

I don't know that I have ever followed a message board where full disclosure was normal.

Amazing.