3 minutes ago, sue said:

I don't understand how that bad advice is relevant to suing his insurers.  Presumably his policy covered him for actions he instigated as long as they are reasonable actions in some legal way?  Oh no, not another case of 'comfortable satisfaction'!

Umm...Computer says......NO !! 

19 hours ago, daisycutter said:

yes, but, but, the essendon 34 are surely different from real drug cheats

You have my award for the comment of the week dc and it is only Wednesday.

Classic.

6 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Poor old James still doesn't get it. 

The conversations went on between lawyers/solicitors/QC's and their opinions is irrelevant.

The case is about Chubb not indemnifying him for initiating legal action. 

He chose to do it. It would appear he was not insured to do so. 

Well, surely that's Chubb's fault for not thinking of it. Sue 'em, Jimmie! Throw everything at it! And when you lose, take it all the way to the High Court. That should sort out the family finances for a while ...

 

I doubt Hird is the kind of person to take any advice unless it's something he want's to hear. I imagine the lawyers applied the maxim "the customer is always right" in dealing with him.  

 

20 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Poor old James still doesn't get it. 

The conversations went on between lawyers/solicitors/QC's and their opinions is irrelevant.

The case is about Chubb not indemnifying him for initiating legal action. 

He chose to do it. It would appear he was not insured to do so. 

The  evidence that his lawyers thought it a non brainer would only be relevant if his insurance policy did cover him to sue as long as the action was in some sense reasonable.   SO surely Chubb's case is that it wasn't reasonable and thus not covered by his policy.  If it was clear he was not covered for any action he instituted, no matter how well founded, then surely this wouldn't be in court now.   He is not that stupid.....

so why is all this inner sanctum posturing and intercourse relevant to whether chubb insurance should pay

surely it is just a legal question of whether the insurance contract conditions cover an action initiated by hird or not. if hird got bad or misleading advice (not from chubb) then i can't see the relevance, but then i've never understood the relevance of hird and essendon's tactics and utterances since the very start

surely if hird thought chubb would pay he would first have cleared it with chubb before blundering forward. maybe messiahs don't think they need to bother

1 minute ago, sue said:

 

The  evidence that his lawyers thought it a non brainer would only be relevant if his insurance policy did cover him to sue as long as the action was in some sense reasonable.   SO surely Chubb's case is that it wasn't reasonable and thus not covered by his policy.  If it was clear he was not covered for any action he instituted, no matter how well founded, then surely this wouldn't be in court now.   He is not that stupid.....

naah...YEAH !!    He's just a little too clever by half.....In true Icarus like fashion....higher and higher and.......... oh fcuk !!!

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so why is all this inner sanctum posturing and intercourse relevant to whether chubb insurance should pay

surely it is just a legal question of whether the insurance contract conditions cover an action initiated by hird or not. if hird got bad or misleading advice (not from chubb) then i can't see the relevance, but then i've never understood the relevance of hird and essendon's tactics and utterances since the very start

surely if hird thought chubb would pay he would first have cleared it with chubb before blundering forward. maybe messiahs don't think they need to bother

its about the Vibe remember 

I was wrong:

"... has confirmed that German will be the 'procedural language' for the case."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-17/the-essendon-34-appeal-frequently-asked-questions

11 minutes ago, bing181 said:

I was wrong:

"... has confirmed that German will be the 'procedural language' for the case."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-17/the-essendon-34-appeal-frequently-asked-questions

Wirklich. Ich bin überrascht .

2 hours ago, sue said:

 

The  evidence that his lawyers thought it a non brainer would only be relevant if his insurance policy did cover him to sue as long as the action was in some sense reasonable.   SO surely Chubb's case is that it wasn't reasonable and thus not covered by his policy.  If it was clear he was not covered for any action he instituted, no matter how well founded, then surely this wouldn't be in court now.   He is not that stupid.....

Not that stupid but, as 'bub says, maybe just a bit too smart. Certainly the one unbroken thread in all the court activity was that Hird's lawyers were always too clever for Hird's own good.

Chubb is, as far as I understand things (which is not very far, admittedly), Essendon's insurer. That presumably means that any actions Hird took as an employee could be covered. But Hird has always gone one out on the court stuff. He lodged a case separate to the club's, and he appealed when the club refused to do so. I wouldn't blame Chubb for saying: well, you've acted as an individual and in your own interests, not those of the club, you can pick up the costs as an individual.

I hope Chubb win on that, even if there are entirely other reasons for it.

16 minutes ago, bing181 said:

I was wrong:

"... has confirmed that German will be the 'procedural language' for the case."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-17/the-essendon-34-appeal-frequently-asked-questions

Merde. Je l'aurais passé l'année à Berlin!

Poor, poor James he forgot to read the bottle again insurance policy. Strange he has a lawyer wife that should have picked up that he was not covered if he instigates suits against others, and didn't he notice all those bills coming in every month from his insurer were directed at him? Well lets see the Essendon football club put their hand in their pocket while they still have some money and pay his bills, after all he is still their favourite son. Better to give the money to James than all those drug addled footballers who will be suing them soon.

41 minutes ago, bing181 said:

I was wrong:

"... has confirmed that German will be the 'procedural language' for the case."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-17/the-essendon-34-appeal-frequently-asked-questions

And if the Drug Lords win then WADA can appeal.

The saga that just keeps on giving.

32 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

Not that stupid but, as 'bub says, maybe just a bit too smart. Certainly the one unbroken thread in all the court activity was that Hird's lawyers were always too clever for Hird's own good.

Chubb is, as far as I understand things (which is not very far, admittedly), Essendon's insurer. That presumably means that any actions Hird took as an employee could be covered. But Hird has always gone one out on the court stuff. He lodged a case separate to the club's, and he appealed when the club refused to do so. I wouldn't blame Chubb for saying: well, you've acted as an individual and in your own interests, not those of the club, you can pick up the costs as an individual.

I hope Chubb win on that, even if there are entirely other reasons for it.

My understanding Dr JD is that the insurers only cover directors et alin defending actions against them, not instigated by them. 

I get it.....can't be that hard to understand then !

39 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

Poor, poor James he forgot to read the bottle again insurance policy. Strange he has a lawyer wife that should have picked up that he was not covered if he instigates suits against others, and didn't he notice all those bills coming in every month from his insurer were directed at him? Well lets see the Essendon football club put their hand in their pocket while they still have some money and pay his bills, after all he is still their favourite son. Better to give the money to James than all those drug addled footballers who will be suing them soon.

Tania's notes clearly omitted some important facts ... 

14 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

My understanding Dr JD is that the insurers only cover directors et alin defending actions against them, not instigated by them. 

I get it.....can't be that hard to understand then !

More than happy to be wrong on this, 'bub. I was just following the line of sue's logic but without any knowledge of the actual terms of the insurance contract.

If you're right, Hird's up that same creek that he's found himself up several times already. You'd think he'd buy some sort of paddle. Maybe he just assumes that there'll be a retinue of white knights somewhere behind him to clean up the mess.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Wirklich. Ich bin überrascht .

i knew i'd read that somewhere 

12 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

More than happy to be wrong on this, 'bub. I was just following the line of sue's logic but without any knowledge of the actual terms of the insurance contract.

If you're right, Hird's up that same creek that he's found himself up several times already. You'd think he'd buy some sort of paddle. Maybe he just assumes that there'll be a retinue of white knights somewhere behind him to clean up the mess.

Sorry if it read was doubting your good self. It just strikes me as amazing that such a simple parameter here was overlooked/disregarded/misunderstood by the Golden oNe and his henchmen.

Would anyone take a car to the panel beaters if you weren't sure someone else was up for the bill ?

45 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Sorry if it read was doubting your good self. It just strikes me as amazing that such a simple parameter here was overlooked/disregarded/misunderstood by the Golden oNe and his henchmen.

Would anyone take a car to the panel beaters if you weren't sure someone else was up for the bill ?

Yes if your ego is so huge that you cannot see over it.

14 hours ago, Deecisive said:

Poor, poor James he forgot to read the bottle again insurance policy. Strange he has a lawyer wife that should have picked up that he was not covered if he instigates suits against others, and didn't he notice all those bills coming in every month from his insurer were directed at him? Well lets see the Essendon football club put their hand in their pocket while they still have some money and pay his bills, after all he is still their favourite son. Better to give the money to James than all those drug addled footballers who will be suing them soon.

Does he still?

49 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Sorry if it read was doubting your good self. It just strikes me as amazing that such a simple parameter here was overlooked/disregarded/misunderstood by the Golden oNe and his henchmen.

Would anyone take a car to the panel beaters if you weren't sure someone else was up for the bill ?

Didn't think that, 'bub, you're keeping closer tabs on events so I assume you know much more than I do about the particulars of the insurance coverage and Hird's efforts to finagle some compensation for his stupidity. He's beginning to look like he's addicted to legal action no matter what the consequences ... keeps his 15 minutes of infamy going, I suppose.

52 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Sorry if it read was doubting your good self. It just strikes me as amazing that such a simple parameter here was overlooked/disregarded/misunderstood by the Golden oNe and his henchmen.

Would anyone take a car to the panel beaters if you weren't sure someone else was up for the bill ?

Hird's take: the entire affair was an attack on his reputation. (Players', club's, competition's: mere collateral damage.)

Therefore any action he takes in defence of that reputation is justified and in fact required.

Doesn't matter if any step in the defence is reactive or proactive. It's all part of the same game and the one end.

Surely any reasonable insurance company can see that? In the "legends of the game" clause for instance?

He obviously mistook them for"Chump Insurance "

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

He obviously mistook them for"Chump Insurance "

No, the failing is theirs. They obviously don't understand that he's James "Effing" Hird.