Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[thehog]

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/02/18/lance-armstrong-careless-driving/23618335/

I posted that hours ago. Old news.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Glenn..was not responding to your post..

OK

I just checked the link out for the drunk driving crash.

The Yukon has vanity plates.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Insurance specialist without a license?

At this point you appear to be begging for a ban.

An insurance specialist can do something other than sell insurance, no?

What does this have to do with insurance or indemnity?

Where in insurance coverage does anyone win? Do us all a favor... look up the definition of "indemnity" then try and apply that definition to "win a life-changing prize."

Hoggy should be very familiar with this place:

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hoggy should be very familiar with this place:

LMAO

THAT is a funny picture for the latest goings on here.

Check out da vanity plates on the Yukon upthread link posted by falconseric.

 

[thehog]

The next step is getting the judgment. That will take awhile, given that the losing side will likely appeal. Only then, if SCA prevails, would the examination of Lance commence.

Problem is that Lance's arguments opposing entry of the judgment are not "silly," as some here have suggested. Thus is going to be a good old expensive legal fight.

Agreed. There is some posturing going on in the press by team SCA.

 

[thehog]

At this point you appear to be begging for a ban.

An insurance specialist can do something other than sell insurance, no?

What does this have to do with insurance or indemnity?

Where in insurance coverage does anyone win? Do us all a favor... look up the definition of "indemnity" then try and apply that definition to "win a life-changing prize."

So an insurance specialist who doesn't sell insurance? That's what you suggesting?

 

[ericfalcon]

I posted that hours ago. Old news.

you da man.

 

[skippythepinhead]

So an insurance specialist who doesn't sell insurance? That's what you suggesting?

Actually makes perfect sense. Insurance is a product. A product with buyers, brokers, sellers, underwriters, re-insurers, etc. Specialists all. I know a JD who passed the bar and is a legal specialist. He practices medicine.

I would recommend either learning something or thinking before you post, but why ruin a perfect record.

 

[thehog]

The general rule of thumb is that arbitrators lose jurisdiction once they issue the final award. Other than the short period within which parties may request that arbitrators correct a clerical or computational error under the arbitral rules (AAA gives 20 days; JAMS gives only 7), the arbitrators turn into pumpkins for all practical purposes after the final award is issued. The arbitral rules do not have any equivalent to Rule 60, which in state and federal courts allows a judge to re-do a judgment or order based on newly discovered evidence, fraud, or mistake. (But even Rule 60 sets a deadline of one year after the judgment is entered to request that the judgment be vacated?)

There is even a fancy Latin name for the reason that arbitrators turn into pumpkins after they issue final awards: functus officio. The policy is that arbitration awards are suppoed to bring finality, and we wouldn?t want arbitrators revisiting awards based on improper or ex parte information. However, one of my favorite arbitration resources, Domke on Arbitration, suggests that there are now so many exceptions to the functus officio doctrine that they just about swallow the rule. Courts have allowed arbitrators to revisit their awards to correct mistakes, to rule on an issue that was submitted but not decided, to clarify an ambiguity, and always, if the parties contractually authorize the same panel to hear a new issue.

That last exception explains how the SCA got a second bite at its arbitration with Armstrong. SCA?s petition to confirm the new arbitration award gives some important additional facts about what happened at the 2005 arbitration. Before the arbitration concluded, SCA and Armstrong entered into a settlement agreement requiring SCA to pay Armstrong $7.5 Million. That settlement agreement specified that the same panel of three arbitrators who heard the 2005 evidence would have ?exclusive jurisdiction over? ?any dispute or controversy [between the parties] arising under or in connection with? the settlement agreement.

After Armstrong admitted to Oprah Winfrey that he lied in his arbitration with SCA, SCA pursued two new claims with the three original arbitrators: sanctions for perjury and forfeiture of prize money that SCA had paid to Armstrong. Armstrong objected that the initial panel lacked authority to reconvene, but a majority of the panel disagreed. After hearing the evidence, a majority of the panel awarded SCA $10 million in sanctions against Armstrong.

Is there any lesson in this highly unusual tale for the run-of-the-mill arbitration? Of course. In general, parties and their advocates have one shot at getting the right result in arbitration, so every effort should be made to uncover important evidence and submit it to the panel. But, in the circumstance where one party is convinced that material evidence remains hidden, why not find a way to make sure the same arbitrator(s) could hear that evidence in the future? The settlement agreement between Armstrong and SCA is a good vehicle for that.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/lessons-from-lance-armstrong-about-the-f-71294/

Some salient points made. Not sure the final paragraph is 100% correct but on he whole well balanced.

 

[Scott SoCal]

So an insurance specialist who doesn't sell insurance? That's what you suggesting?

So a contingency prize contract is actually an insurance policy? That's what you (and Ted Lyon) are suggesting?

Indemnity

Recompense for loss, damage, or injuries; restitution or reimbursement.

An indemnity contract arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.

The principles of insurance include the principle of indemnification.

They also include the Principle of Uberrimae fidei (Utmost Good Faith), Principle of Insurable Interest, Principle of Contribution, Principle of Subrogation, Principle of Loss Minimization and the Principle of Causa Proxima (Nearest Cause).


Which of the principles apply to Contingency Prize Contracts?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

So a contingency prize contract is actually an insurance policy? That's what you (and Ted Lyon) are suggesting?



The principles of insurance include the principle of indemnification.

They also include the Principle of Uberrimae fidei (Utmost Good Faith), Principle of Insurable Interest, Principle of Contribution, Principle of Subrogation, Principle of Loss Minimization and the Principle of Causa Proxima (Nearest Cause).


Which of the principles apply to Contingency Prize Contracts?

But you don't understand, thehog is an expert in everything, even when he's not.

 

[sittingbison]

okeydoke gentle(wo)men,
the moron level trollkraft and resultant personal attacks is now beyond tedious

time to desist

cheers
bison

 

[Merckx index]

Can someone explain to me how SCA is different from Acceptance? Why was that settled so much more easily?

Court records show Armstrong paid $238.50 to cover court fees and a $150 fine.

I had to pay almost twice that for just going through a red light on my bike, when there weren?t any cars coming. I suppose his insurance will pay for the damage to the parked cars.

 

[thehog]

Can someone explain to me how SCA is different from Acceptance? Why was that settled so much more easily?.

Most likely it was the $11million difference. That amount is worth spending time, effort & money fighting for. $1m for Acceptance perhaps not and won't return. That and that in the Settlement for SCA, Armstrong covered off the possibility of future doping being revealed.

Acceptance never had a arbitration and/or settlement, it was just paid to Armstrong.

 

[veganrob]

I had to pay almost twice that for just going through a red light on my bike, when there weren?t any cars coming.

That is a "Contingency Fine Award" paid to the courts because you didn't get killed. You dufus.

 

[Archibald]

Actually makes perfect sense. Insurance is a product. A product with buyers, brokers, sellers, underwriters, re-insurers, etc. Specialists all. I know a JD who passed the bar and is a legal specialist. He practices medicine.

or maybe the waiter at the restaurant who has a PhD in Philosophy?

They also include the Principle of Uberrimae fidei (Utmost Good Faith),

the most ironic principle in this case...

 

[skippythepinhead]

or maybe the waiter at the restaurant who has a PhD in Philosophy?

They do tend to have the best answers to the deep questions like "should I have the chicken or the fish?"

 

[Archibald]

They do tend to have the best answers to the deep questions like "should I have the chicken or the fish?"

Philosophy specialist or Food Selection Specialist?

 

[MarkvW]

Can someone explain to me how SCA is different from Acceptance? Why was that settled so much more easily?



I had to pay almost twice that for just going through a red light on my bike, when there weren?t any cars coming. I suppose his insurance will pay for the damage to the parked cars.

Acceptance didn't contest Armstrong. They were defrauded. The limitation period didn't start running for them until they learned of Armstrong's fraud. USPS is in kind of the same situation. They didn't contest Armstrong and were also defrauded.

SCA fought Armstrong, then settled. That settlement agreement contract (in Armstrong's view) ought to have settled everything fully and finally between the parties. That settlement agreement gives Armstrong an argument--the argument he is pushing now against SCA.

 

[frenchfry]

Can someone explain to me how SCA is different from Acceptance? Why was that settled so much more easily?



I had to pay almost twice that for just going through a red light on my bike, when there weren?t any cars coming. I suppose his insurance will pay for the damage to the parked cars.

If I recall correctly, it was widely considered that he settled with Acceptance in order not to have to go under oath because going under oath could have serious implications on other ongoing legal battles - notably the whistleblower suit.

 

[sittingbison]

If I recall correctly, it was widely considered that he settled with Acceptance in order not to have to go under oath because going under oath could have serious implications on other ongoing legal battles - notably the whistleblower suit.

its a tangled web we weave...

 

[thehog]

If I recall correctly, it was widely considered that he settled with Acceptance in order not to have to go under oath because going under oath could have serious implications on other ongoing legal battles - notably the whistleblower suit.

He went under oath in SCA. Acceptance he basically just paid out and it made sense to as it was a relatively low number compared to whistleblower and SCA.

 

[frenchfry]

He went under oath in SCA. Acceptance he basically just paid out and it made sense to as it was a relatively low number compared to whistleblower and SCA.

Yes but the difference is that when he went under oath for SCA he was still the king of the world. Since then there was the reasoned decision and he has transformed into "disgraced cyclist", and apparently going under oath now would be problematic. This isn't in any way a legal opinion, just going on memory from previous discussions.

 

[skippythepinhead]

SCA fought Armstrong, then settled. That settlement agreement contract (in Armstrong's view) ought to have settled everything fully and finally between the parties. That settlement agreement gives Armstrong an argument--the argument he is pushing now against SCA.

Actually, no. He already pushed that argument when he challenged the proceedings and was ruled against (sorry I don't recall exact dates) in April 2014. His challenge to reopening the matter via arbitration was denied. There is no challenge available to him regarding the rehearing of the matter for sanctions, as it has already been done and a decision reached. Apple: bitten; ship, sailed.

The only thing in argument now is the sanction itself. Not the settlement agreement, which courts have ruled clearly and unambiguously allow the matter to be reconsidered by the arbitration committee.

That his attorneys made it known he had already offered to pay the $10,000,000 in installments is kind of a clue regarding his "argument," doncha think?

 

[thehog]

Yes but the difference is that when he went under oath for SCA he was still the king of the world. Since then there was the reasoned decision and he has transformed into "disgraced cyclist", and apparently going under oath now would be problematic. This isn't in any way a legal opinion, just going on memory from previous discussions.

No. He went under oath a second time last year with SCA. A court forced him to head back to deposition.