CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘NFL’

Game, Set, Match: Wimbledon’s Decision To Purchase Pandemic Insurance Coverage Could Be A Winner

Posted on: April 13th, 2020

By: Bill Buechner

Among many other more serious impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, many prominent sporting events have been cancelled or postponed, including the NCAA Tournament, the Masters, the Kentucky Derby and the French Open tennis tournament.  Also, all American professional sports leagues (except for the NFL) have suspended their seasons indefinitely or postponed the beginning of their seasons, including the NBA, NHL, MLB and MLS.  Each of these scheduling changes has resulted in the loss or postponement of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. 

On April 1, Wimbledon announced the cancellation of its championship tennis tournament that was scheduled for June 29 to July 12 in London.  However, unlike the other events and leagues mentioned above, Wimbledon reportedly purchased event cancellation coverage that includes coverage for an event cancellation caused by an infectious disease.  (The British Open golf tournament, which has also been cancelled, also reportedly purchased pandemic insurance coverage).  The All England Lawn Tennis Club, which operates the Wimbledon championships, apparently purchased pandemic insurance coverage about 18 years ago after the SARS outbreak in 2002.  Neither the insurer nor the exact terms of the policy have been publicly disclosed, but several media reports indicate that Wimbledon paid an annual premium of approximately $2 million per year for comprehensive pandemic event cancellation coverage. 

The UK Daily Mail has reported that Wimbledon will receive approximately $141 million under its pandemic event cancellation policy.   Having paid approximately $34 million in premiums over the past 17 years, it appears that Wimbledon’s decision to purchase the infectious disease coverage will benefit Wimbledon to the tune of approximately $107 million.  Media reports estimate that Wimbledon has received approximately $310 million in revenues from the tournament in recent years. 

In contrast to Wimbledon, other events without similar insurance coverage, such as the Masters, the Kentucky Derby and the French Open, are scrambling to avoid or reduce massive losses by re-scheduling their events for the fall and hoping that the COVID-19 pandemic will be over by then and that fans and viewers will attend and watch these sporting events during a different time of year than normal.  Professional sports leagues without pandemic insurance coverage and hoping to limit or prevent substantial losses face uncertainty as to if or when they will be able to start their season (MLB and NFL) or if they will be able to complete their season, including playoffs (NBA, NHL, MLS). 

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis. Topics include COVID-19’s impact on finances and loans, the FFCRA, the CARES Act and more. Click here to view upcoming webinars.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**

Sticks and Stone Can Hurt People, But Disagreement Between NFL Players Is A Reminder That Words Also Can Hurt Us

Posted on: February 20th, 2020

By:  Jeffrey Hord

In the final minute of last November’s NFL game between the Cleveland Browns and the Pittsburgh Steelers, Browns defensive end Myles Garrett ripped off Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph’s helmet and swung it at Rudolph, hitting him in the head. This attack drew national attention and resulted in an indefinite suspension for Garrett. Despite the shocking nature of the attack, some early speculation that Rudolph might sue Garrett for battery for the this on-field altercation showed no signs of spilling over into the courts…until now.

Last week, during an interview with ESPN’s Mina Kimes, Garrett repeated a claim that he first made in the days following the November brawl: specifically, that Rudolph had sparked the fight by calling Garrett a racial slur. Rudolph has emphatically denied the allegation and also notes that the NFL investigated Garrett’s allegation and concluded that there was “no evidence to support” his claim.

Now, Rudolph’s attorney has responded to Garret’s latest allegation by suggesting that his client may now sue Garrett for slander. In California – where the interview with Kimes took place – slander involves a false statement by one person about another person which tends directly to injure the victim with respect to his office, profession, trade or business. Rudolph essentially contends that his reputation has been damaged by the accusation that he used a racial epithet.

Interestingly, however, Rudolph may not prevail simply by proving that the allegation is false. Rather, if Rudolph is deemed a “public figure” in the eyes of the law, Rudolph then will have to prove that Garrett also acted with actual malice in making the allegation. Under California law, “actual malice” is a higher standard to meet as it must be proven that the false statement was made with actual knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard for the truth. If the fight that started on the field leads to a legal fight off the field, it will be interesting to see if Garrett tries to push it into the NFL’s grievance system, what evidence Garrett relies upon in support of his allegation, whether a court finds that Rudolph is a “public figure” and how Rudolph may try and use the NFL’s report as evidence that he did not utter the alleged word.

If you have questions regarding defamation or other tort claims, feel free to contact Jeffrey Hord at [email protected].