Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

[Archived] Dahlin Insurance Setback


Recommended Posts

LONDON, April 20 (Reuters)

Britain’s Court of Appeal said on Wednesday“wear and tear” could be considered a contributory factor in a soccer injury claim, dampening a Premier League team’s hopes of a multi-million pound payout.

Blackburn Rovers have fought for seven years to get insurers to pay out £4 million after Swedish international striker Martin Dahlin suffered a career-ending back injury.

In November, the club won a preliminary ruling that a pre-existing back problem did not, as the insurers argued, contribute to Dahlin’s more serious injury sustained during a practice match in October 1997.

The High Court had ruled it amounted to ordinary wear and tear, experienced by most sportsmen. But the appeal court overturned that ruling on Wednesday and said the impact of Dahlin’s earlier back condition could not be disregarded.

Standard insurance policies include a get-out clause which means insurers do not have to pay out if a player’s career ends through injury caused by degenerative conditions like arthritis.

Insurers Avon Insurance, Eagle Star, AGF Insurance and IC Insurance, have refused to pay. In the absence of a settlement, the case will go to trial to establish the contribution of Dahlin’s existing back problem.

The Swede scored four goals in 26 appearances for Blackburn, 13 of which were as a substitute. He also scored 28 goals in 60 appearances for his country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Talking about this last night and gutted we won't have this extra "free" money floating around this summer.

It is really difficult to believe he suffered any of this "wear and tear" in the blue and white halves whilst stood around on the pitch doing nowt though. blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the player doesn't have "a pre-existing condition" of any kind.

I can't remember the exact wording of the original ruling but remember thinking it would cause ructions in the insurance industry as it tended to nullify the standard "we don't pay out in the case of pre-existing conditions" clause central to insurance policies.

Still we may get something, even if a much lesser amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone who plays pro-sport will have picked up pre-existing conditions (knocks, cuts, breaks, dodgy injections etc.) which would invalidate any insurance policy.

True, but Dahlin's condition clearly went well beyond the normal bumps and bruises sustained by footballers.

Any how it's not the situation that the policy is not paying out at all, the appeal court decision would seem to affect quantum rather than liability.

So it's a case of fingers crossed and let's hope we get as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have ever seen Mrs Dahlin then you would guess his back would give him some jip sooner or later.

She's probably spent most of his dosh, halved the rest and buggered off to someone else by now.............. probably in the black ferrari too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Den, but that photo of Dahlin in the Rovers kit is clearly a fake.

a ) He has the ball at his feet which suggests he got close to it long enough for someone to take a picture.

b ) He has a sheen of sweat on his brow which suggests he had been trying hard.

In any case, when he played for us he always looked at least two stones heavier due to all those pub meals he used to eat in the Traders Arms at Mellor.

Edited by Cheeky Sidders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brohlin! Dahlin! Brolin!

Brohlin! Dahlin! Brolin! Brohlin! Dahlin! Brolin! Brohlin! Dahlin! Brolin! Rawhide!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

laugh.gif

Made me laugh. Which is not always a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have good memories of Martin Dahlin after we thumped Villa away (again). I was hanging about after the game waiting to get a few autographs on my Programme and he came past, I give him a quick shout and he came and signed my Programme. Most of the players had already got on the coach to leave and I said to him that I had missed most of the players, he grabbed my pen and programme, went onto the bus and got the rest of the team to sign it.

Always thought he was a good bloke after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that Rovers would negotiate in a very tough way in the out-of-court settlement attempt:

1) They will have to show support of the Walker Trust and convince the insurance industry of the Walker trust's determination to fight this one in Court- if they do, the insurance industry knows that the WT pockets are deep enough to take them on.

2) There is a decent enough track record of trials in Court supporting the original judgement.

3) The Insurance Industry must be paranoid about the original judgement being upheld in a public trial- it would cost them a fortune if everybody holding a sports injury case used it against them. That has got to be worth something to make the Rovers go away.

I hope that we never get to hear what the settlement was for but that a settlement is reached (for Peacock as well as Dahlin). That way the Rovers get their cash in time for the summer market and the insurance industry avoids their test case judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that we never get to hear what the settlement was for but that a settlement is reached (for Peacock as well as Dahlin). That way the Rovers get their cash in time for the summer market and the insurance industry avoids their test case judgement.

I totally agree PhilipL, but I would be interesed in what Rovers were able to get out of the tight gits! mad.gif

but you never know we might be surprised and see our precedent in this! cool.gif

Can I ask a question, was the original verdict (in favour of rovers) of £4.5m including both cases of Peacock and Dahlin or just Dahlin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no mention of Peacock in the original judgement.

If that is the case, what is the amount on the Peacock case?? Philipl?

Does anyone know if there is any other case's at the moment with other clubs in similar situation's as us? there must be, as this case is years old. AndIf so I say we go in with a class action and scare the buggers!! biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original judgement was I believe in favour of upholding Rovers' claim for £4m payout under the insurance policy for Dahlin plus £500K costs.

If Rovers win the Dahlin case, they will immediately claim for Peacock as well- reported to be worth something over £1m in potential payout.

Obviously if there is a non-disclosed settlement, Rovers cannot pretend not to know what it is even the rest of the world is kept in the dark. Therefore, it is inevitable that in any out-of-court settlement both parties will want to wrap the Peacock case into the agreement otherwise the Rovers would go straight back to Court and start to chase that settlement using the knowledge gained from fighting the Dahlin case.

The Insurance Industry is probably far more worried about stting an exploitable precedent for the rest of pro sports to make successful claims under than they are about whether they pay the Rovers something over £5m or not.

As Revidge I think pointed out, the Appeal did not so much over-turn the original verdict as held there were other factors to be brought into consideration in determining the quantum to be paid out. It therefore invited both sides to settle or go to trial.

So long as the Rovers convince the Insurance Industry that they have the determination and cash to go to trial (where the Walker Trust parent comes in), the Insurance Industry will be very nervous about fighting such a case in open Court which could set highly expensive precedents against it. I suspect and hope the Rovers will be able to drive a very beneficial but utterly secretive out-of-court settlement.

The give away would be a brief statement presented to the court that both sides have agreed and the case is withdrawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.