‘ Cardiff City Sue ‘

Cardiff City Sue insurance brokers:


https://www.law360.com/articles/1556007





viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204226

Cardiff failed at three attempts to try and say Emiliano Sala was not their player, with FIFA , SAL & The Supreme Coury in Switzerland.

So now the board have started a new action to sue the insurance company:



The football club said the insurance broker failed to communicate that not timely informing it of new players to be added to the club's policy would risk it not having coverage for those players, according to a High Court claim filed Nov. 21, which has now been made pu


Cardiff City, which is known as the Bluebirds, plays in the second-tier of English soccer despite being based in the Welsh capital. It noted there was a "material delay" between acquiring an "insurable interest" in players and notifying the broker on "numerous occasions," according to the claim.

It was the broker's responsibility to communicate that this would mean the club would not be insured for a player's death until its policy was amended, the soccer club said. If it had known this, Cardiff City would have requested £20 million coverage for Sala on Jan. 19, 2019, two days before the fatal plane crash.




As such, the insurance broker failed to act with reasonable skill and care and breached its obligations as a broker, according to the claim.

Miller Insurance failed to properly explain the concept of an "insurable interest" for football player transfers and the requirement of a "prompt" notification of the transfer in order to secure coverage, the football club said.

The broker also did not let the Bluebirds know about the risks of delaying this notification of an interest, or the steps that might be taken to reduce or eliminate the risks, according to the Welsh club.



As such, the insurance broker failed to act with reasonable skill and care and breached its obligations as a broker, according to the claim.

Miller Insurance failed to properly explain the concept of an "insurable interest" for football player transfers and the requirement of a "prompt" notification of the transfer in order to secure coverage, the football club said.

The broker also did not let the Bluebirds know about the risks of delaying this notification of an interest, or the steps that might be taken to reduce or eliminate the risks, according to the Welsh club.




The club said Miller Insurance Services LLP should pay more than £10 million for its failure to act with the reasonable skill and care expected of an insurance broker.

Representatives for the Welsh soccer club and Millers Insurance Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Cardiff City Football Club is represented by David Phillips KC of Wilberforce Chambers and Tom Cleaver of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Céline Jones of Capital Law Ltd.

Millers Insurance is represented by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

The case is Cardiff City Football Club Ltd. v. Miller Insurance Services LLP, case number CL-2022-000604, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales."

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Great to see we did insure, but because we have claimed Emiliano Sala was not our player and thankfully that’s all over now and of course he was our player, that’s been why we have not gone the insurance route.
But now we are going to sue them?

Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

The insurers of football club Cardiff City could be set to avoid a huge payout over the death of the £15m signing of Emiliano Sala.

Cardiff had previously been reported to have taken out a £16m personal accident policy on Sala with Lloyd’s insurers, led by China Re.

However, the BBC is reporting that Cardiff are refusing to make payments to Sala’s former club Nantes on the grounds that the transfer was not “legally binding.”

The 28-year-old striker died when his plane crashed into the English Channel near Guernsey on 21 January 2019.


Cardiff are claiming that Nantes’ conditions for completion of the deal were not fulfilled and that the player was not registered as a Premier League player.

Cardiff City were due to make its first instalment on 20 February.

But the French club are asserting that the required paperwork was completed and have referred the matter to governing body, Fifa, which has demanded that Cardiff City submit its evidence by April 3.

This could mean the claim becomes “null and void” due to unfulfilled clauses in the initial agreement.

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Great to see we did insure, but because we have claimed Emiliano Sala was not our player and thankfully that’s all over now and of course he was our player, that’s been why we have not gone the insurance route.
But now we are going to sue them?

So he was definitely insured .

If he was insured then why did we waste so much time and money trying to say he wasn't legally our player? Surely now it's been said multiple times in court, that he was our player, the insurance has to pay up?

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Great to see we did insure, but because we have claimed Emiliano Sala was not our player and thankfully that’s all over now and of course he was our player, that’s been why we have not gone the insurance route.
But now we are going to sue them?

So he was definitely insured .

Yes it looks that way


But even if we win the claim with the insurers now.

We have big interest and costs to pay from 3 cases we lost trying to say Sala was not our player.

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Great to see we did insure, but because we have claimed Emiliano Sala was not our player and thankfully that’s all over now and of course he was our player, that’s been why we have not gone the insurance route.
But now we are going to sue them?

So he was definitely insured .

Yes it looks that way


But even if we win the claim with the insurers now.

We have big interest and costs to pay from 3 cases we lost trying to say Sala was not our player.

Could get the costs back from the insurers tho ? .

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Great to see we did insure, but because we have claimed Emiliano Sala was not our player and thankfully that’s all over now and of course he was our player, that’s been why we have not gone the insurance route.
But now we are going to sue them?

So he was definitely insured .

Yes it looks that way


But even if we win the claim with the insurers now.

We have big interest and costs to pay from 3 cases we lost trying to say Sala was not our player.

Could get the costs back from the insurers tho ? .

That’s nothing to do with insurers trying to say Sala was not our player.

Yet another legal costly battle. Don’t you see all the continuing court cases over the years and costs etc occurred on different cases.
Only won one Case won which was guaranteed Michael Isaacs.

I WONDER if the insurance pushed back that he wasn’t our player so WE had to take it through as far as we could to prove he was our player.

Now that’s been done we can get the insurance.

It certainly is something that couldn’t be bandied about in the media.

Puts a different perspective on the usual anti Tan stuff don’t it?

I WONDER if the insurance pushed back that he wasn’t our player so WE had to take it through as far as we could to prove he was our player.

Now that’s been done we can get the insurance.

It certainly is something that couldn’t be bandied about in the media.

Puts a different perspective on the usual anti Tan stuff don’t it?

This type of thing always confuses me; will this mean that the threat of a transfer embargo will now be gone?

I WONDER if the insurance pushed back that he wasn’t our player so WE had to take it through as far as we could to prove he was our player.

Now that’s been done we can get the insurance.

It certainly is something that couldn’t be bandied about in the media.

Puts a different perspective on the usual anti Tan stuff don’t it?

Neil,

Tan fights every case even when it’s 100% against us.
Once again we’ve been done for heavy costs and interest and a bad bane.

I know exactly how he works and yes I am Anti Tan, he had wasted beyond £millions just in different court cases, rebrand , bad management etc etc

There is only one person who has the final say and over seas everything Tan.

We just lost three court cases trying to say Sala was not our player and you still defend him, shocking and unbelievable.
Just beyond belief.

Replies FB:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

If he was insured then why did we waste so much time and money trying to say he wasn't legally our player? Surely now it's been said multiple times in court, that he was our player, the insurance has to pay up?

Likely that the insurers wouldn’t pay out until there was indisputable proof that Sala was our player, hence the other court actions and appeals to get to this stage.

I said all along that somebody’s insurers would end up pay for this and everything up to now was just about building the background to that claim.

This may not be the last of these cases.

I WONDER if the insurance pushed back that he wasn’t our player so WE had to take it through as far as we could to prove he was our player.

Now that’s been done we can get the insurance.

It certainly is something that couldn’t be bandied about in the media.

Puts a different perspective on the usual anti Tan stuff don’t it?

Neil,

Tan fights every case even when it’s 100% against us.
Once again we’ve been done for heavy costs and interest and a bad bane.

I know exactly how he works and yes I am Anti Tan, he had wasted beyond £millions just in different court cases, rebrand , bad management etc etc

There is only one person who has the final say and over seas everything Tan.

We just lost three court cases trying to say Sala was not our player and you still defend him, shocking and unbelievable.
Just beyond belief.

See my other post.

You are wrong on this.

The previous cases were all part of the bigger picture and this was always going to end in an insurance claim.

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Great to see we did insure, but because we have claimed Emiliano Sala was not our player and thankfully that’s all over now and of course he was our player, that’s been why we have not gone the insurance route.
But now we are going to sue them?

So he was definitely insured .

Yes it looks that way


But even if we win the claim with the insurers now.

We have big interest and costs to pay from 3 cases we lost trying to say Sala was not our player.

Could get the costs back from the insurers tho ? .

That’s nothing to do with insurers trying to say Sala was not our player.

Yet another legal costly battle. Don’t you see all the continuing court cases over the years and costs etc occurred on different cases.
Only won one Case won which was guaranteed Michael Isaacs.

Annis i think the club had no choice as my take is that the insurers were saying that sala wasn't our player hence the court case

I WONDER if the insurance pushed back that he wasn’t our player so WE had to take it through as far as we could to prove he was our player.

Now that’s been done we can get the insurance.

It certainly is something that couldn’t be bandied about in the media.

Puts a different perspective on the usual anti Tan stuff don’t it?

Agree.

Did a quick search and dug this up from a few years ago. Apparently we may have taken out insurance after all
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/c ... 75.article




Cardiff City insurers reportedly face reprieve over Sala claim

By Clare Ruel

26 March 2019

football
Cardiff are claiming the transfer was not “legally binding”

Great to see we did insure, but because we have claimed Emiliano Sala was not our player and thankfully that’s all over now and of course he was our player, that’s been why we have not gone the insurance route.
But now we are going to sue them?

So he was definitely insured .

Yes it looks that way


But even if we win the claim with the insurers now.

We have big interest and costs to pay from 3 cases we lost trying to say Sala was not our player.

Could get the costs back from the insurers tho ? .

That’s nothing to do with insurers trying to say Sala was not our player.

Yet another legal costly battle. Don’t you see all the continuing court cases over the years and costs etc occurred on different cases.
Only won one Case won which was guaranteed Michael Isaacs.

Now that sala fifa case is settled that he's was our player then the insurers have to pay up there will be court cost the insurers would have to cover as ifthere is any legal correspondence from them

I WONDER if the insurance pushed back that he wasn’t our player so WE had to take it through as far as we could to prove he was our player.

Now that’s been done we can get the insurance.

It certainly is something that couldn’t be bandied about in the media.

Puts a different perspective on the usual anti Tan stuff don’t it?

Neil,

Tan fights every case even when it’s 100% against us.
Once again we’ve been done for heavy costs and interest and a bad bane.

I know exactly how he works and yes I am Anti Tan, he had wasted beyond £millions just in different court cases, rebrand , bad management etc etc

There is only one person who has the final say and over seas everything Tan.

We just lost three court cases trying to say Sala was not our player and you still defend him, shocking and unbelievable.
Just beyond belief.

It’s not defending Tan it’s pointing out a logical possibility.

This is totally unrelated to all the other court cases which I can’t defend Tan on in most cases.

Brilliant thinking out side the box.
Highest court going has said ES was our player so insurer cannot say otherwise.
Forget court costs this will cover them.
So glad we didn't just hand over £15m.

Brilliant thinking out side the box.
Highest court going has said ES was our player so insurer cannot say otherwise.
Forget court costs this will cover them.
So glad we didn't just hand over £15m.

My take on it .

Brilliant thinking out side the box.
Highest court going has said ES was our player so insurer cannot say otherwise.
Forget court costs this will cover them.
So glad we didn't just hand over £15m.

My take on it .

Let's hope this is the way it pans out

The apparent confirmation that insurance was taken out is another 'rumour' taken care of and it takes me back to the enigma that is Daya and his 'Global News 24' farce...

Seems his assertion that our club didn't have insurance was a tad wide of the mark, as per most of the bile he is for some reason allowed to put out on here

Daya being one half of the 'Mitty and Wino' double act on here, it shows the complete lack of substance of anything he says...

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=229352&p=2357128#p2357128

Brilliant thinking out side the box.
Highest court going has said ES was our player so insurer cannot say otherwise.
Forget court costs this will cover them.
So glad we didn't just hand over £15m.

My take on it .

Let's hope this is the way it pans out

The apparent confirmation that insurance was taken out is another 'rumour' taken care of and it takes me back to the enigma that is Daya and his 'Global News 24' farce...

Seems his assertion that our club didn't have insurance was a tad wide of the mark, as per most of the bile he is for some reason allowed to put out on here

Daya being one half of the 'Mitty and Wino' double act on here, it shows the complete lack of substance of anything he says...

https://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/view ... 8#p2357128

Just need France to beat England and we can really go for his throat. That's of course if he hangs around.

Brilliant thinking out side the box.
Highest court going has said ES was our player so insurer cannot say otherwise.
Forget court costs this will cover them.
So glad we didn't just hand over £15m.

My take on it .

Let's hope this is the way it pans out

The apparent confirmation that insurance was taken out is another 'rumour' taken care of and it takes me back to the enigma that is Daya and his 'Global News 24' farce...

Seems his assertion that our club didn't have insurance was a tad wide of the mark, as per most of the bile he is for some reason allowed to put out on here

Daya being one half of the 'Mitty and Wino' double act on here, it shows the complete lack of substance of anything he says...

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=229352&p=2357128#p2357128

I was thinking that

WOW:

Just read it all, it looks like we have problems yet again



The football club said the insurance broker failed to communicate that not timely informing it of new players to be added to the club's policy would risk it not having coverage for those players, according to a High Court claim filed Nov. 21, which has now been made pu


Cardiff City, which is known as the Bluebirds, plays in the second-tier of English soccer despite being based in the Welsh capital. It noted there was a "material delay" between acquiring an "insurable interest" in players and notifying the broker on "numerous occasions," according to the claim.

It was the broker's responsibility to communicate that this would mean the club would not be insured for a player's death until its policy was amended, the soccer club said. If it had known this, Cardiff City would have requested £20 million coverage for Sala on Jan. 19, 2019, two days before the fatal plane crash.




As such, the insurance broker failed to act with reasonable skill and care and breached its obligations as a broker, according to the claim.

Miller Insurance failed to properly explain the concept of an "insurable interest" for football player transfers and the requirement of a "prompt" notification of the transfer in order to secure coverage, the football club said.

The broker also did not let the Bluebirds know about the risks of delaying this notification of an interest, or the steps that might be taken to reduce or eliminate the risks, according to the Welsh club.



As such, the insurance broker failed to act with reasonable skill and care and breached its obligations as a broker, according to the claim.

Miller Insurance failed to properly explain the concept of an "insurable interest" for football player transfers and the requirement of a "prompt" notification of the transfer in order to secure coverage, the football club said.

The broker also did not let the Bluebirds know about the risks of delaying this notification of an interest, or the steps that might be taken to reduce or eliminate the risks, according to the Welsh club.




The club said Miller Insurance Services LLP should pay more than £10 million for its failure to act with the reasonable skill and care expected of an insurance broker.

Representatives for the Welsh soccer club and Millers Insurance Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Cardiff City Football Club is represented by David Phillips KC of Wilberforce Chambers and Tom Cleaver of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Céline Jones of Capital Law Ltd.

Millers Insurance is represented by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

The case is Cardiff City Football Club Ltd. v. Miller Insurance Services LLP, case number CL-2022-000604, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales."