Thread by @SheillaDingus

After a period of slow docket activity, it appears that the #NFL fight with their insurers in NY Supreme Court is becoming rather fiery. While most documents are under seal, here are a few interesting excerpts of those that aren't.
Letter from Insurers to the Judge:

While the above represents the typical MO of the #NFL I found this snip rather interesting. No choice but to retain @PaulWeissLLP ???

"The relevant point noted by the Insurers was simply that the NFL Parties embarked upon the process of retaining counsel of their own choice immediately upon being sued and at no time, asked the Insurers to appoint counsel or even to provide input on potential firms." Makes sense

"To date, the Insurers collectively have funded almost $20 million in defense costs on behalf of the NFL Parties and the meter continues to run."

Unfortunately for the public interest, most recently filed documents look something like this.

This brief filed by the insurers on 3/14 lists several exhibits included supporting their disclosure requests. drive.google.com/file/d/1ZduSaz…

Perhaps someone should warn Mr. O'Connor that the revised actuarial appear to be greatly underestimated just as the first ones were.

List of insurers joining the motion

From the insurers 3/14 memorandum of law--
Interesting discovery demand by the NFL, which would no doubt make for an interesting get, but seems, in reality, an attempt to overwhelm the insurers as the NHL attempted with BU.

"the Insurers’ counsel are not serving as claims handlers—they are
litigating a lawsuit and providing legal advice to their respective clients"

Definitely an NHL/BU deja vu. Elsewhere the brief states that the request includes all sports claims throughout the insurers' history. Those claims would certainly make for interesting study but seem outside the scope of the dispute.

"The Insurers’ Obligations Are Governed by the Terms of Their Contracts, Not
Extrinsic Evidence of Other Claims"

"Where policy terms are clear and unambiguous, the court should enforce their plain meaning and may not consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ understanding or intent." This also needs to be applied to the NFL's attempted rewrites of the concussion settlement agreement.

"Indeed, the #NFL Parties’ efforts to turn the tables and put the Insurers on trial for what they “knew” regarding sports-related head trauma risk is a red herring that must be rejected- it is the NFL Parties’ knowledge and conduct that drives the coverage issues"

Looks like the insurers are keeping plenty busy. Guess that's why so much coverage was canceled per @markfwespn & @SteveFainaru's @OTLonESPN report.

"Indeed, certain Insurers explicitly asked the #NFL Parties whether they would be willing to permit production of NFL Parties’ documents in other non-NFL Parties cases, just as the NFL Parties here seek other insureds’ documents...NFL Parties did not respond to such inquiries."

A likely reason for the #NFL's scorched earth approach to claims in the #concussion settlement. I'd guess they'd prefer an insurer part with their money rather than parting with their own.

Insurers cite public interest in not disclosing their reserves.

👀

Insurers note settlement awards within the first year of the #NFL settlement were 68% higher than original estimates. (Lest there remain any doubt that the #NFL is using every means at their disposal to walk back the numbers.)

The #NFL is also seeking to learn who the insurers have and have not reinsured., giving further support to the @OTLonESPN report of coverage refusals.

👀👀

The insurers cite to some excellent work by @BradSohn & Wendy Fleishman of @LieffCabraser in the Second Amended Opt Out Complaint. //end thread.

Oops! One more- These are the extended #discovery deadlines as per Judge Masley's March 19 Order. #NFL v Insurers