ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board | |
http://rocksoff.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/YaBB.pl
GENERAL >> MAIN BOARD >> Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah http://rocksoff.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/YaBB.pl?num=1415639102 Message started by mojoman on Nov 10th, 2014 at 11:05am |
Title: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by mojoman on Nov 10th, 2014 at 11:05am |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by gimmekeef on Nov 10th, 2014 at 11:25am
God forbid they don't get their money. Wonder how much is earmarked for fans who wasted airline tickets, hotel reservations etc? And the shows were re-scheduled so why almost $13 million? Thats only 2600 coffee table books by the way.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by LadyJane on Nov 10th, 2014 at 11:54am
"Jagger was “diagnosed as suffering from acute traumatic stress disorder” after Scott’s death and was advised by doctors not to perform for at least 30 days, according to documents filed in the court case in Utah."
"Do you mean perform sexually? Philosphically? Financially?". I'm rolling my eyes over this one. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by munichhilton on Nov 10th, 2014 at 12:21pm
Insurance companies are an absolute shell game...they take your premiums hand over fist and then friggin flip out when you claim what they took your money to cover...
No matter how much I bitch and moan that it came up red at the roulette wheel I can't circumvent the inevitable...wonder why it's standard for insurance companies to renig on the deal. Germania is the worst on the planet for this behavior...I bet they went with the Germania Craps & Roulette Ins. Co. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sirmoonie on Nov 10th, 2014 at 12:54pm
This could get really ugly. You got Mormons involved, insurance companies, the Rolling Stones. Even us lowly fans have some skin in the game.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Joey on Nov 10th, 2014 at 1:05pm
" Before the tour, the group took out a $23.9 million policy to be paid in the event shows were canceled due to the death of family members or others, including Scott. "
< ----- Mick is a very smart businessman . |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by mojoman on Nov 10th, 2014 at 1:54pm sirmoonie wrote on Nov 10th, 2014 at 12:54pm:
the mitts gonna get involved |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sirmoonie on Nov 10th, 2014 at 2:37pm mojoman wrote on Nov 10th, 2014 at 1:54pm:
Yeah, they will call in the big Mormo guns if they can. Different rules out there in Utah territory. Mormons are provincial, and have caused sectarian violence in the past. See 1857 Mountain Meadow massacre. See Nephi 4:7-16. They scoff at notions we Americans and Britons have of equity, fairness, rule of law and justice. This is the worst possible venue for our band to be in, with them holier-than-thou whackadoos. Whackamoofs. Whackadooly doos. Mormo-dongs. Keep in mind, not long ago, they disclaimed America. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Paranoid Android on Nov 10th, 2014 at 6:11pm
WOW! Imagine if the RS machine has to be out 23 mill?
Back to domestic wines for a whole week I would venture to guess... The insurance cos have a valid point, or at least a good reason to investigate..."including Scott..." AND they cancelled (not postponed) a show for a sore throat...that is reckless... |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Bitch on Nov 10th, 2014 at 8:01pm
Well if Lwren was seeing a shrink and taking mood stabilizing medication, the insurance company has a loophole out of paying the claim due to pre-existing conditions. As for MICK's diagnosis of "acute traumatic stress disorder” I am sure he can get a number of doctors to verify that. The insurance company will try anything to deny a claim. I had to sue an insurance company once and ended up settling on just a small percentage of what should of been paid. I bet The Stones assumed the insurance policy would pay for the cancelled shows no question, and that's why they cancelled all instead of a few. Seriously, MICK performed the day his own father died, and it was on with the show. DO you think Lwen meant more to him than his own father? I don't.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 10th, 2014 at 8:15pm
No, but one was sudden and unexpected whereas the other one was a man in his 90's who he'd flown home to say goodbye to, before flying back to Las Vegas (where he was told the news of his dad's death on arrival).
Certainly more 'trauma' involved in suicide. Going ahead with that show in Las Vegas (eight years ago today, coincidentally) in those circumstances after just stepping off a 12 hour flight (or whatever it is) really was one of his most incredible achievements. No one really could have blamed him had he pulled out, but maybe after so many postponements and cancellations in recent weeks around that time, he felt duty bound to go through with it |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Bitch on Nov 10th, 2014 at 8:27pm
OK I see your point, but in the situation of a close death, unexpected or not, there should be some kind of time period in place worked out in advance, especially when you are dealing with an insurance company. Maybe they would agree to 1 or 2 shows being canceled but not all. If that would of been the case, the show that had to be canceled now due to MICK's throat problems would not have been an issue.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 11th, 2014 at 4:10am
I dont think we were disagreeing about the insurance aspect of it, just the emotional trauma part! :-)
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Bitch on Nov 11th, 2014 at 7:52pm
What is sad is the fans who made travel arrangements. Travelers Insurance also has many loopholes, and from my experience it doesn't cover shit like this. I also read that only 2% of the original ticket holders returned the tickets, so most people chose to come back and rearrange travel plans. Ahh but when they got to see the Stones Im sure most fans would say it was worth the wait and the trouble.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by gorda on Nov 11th, 2014 at 10:49pm
I wish I had had the opportunity to speak with L'Wren. I too suffered from depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. For years, I refused to take medications, and self-medicated with alcohol instead.
Yoga, breathing exercises, saunas, hot tubs and massages, all those things help! But, it was the meds that changed my life! Micky, please don't be sad. L'Wren is resting in peace. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Paranoid Android on Nov 11th, 2014 at 10:53pm LadyJane wrote on Nov 10th, 2014 at 11:54am:
Wasn't Jagger seen parading a new little girlie 3 months after the services?? He met her 3 weeks before L'Wren's demise. I am not saying he was being disrespectful...but how severe was this PTSD really could have been? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658512/EXCLUSIVE-Mick-Jaggers-ballet-dancer-lover-27-pictured-streets-New-York-70-year-old-Rolling-Stone-enjoys-fathers-day-Vienna-children-long-term-ex-Jerry-Hall.html http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/mick-jagger-mystery-woman-ballet-dancer-27-report-article-1.1830202 |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by gorda on Nov 12th, 2014 at 12:05am
He just lost the love of his life! Maybe that is the only way he knows how to cope with the pain!
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Steel Wheels on Nov 12th, 2014 at 2:09pm
Here's some more news about the insurance package.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rolling-stones/11223630/The-Rolling-Stones-rock-is-now-a-premium-package.html |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Paranoid Android on Nov 12th, 2014 at 7:39pm Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 12th, 2014 at 2:09pm:
I find this fascinating...not sure why...: EXCLUSION ZONES FOR THE ROLLING STONES' INSURANCE POLICY Ronnie Wood Not covered for anything relating to “alcohol abuse” Lists 17 people for cover, including his wife, Sally, and ex‑wife, Josephine Wood Mick Jagger Under “previous losses”, 17 shows rescheduled or cancelled due to infections or inflammations affecting his voice Lists 18 people for cover, including ex-partners Jerry Hall and Bianca Jagger, as well as L’Wren Scott (listed as his girlfriend) Keith Richards Not covered for anything resulting from a head injury he suffered in 2006, when he fell out of a coconut tree while on holiday in Fiji with Ronnie Wood. He needed surgery to relieve bleeding around his brain, cancelling 13 shows and postponing another five Not covered for anything relating to osteoarthritis, “alcohol abuse” or “liver failure and/or disease” Under “previous losses”, references a concert at Wembley Stadium in 1990 when he suffered an infected finger after it was pierced by a guitar string. Five shows were rescheduled and two were cancelled. Also listed are the seven shows rescheduled and two cancelled after he damaged his ribs falling from a ladder in his library in 1998 Lists 12 people for cover, including his wife Patti Charlie Watts Not covered for throat cancer, following his 2004 diagnosis. A six-week course of radiotherapy was thought to be successful Not covered for sciatica Insurers would not have to pay up if he had to be replaced as drummer Lists four people for cover, including his wife Shirley Taken from the insurance policy for their Asia and Australasia tour, filed at a district court in Salt Lake City, Utah. All are covered for: death, an accident or illness preventing them from appearing, unavoidable travel delays, damage to the venue, adverse weather and even national mourning forcing concerts to be cancelled. They are not covered for: the illegal possession of drugs, radioactive contamination or “actual or threatened war, invasion, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power”. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by gorda on Nov 12th, 2014 at 9:19pm
"radioactive contamination or “actual or threatened war, invasion, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power”."
I'm sorry, but that is just too funny! Ha! |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Paranoid Android on Nov 12th, 2014 at 9:46pm gorda wrote on Nov 12th, 2014 at 9:19pm:
That is a standard exclusionary clause (though admittedly, i never saw radioactive contamination before) in almost all insurance policies...auto, home, renters, travel, etc...I know it is in my homeowners and auto |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:24am
Interesting to see the insurance clauses made public.
This effectively proves what I was told at the start of this tour. Whilst he is in good health, Keith's medical history made him uninsurable. The way round it was to have some kind of 'back up' in place in the event of him being unavailable. Which is the main reason why Mick Taylor is on the tour. Charlie seems to have an ongoing sciatica problem then, which is something that doesnt seem to have been known before. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sweetcharmedlife on Nov 13th, 2014 at 5:27pm Gazza wrote on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:24am:
Keith is uninsurable. Yet once a tour starts. Who misses more shows, him or Mick. :willya :blankfriggingstare1 |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by nankerphelge on Nov 13th, 2014 at 5:49pm
No drug use clauses?
I didn't read the whole thing - just the snippet - but given their background, howe in THE HELL does an insurance policy not cover any drug related charges. I'm disturbed by this. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by AngieBlue on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:00pm
Radioactive contamination?????? Seriously? That's an interesting thing to include.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Paranoid Android on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:46pm AngieBlue wrote on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:00pm:
read that as "dirty bomb" and it should make sense...or even Nuclear power plant meltdown, leak, etc...why various tours did not occur in Northern Europe in 1986 |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Paranoid Android on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:49pm Gazza wrote on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:24am:
Hmmmm...Maybe Taylor did parley this tour into a cash cow then afterall...no Taylor...no (acceptable) tour?? He is not wealthy by any definition...maybe this is where Jagger and the RS machine pay to play...Hope so...Taylor deserves it big time!!! |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sirmoonie on Nov 13th, 2014 at 7:50pm
I find the term "alcohol abuse" to be vague and ambiguous. This contract is unconscionable and entirely fucking unenforceable by this scumbag insurance company. Geek ass spazzes.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by AngieBlue on Nov 13th, 2014 at 8:45pm Paranoid Android wrote on Nov 13th, 2014 at 6:46pm:
It dawned on me why that's in there...Fukushima. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 14th, 2014 at 6:24am
Very good deduction, I would say.
That plus the fact that when touring that part of Asia, anything's possible when you're near to a backward country testing its nuclear capabalities which happens to be run by a power mad nutcase. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 14th, 2014 at 7:38am
Mick Jagger 'upset' by court disclosure
The Rolling Stones performed in Sydney earlier this week Mick Jagger says he is "deeply upset" that confidential medical information was revealed during a court battle over a contested insurance claim. On Friday, the Rolling Stones settled a dispute with insurers over a $12.7m (£7.9m) claim for concerts postponed when Jagger's girlfriend died. But the band expressed concern about private information being made public. Documents revealed Jagger was suffering from "acute traumatic stress disorder" following L'Wren Scott's death. The fashion designer took her own life in March, prompting the Stones to postpone a tour of Australia and New Zealand. Court documents suggested frontman Jagger was advised by doctors not to perform for at least 30 days. "We are deeply upset that confidential medical and other private information about members of the band and their immediate family and loved ones has entered the public domain as a result of a US court filing initiated by insurers four weeks ago," said a spokesman for Jagger. L'Wren Scott's designs were worn by celebrities including Madonna, Nicole Kidman and Penelope Cruz "This was done without the knowledge of the band or reference to their legal representatives. "This has only been discovered and reported in the press in the last week, by which time we are pleased to say the insurers and the Rolling Stones had, in fact, settled the insurance claim." "No further comment will be made about this matter," the statement concluded. The group had taken out a policy to be paid in the event shows were cancelled due to the death of family members or others, including Scott. Underwriters had contested the claim saying Scott's death may not be covered by the policy, arguing that she may have been suffering from a pre-existing mental illness which could invalidate the policy. The Rolling Stones began a new tour of Australia and New Zealand at the end of last month, but were forced to cancel their Melbourne concert last weekend after Jagger, 71, developed a throat infection. The group performed at the Allphones Arena in Sydney on Wednesday. They will continue their tour with a concert in Hunter Valley over the weekend. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30053461 |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by munichhilton on Nov 14th, 2014 at 8:55am
Insurers = rotten gambling degenerates
Have they even listened to Tumbling Dice...ever? |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sirmoonie on Nov 14th, 2014 at 6:59pm
I have a copy of the Motion by the insurers, which attaches the Stones' Policy, the subpoena on Scott's brother (they wanted all her Facebook emails to her brother from a certain time period), and the initial pleadings in the case (filed in London). It's pretty interesting and has a lot more detail than that which was reported.
It's look pretty clear to me that Richards has been diagnosed with liver disease....... Anyway, if you want a copy, PM with with an email address where to send it (its a 99 page PDF - 3.45 MB). It's public information (although very difficult to get unless you know how), so no laws were broken in obtaining it. If I were the Stones, I'd be pissed as piss that the scumbaggitical insurance companies did not file it all under seal in Utah - then again, I don't see anything on the Policy that says its Confidential, which is odd. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Steel Wheels on Nov 15th, 2014 at 6:34am
I downloaded it earlier in the week. Please be careful who you send it to.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Some Guy on Nov 15th, 2014 at 7:38am sirmoonie wrote on Nov 14th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
Dude, have you been jammin to the Hampton 81 dvd? Do you even like The Stones? |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sirmoonie on Nov 15th, 2014 at 11:48am Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 15th, 2014 at 6:34am:
I'm only sending it to higher end fans. For example, Some Guy will not be receiving a copy. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Joey on Nov 15th, 2014 at 6:11pm |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 16th, 2014 at 5:57am sirmoonie wrote on Nov 13th, 2014 at 7:50pm:
I find it fucking insulting. I've never abused alcohol. I've always rather enjoyed it's company immensely. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Joey on Nov 16th, 2014 at 8:21am
" I find it fucking insulting. I've never abused alcohol. I've always rather enjoyed it's company immensely. "
Gazza ........ you make Joey smile :) |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by gimmekeef on Nov 16th, 2014 at 9:06am
The only alcohol abuse I have witnessed is some idiot pouring good scotch down the drain because they couldn't handle the taste.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Paranoid Android on Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:27pm
For those of you interested in the legalese...here is the link with the motion:
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/ page 52...this is amazing: The gross guarantees for these shows is USD 52,000,000. As per Additional Condition 19 of the Schedule, this policy is amended to become a Primary Layer. Excess layer to be placed. The overall gross Is amended to USD 99,800,000. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Bitch on Nov 16th, 2014 at 7:32pm
Well if they already settled the case then I guess there was no pre-existing condition loophole. I know MICK is mad that his medical condition was released, true or not.
It's look pretty clear to me that Richards has been diagnosed with liver disease....... This is VERY disturbing. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sweetcharmedlife on Nov 17th, 2014 at 10:13am Paranoid Android wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 12:27pm:
So they get 2 mill a show. Not bad for government work. :warhorse :wtf3 |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 17th, 2014 at 10:20am Bitch wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 7:32pm:
Hardly surprising though, considering he's in his 70's and has been pretty much an alcoholic for decades. If anything, I'd be amazed if it WASNT an issue. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Mr. Yeats on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:17am
Regarding Keith have some form of liver disease: I've suspected this for at least ten years now, but never wanted to mention it on this board as the mere mention could make certain people here angry. Look at the man's belly - he's a generally lean dude, probably always been fairly fit. Lou Reed had the same thing going on with his belly, and he'd been clean and sober since roughly '81, and quite fit (tai chi and kung fu devotee as well). The distended belly in otherwise slim people (who drank a shitload of alcohol)is often a sign of impending liver disease.
Too bad some of our greatest musical artists had very bad habits; they will die like the rest of us. But the world will always have their Art. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Steel Wheels on Nov 17th, 2014 at 12:01pm
This story needs to vanish. It's very depressing. Most of you know, especially Lady Jane, what Keith means to me.
One thing I read, and I'll go with it, is that the line in the contract isn't medical verification of liver disease. It's just wording in case it comes up. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Some Guy on Nov 17th, 2014 at 12:17pm
I don't accept this.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Steel Wheels on Nov 17th, 2014 at 12:54pm
I don't accept this either.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Mr. Yeats on Nov 17th, 2014 at 1:00pm
Youse don't accept what? Death?
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by LadyJane on Nov 17th, 2014 at 1:09pm
Wouldn't surprise me to learn Keith has liver disease; my God look at the amount of abuse his liver has taken.
He's 70, playing and appears very happy. That's all that matters to me. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Gazza on Nov 17th, 2014 at 2:51pm Steel Wheels wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 12:01pm:
Yep. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by sirmoonie on Nov 17th, 2014 at 3:47pm
It's more than just that the contingency is addressed in the Policy. So is terrorism, as someone noted. It's that (1) the same exclusion was NOT there for Ronald (his liver weighs 25 pounds) and (2) the Policy references recent letters from physicians. The exclusions were carefully negotiated by fat, white lawyers around the globe. So while it's conjecture what any of the Stones actually have......just do the algebra and apply common sense and you can figure out what the score is.
Richards will always be one of greatest rockers the world has ever known even if his liver explodes. |
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Some Guy on Nov 17th, 2014 at 5:11pm
I'm not acceptive of the bummer that this thread is trying to lay.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Bitch on Nov 17th, 2014 at 8:41pm
Yeah we need to lighten up. I hate insurance companies and the show cant go on without it, but there is no need to delve too deeply into the fine print.
|
Title: Re: Legal Battle Involving Rolling Stones Reaches Utah Post by Mr. Yeats on Nov 17th, 2014 at 9:37pm Some Guy wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 5:11pm:
Point taken, man. Sorry for my role in it. And on the bright side - maybe (probably) Keith is just a dude who likes shepherd pies more than he likes annoying abdominal exercises. He sure seems happy and healthy and is playing great these days.(btw - I'm listening to Hampton '81 as I type - such an incredible show. What were they thinking with 'Still Life'?). |
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |