Billions

[weams]

 

[weams]

The insurers did not pay.

[Frobby]

Lots of complications in these cases, per the article:

At least one of those minor league cases, filed in Arizona and led by the Chattanooga Lookouts, has already been dismissed due to a virus exclusion in the policy.

Insurers in many cases have insisted that financial losses caused by the coronavirus do not constitute physical loss or property damage. MLB is claiming the virus has led to both.

“The presence of the coronavirus and COVID-19, including but not limited to coronavirus droplets or nuclei on solid surfaces and in the air at insured property, has caused and will continue to cause direct physical damage to physical property and ambient air at the premises,” the suit says. “Coronavirus, a physical substance, has attached and adhered to Plaintiffs’ property and by doing so, altered that property. Such presence has also directly resulted in loss of use of those facilities.”

===

Honestly, if that’s the best argument MLB has got, as a lawyer I’d rather have the defense side of this case.    But, it will probably take a year to shake out.   
 

[InsideCoroner]

20 hours ago, Frobby said:

Lots of complications in these cases, per the article:

“The presence of the coronavirus and COVID-19, including but not limited to coronavirus droplets or nuclei on solid surfaces and in the air at insured property, has caused and will continue to cause direct physical damage to physical property and ambient air at the premises,” the suit says. “Coronavirus, a physical substance, has attached and adhered to Plaintiffs’ property and by doing so, altered that property. Such presence has also directly resulted in loss of use of those facilities.”

===

Honestly, if that’s the best argument MLB has got, as a lawyer I’d rather have the defense side of this case.    But, it will probably take a year to shake out.   
 

That’s a pretty weak line of attack on the owners’ behalf. It’s a physical substance that, when left alone for a few weeks, will leave their property in exactly the same state it was in prior to the event. Unlike fire, flooding, smoke damage, etc. 

[thezeroes]

It simply lays groundwork for Owners to spend less on contracts.  Also allows owners to lessen Union Demands in the New Collect Bargaining Agreement.  IMO

 

[forphase1]

Yes.   And justifiably so. 

[HowAboutThat]

Believers call it “an act of God,” The secular term is “force majeur” And the truth Is that every insurance policy has such a clause regardless of what you call it, And it sure looks like MLB loses.

oh well.

 

[HowAboutThat]

Occurs to me, that the main expense of the owners this season was paying the players. That means they have every incentive to not have a season this year.

If there is no season, there is no payroll. And it is entirely reasonable for them to say, “until we can have 100% butts in seats, we are not going to play for “safety” reasons.”

That would actually benefit the lower attendance teams With enormous contracts to deal with....But I’m not thinking of anybody specific, of course.

That means that the season is in jeopardy, people. The owners are many things, but altruistic is not among them.

[Sports Guy]

34 minutes ago, Philip said:

Occurs to me, that the main expense of the owners this season was paying the players. That means they have every incentive to not have a season this year.

If there is no season, there is no payroll. And it is entirely reasonable for them to say, “until we can have 100% butts in seats, we are not going to play for “safety” reasons.”

That would actually benefit the lower attendance teams With enormous contracts to deal with....But I’m not thinking of anybody specific, of course.

That means that the season is in jeopardy, people. The owners are many things, but altruistic is not among them.

Zero chance of this.

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Zero chance of this.

You don’t think the owners will attempt to delay the season until they can have full attendance?

remember Manfred admitted outright last season that the owners never wanted a full season( I don’t recall the exact quote but it was very foolish of him to make the admission.)

How much more incentive is there, and legitimately so, for the owners to delay or cancel the season if fans can’t buy tickets and pay for parking and stuff?

[accinfo]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

You don’t think the owners will attempt to delay the season until they can have full attendance?

 

I agree until there is full or close to full attendance they have little incentive to play games.  I agree it seems to be a pretty weak argument that the teams have against their insurance companies.  It will be a decent excuse for them not to pay any big free agent contracts.  Then the players will charge collusion.  These two sides were heading for a very tough labor negotiation before Covid and the one side losing so much revenue isn't going to help these negotiations.  We will be lucky to see a full 162 game season in 2023.  

[HowAboutThat]

10 minutes ago, accinfo said:

I agree until there is full or close to full attendance they have little incentive to play games.  I agree it seems to be a pretty weak argument that the teams have against their insurance companies.  It will be a decent excuse for them not to pay any big free agent contracts.  Then the players will charge collusion.  These two sides were heading for a very tough labor negotiation before Covid and the one side losing so much revenue isn't going to help these negotiations.  We will be lucky to see a full 162 game season in 2023.  

A claim of collusion won’t succeed, because all the owners have the same problem: they can’t sell tickets and therefore can’t make money. The large teams might suffer more because they have better attendance, but all the teams can legitimately claim that their income comes from the sale of tickets, and if there’s no fans, there’s no income, and therefore, they must wait until fans are allowed again without encumbrance. Even Tony Clark can see that, and as much as he might scream, he cane get around it.

[sevastras]

On 12/5/2020 at 8:13 AM, Frobby said:

Lots of complications in these cases, per the article:

At least one of those minor league cases, filed in Arizona and led by the Chattanooga Lookouts, has already been dismissed due to a virus exclusion in the policy.

Insurers in many cases have insisted that financial losses caused by the coronavirus do not constitute physical loss or property damage. MLB is claiming the virus has led to both.

“The presence of the coronavirus and COVID-19, including but not limited to coronavirus droplets or nuclei on solid surfaces and in the air at insured property, has caused and will continue to cause direct physical damage to physical property and ambient air at the premises,” the suit says. “Coronavirus, a physical substance, has attached and adhered to Plaintiffs’ property and by doing so, altered that property. Such presence has also directly resulted in loss of use of those facilities.”

===

Honestly, if that’s the best argument MLB has got, as a lawyer I’d rather have the defense side of this case.    But, it will probably take a year to shake out.   
 

Every insurance policy on my businesses and umbrella insurance has language that excludes:

-Acts of God

-Viruses 

-Civil unrest

Those three things are foremost in my mind any time there is business disruption. If MLB teams were to win anything on these cases, it would set a precedence for businesses across the US.  
I am not a lawyer and laws very state to state, but I would imagine there is a statute of limitations and a business owner would have to file lawsuit and be able to drag things out as long as possible for as little money as possible to try to ride MLBs coat tails and deep pockets?  
It is an interesting argument and stance for owners, but you really have to have billions of your own to play it out because it will cost millions and years to come to any conclusion.

In my non lawyer opinion of course. (Side note, in my state the fine for practicing law without a license is less than practicing real estate without a license)

[Sports Guy]

7 hours ago, Philip said:

You don’t think the owners will attempt to delay the season until they can have full attendance?

remember Manfred admitted outright last season that the owners never wanted a full season( I don’t recall the exact quote but it was very foolish of him to make the admission.)

How much more incentive is there, and legitimately so, for the owners to delay or cancel the season if fans can’t buy tickets and pay for parking and stuff?

No because attendance is only a part of the money they make.

They make more money on TV and radio deals.  
 

The more they delay it, the more money they lose.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

No because attendance is only a part of the money they make.

They make more money on TV and radio deals.  
 

The more they delay it, the more money they lose.

If that is the case why did the owners fight so hard to play as few games as possible in 2020?